Love February 24, 2013

by Samantha

After my family left our fundamentalist cult, and my life turned upside down –many of the things I’d been told were “true” started unraveling. I started seeing patches of my life, of the way I had been taught to think, were hideously wrong, and I began asking questions. That’s when I also realized that the people I knew were incapable of answering them.

So, I started reading apologetic works, and they were helpful. They told me that the answers existed, that someone could believe in God and still be a rational creature, but they weren’t filling my new craving for more. I set aside all the apologetic authors I was familiar with and struck out for new territory. I wanted to know more than just what Christians thought, I wanted to see if Christian rationalizations could stand up to harsher critiques. One of the first books I picked up was Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, and I read this:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

The thought flitted through my head, as I was reading, that I was supposed to be horribly offended by this description. But, I wasn’t, because in a searing moment of understanding, I knew that this description fit the god I’d been taught to know perfectly.

The claim that Christian fundamentalists tend to be a hateful bunch is not new. We all know the nonsense that Westboro gets up to. John McTernan, founder of Defend the Faith ministries, blamed Sandy on Obama’s re-election. Jerry Falwell, known for his Moral Majority, blamed 9/11 on feminists and the ACLU. I grew up quite certain that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed for homosexuality—when Ezekiel teaches that the sin of Sodom was greed and ignoring the needy. Pat Robertson called the Northridge earthquake, a disaster that killed 60 people, a “blessing in disguise” and blamed it on abortion.

The god I knew growing up was, above all else, wrathful. He rains down fire and torment on the wicked. He destroys anyone who opposes him. He punishes us for our sin. He is not to be mocked, and our sin will “find us out.” I heard more sermons preached on Jesus’ “righteous anger” (a phrase never found in Scripture) than on his tenderness and compassion.

I’ve read and heard that if God loved those who “don’t love him back,” then that would be a “dysfunctional relationship.” That a “God of love” is “completely alien to the Father.” I’ve heard evangelists claim that a “God of love” is the “greatest single Satanic doctrine infecting the Church.” Every time I heard someone say the words “God is love,” they were instantly followed by “but he is holy and righteous.”

God’s love, to a fundamentalist, must always be a “but” statement.

Our relationship with God, to a fundamentalist, is not based on love—it is solely based on fear. The fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom. We are to come before God with fear and trembling. If I approached God in prayer without quaking in my boots, I was not practicing humility before a terrible and mighty God. Everything I knew of God was related to his power—he could strike me down, just for lying, like Ananias and Sapphira. He could, and he would, destroy me for rebelling against my authority, which is “as the sin of witchcraft.” The God I knew did not love me. He sent his only begotten Son to earth not because he loved me, but because God had promised in the Protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15) that he would, and God cannot break his promises.

Why? Why do fundamentalists chose fear over love?

The answer, I believe, is that men and women who are afraid are men and women who can be controlled. Fear separates us from the world. Fear prevents us from seeking help. Fear keeps us trapped and ensnared in what we’ve been taught is “true.” Someone who is free to love God, who can have a real relationship with him, is a person whose ultimate authority is not the pastor, but her independent, unique experiences with her Father.

A few weeks ago, I was up until five in the morning, clinging feebly to calm and peace of mind. Hysteria and panic crept closer as the hours went by; I felt cornered and alone. I was wrestling with Deuteronomy 22:24, where it says that a rape victim should be put to death for “not crying out” even though she was “in the city.” I had always known this passage existed, but I had never dwelled on it. I read it as a child and barely remembered it was there. But events earlier that day had brought it to the very front of my attention, and I could ignore it no longer.

And when I tried to wrestle with it, I found that I was completely lacking the ability to face it. The single thought that God’s Old Testament law condemned me to death—because I had never “cried out,” because I had waited two years to tell anyone about what had happened to me—spun around my head endlessly. A merry-go-round of shame, guilt, and terror took over. I felt, in my marrow, in the corners of my heart, in the depths of my stomach, that I repulsed God. That God could not possibly love me—me, a woman who had not cried out.

My fundamentalist indoctrination condemned me, and in those hours, I felt like I was groping in the dark. My husband held me as I rocked and cried and begged God to show me a way out of the darkness of that night. But, the only things I knew about God were his wrath, his righteousness that cannot let sin go unpunished, his might, and his terrible power.

I had never been taught of God’s unending love. Of his compassion, his tenderness. I had never been taught that Jesus had friends that he cared about deeply. I had never been shown how God’s love is the single most important truth woven into Scripture. My indoctrination even actively prevented me from seeing these things when I read the Bible on my own. I was purposely blinded from ever discovering how much God loved me.

