Dear Jim

For nearly thirty years, I have listened to people describe the harm they experienced in religious communities. Some were rejected for asking honest questions. Some were taught to fear their own minds, bodies, sexuality, or capacity for judgment. Some spent decades trying to become acceptable to a God they had been taught was always watching, measuring, and prepared to condemn them. Many carried these teachings long after they left the institutions that gave them those teachings.

I have heard thousands of these stories. They come from different denominations, theological traditions, cultures, and generations. No two are identical, and I do not assume that every religious community causes harm or that every person experiences religion in the same way. Still, certain patterns recur with such consistency that they can no longer be dismissed as isolated misunderstandings, unfortunate exceptions, or failures to practice an otherwise harmless theology.

The email at the center of this essay is one woman’s story among thousands I have heard. I share it because people harmed by religion deserve more than explanations intended to defend the institution. They deserve to have someone listen closely enough to name what happened.

Messages like this arrive almost every day. The details vary, but the underlying pattern remains: someone entered a religious community seeking God, truth, belonging, or a way to live, and learned instead to fear her own mind, distrust what made her human, and measure personal worth by obedience to the institution.

This email captures the experience with devastating clarity:

“I learned intolerance at church. Church insisted that only THIS church has the right answers, and that any other church, even another Christian church, is to be avoided because they don’t have the whole Truth. Church taught me to be prejudiced. I learned at church that women are lesser beings than men, that only men were capable of teaching, leading or making important decisions. At church, I learned that God loves me less because I’m female. Organized Christianity insisted that I am a filthy, stinking, horrible, sinful person deserving of Hell. I’m less than worthless, and knowing so is a godly attribute. Church taught me to despise myself and be afraid of God. In church, I learned that a grand performance as the ultimate Christian is preferable to an honest confession of failure, and that the honest, broken people are shunned, gossiped of, and never forgiven.”

This account is not an argument about whether every church behaves this way. It describes what this woman was taught and what those teachings did to her. The proper response is not defensiveness. It is to listen carefully enough to understand the injuries she is naming.

She was formed within a world where truth had already been settled and entrusted to a particular group. Its doctrines were more than beliefs held with conviction. They became the boundaries of reality itself. A neighboring church might use the same Bible, worship the same God, and confess the same faith, yet remain suspect because it interpreted one doctrine differently or refused one of the group’s defining practices.

Beyond Christianity, entire religions and cultures could be dismissed without ever being seriously encountered. People were understood according to their proximity to the approved system, and every relationship carried an unspoken question: Are they one of us?

Such environments do more than prescribe belief. They shape perception. Those outside the theological boundary are rarely encountered first as full human beings with histories, interior worlds, suffering, wisdom, and reasons for seeing life as they do. The category arrives before the encounter. Difference becomes evidence of ignorance, rebellion, deception, or spiritual danger. Conversation becomes an assessment of error, an opportunity for correction, or a covert attempt at conversion.

Within this closed world, curiosity carries the risk of disloyalty. Genuine listening might reveal integrity or goodness where the system insists there should be only darkness. Friendship with those outside the group might expose the inadequacy of inherited stereotypes. Encounter becomes dangerous because another person’s humanity can unsettle beliefs that have survived largely through distance.

What the community calls discernment gradually hardens into prejudice. Its members may sincerely believe they are defending truth while learning to approach whole groups of people through suspicion and fear. Saved or lost, biblical or worldly, obedient or rebellious: these categories offer the comfort of a world in which everyone has already been assigned a place. They also prevent anyone from being surprised by another human being.

The deepest injury is the erosion of one’s capacity to meet reality directly. The institution supplies the meaning of another person before any genuine encounter occurs. It teaches its members whom to trust, whose voice deserves consideration, which questions may be asked, and what conclusions must remain impossible. Over time, prejudice feels like faithfulness. Fear feels like wisdom. Refusing to listen feels like devotion to truth.

A community that possesses the whole truth has little reason to remain open to the lives of others. It can speak about them without speaking with them, judge their motives without knowing their stories, and dismiss their insight without allowing it to enter the conversation. Certainty protects the group from the vulnerability of encounter, because encounter always carries the possibility that reality is larger than the world we have been given.

She learned that women occupied a lesser place in the order of things. The hierarchy was rarely described in such direct language. It was presented as complementarity, biblical faithfulness, or the harmonious arrangement established by God. Men and women were said to possess equal worth while being assigned profoundly unequal authority. Men interpreted scripture, defined doctrine, governed the community, and made the decisions that shaped everyone’s lives. Women were expected to receive this arrangement as evidence of divine wisdom.