When my husband left for work after staying up with me all night, he handed me my Bible and told me to read the gospels—to find every encounter Jesus ever had with a woman. To see who Jesus really was. And, for the first time, as I read, I could see a pattern. Jesus spent his time with people who were broken. He reached out to the oppressed and the marginalized. He refused to engage with the stereotypes of his culture, the ones that told him who he couldn’t be seen with. He acknowledged, over and over again, the humanity and identity of women in the midst of a society that treated women as property. Nearly every single one of his interactions in the gospels was with someone who had been abused, who was hurting. And the truth came on like a dawn.

Jesus loves me. God loves me.

And I wept.

Comments open below

Read everything by Samantha!

Samantha grew up in the homeschool, patriarchy, quiverful, and fundamentalist movements, and experienced first-hand the terror and manipulation of spiritual abuse. She is now married to an amazing, gentle man who doesn’t really get what happened to her but loves her anyway. With him by her side and the strength of God’s promises, she is slowly healing. She blogs at Defeating the Dragons.

The Spiritual Abuse Survivor Blogs Network

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment‘ by Janet Heimlich

Quivering Daughters‘ by Hillary McFarland

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement‘ by Kathryn Joyce


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Your writing is beautiful. I am so glad you are learning to focus on Jesus and not what is hard to understand in the Old Testament.
    Me too – I believe because I cannot deny or resist Jesus, not because I know how everything in the Old Testament, or even the New, fits in with him.
    You are welcome to ignore what follows, but here is what I know of that rape and crying out passage:
    It was written in a culture where many people (one estimate is 2 million Israelites) lived in non-soundproof tents close together. In our culture, a wannabe rapist could usually take his victim into a previously empty space far from other people, or enter a space where she was alone prior to him entering. In that culture, which did not have our notions of privacy, to be alone with someone in a tent, he’d most likely have to send out two or more people who were already there.
    The verse talks of an engaged girl, someone who is old enough to know of sex, and who knows she is already promised to someone else. The culture (see the whole old testament: no female submission verses) were not fundamentalist culture that teaches women they ought to be submissive to men either. She’d have known that the law is on her side if she screams, which is another reason to do so. (It was not possible to be “in the city” and not within hearing distance of another.)
    And the question: “What about a mute girl?” is moot too. Because the appliers of the law in the era used it as a guide and understood special circumstances may make other actions necessary.
    It is also followed by: “If she is raped in the field, her word should be taken for it and the man killed alone.” Under old Testament law, if a woman accuses a man of rape, and the situation was one where they would not have heard her scream as the two were not close to people, her word should be taken on face value, and the man is regarded as guilty without evidence. Yet I never heard of anyone complain about how anti-man the Bible is.

  • Excellent point, Retha. It is so easy to forget how different cultures can necessitate different approaches to law. Privacy in ancient cultures was so hard to come by, and we take it for granted now.
    The Orthodox Church appeals so much to me for the reasons you talked about, Samantha. They teach that’s God’s law is to love others. Just like Christ said. They rarely condemn openly those things that violate their doctrines, because they believe that it is not given to us to judge the souls of others. This article on homosexuality is very typical of their approach to every issue of sin: And that’s why I am more and more convinced they are the True Church.

  • Persephone

    These fundamentalist types are what I call “Paulian Jews.” Much like the apostle Paul, they push believers back toward the Jewish community structure and away from the simple message of Jesus. Whenever I see or hear someone quoting 1 Timothy 2, I note that the phrase used is, “I do not,” not “God does not.” Obviously, other church leaders did allow women to teach and lead. Paul was stating his opinion, and it is clear from his writings that he was repressive and oppressive, very much not what Jesus expected of his apostles.

    I’ve often wondered if Paul was a deliberate subversive, either playing the part of a Christian, or a Christian who felt that the church had moved to far away from its Jewish roots. We can never truly know, as the Catholic church was established by Rome to further its culture and power, so they happily disappeared the writings of any Christian who did not toe their line.

  • Persephone, that “I (Paul) do not allow” is one of 3 things to notice about the text. The second is the tense of allow – it will be better translated to English as: “I(Paul) am not currently allowing…” It is a temporary prohibition.
    Third, where we read “I do not allow a woman …” as “I do not allow any woman …” or “I allow no woman …” , the Greek may have meant one particular woman with the words “I do not allow a woman …” Why did he not allow her? The context of the letter is false teachers, and by the words around it (for example that Adam was born first, while the Artemis cult taught women came first and made men) I think she was from the local Artemis cult.

  • JJ

    Thanks so much for your story Samantha. I am loving these intelligent comments. I am working through these types of theological issues right now too.

  • Lyn

    Thank you so much for this Samantha, it’s so beautiful. I’m also on the same journey and it’s great to know my fellow travellers. XX

  • Arakiba

    How in the name of all that’s good does anyone believe in this revolting, fundamentalist, authoritarian evil?