The contradiction was concealed beneath the language of separate roles. A woman could be praised as indispensable while remaining excluded from the places where power was exercised. She could teach children, organize ministries, counsel the hurting, sustain the social life of the congregation, and carry much of its emotional labor. Yet the authority to name reality, determine policy, interpret sacred texts, and provide public leadership remained largely male. Her service was celebrated as long as it did not become self-determination.

For a girl growing up within this world, the lesson reaches far beyond who is permitted to stand behind a pulpit. She learns to place a question mark beside her own perception. Intelligence is affirmed, though never to the point of challenging male judgment. Gifts are encouraged, provided they remain within boundaries established without her participation. Even the relationship with God is mediated through a structure that determines which parts of the self are trustworthy and which require male oversight.

This formation enters the interior life. A woman can become highly capable while remaining uncertain of her right to act, instinctively softening her voice, deferring to men who know less, or seeking permission for decisions that properly belong to her. Anger at injustice feels sinful. Ambition feels unfeminine. Confidence feels like pride. Once these boundaries have been internalized, the institution no longer needs to enforce them from the outside.

When inequality is attributed to God, resistance acquires the gravity of spiritual rebellion. A woman who questions the place assigned to her is no longer disagreeing with a human arrangement. She is said to be opposing scripture, disturbing the created order, or placing personal desires above the will of God. The system secures its authority by locating itself beyond ordinary scrutiny. It does more than restrict opportunity. It recruits the creator of the universe against her.

This is one of the most consequential uses of religious power: a social hierarchy is removed from the realm of human examination and placed inside the sacred order of reality. What could have been questioned as culture becomes untouchable as revelation. The men who benefit from the arrangement can understand themselves as servants of God rather than participants in a structure that privileges them. Women are then required to experience their own diminishment as obedience.

No child should be taught that her voice carries less authority because she is female. No woman should have to become smaller so that a religious institution can preserve its image of divine order. The sacred, if the word means anything worthy of reverence, cannot require one human being to surrender her full humanity for the comfort or authority of another.

She was taught to regard herself as filthy, worthless, and deserving of eternal punishment. These descriptions were presented as theological truths about the human condition, and accepting them became evidence that the gospel had been properly understood. Deep self-distrust signaled spiritual maturity. What might ordinarily be recognized as shame became a religious virtue.

Such teaching often begins with a legitimate human awareness: we are capable of causing harm. We deceive ourselves, wound people we love, act from fear, and participate in systems whose consequences we do not fully understand. Moral seriousness requires us to face this honestly. Yet accountability concerns what we have done and what repair asks of us. The doctrine she received reached beneath action into identity. It declared that corruption belonged to her very nature and that nothing originating within her could be trusted.

Once this view takes hold, ordinary human experience becomes evidence against the self. Desire is approached with suspicion. Pleasure requires justification. Anger is treated as rebellion before anyone asks whether it is responding to an injury. Questions reveal pride. Confidence signals spiritual danger. Even the impulse toward freedom can be interpreted as proof that the sinful self is resisting God. She becomes divided against her own interior life.

Formation within this system costs her more than self-esteem. It erodes confidence in her capacity to know what she is experiencing. When personal perceptions conflict with the institution’s teachings, the problem is assumed to lie within. A leader’s controlling behavior becomes evidence of an unwillingness to submit. The anguish produced by a doctrine is interpreted as truth exposing resistance. Even the body’s warning of danger may be overridden in the name of faith.

This creates a powerful structure of dependency. The institution first undermines confidence in one’s ability to interpret life reliably, then offers itself as the authority through which all experience must be understood. It diagnoses a condition of total corruption and claims privileged possession of the cure. Freedom is promised, though only through continued self-distrust and submission to the system that speaks for God.

The language of grace does not necessarily undo this injury. In some theological worlds, grace becomes meaningful only against an ever-deepening account of human worthlessness. The believer must continually return to the horror of who she is so that salvation will continue to appear magnificent. Gratitude is built upon self-rejection, and love becomes inseparable from the conviction that one was rightly condemned.

Humility asks something more truthful of us. It invites us to acknowledge our limits without denying our dignity, to face the harm we cause without reducing ourselves to that harm, and to recognize that we are neither the center of reality nor an offense against it. A humble person does not need to imagine herself as worthless. She needs enough self-contact to see herself clearly, accept responsibility, receive correction, and remain capable of change.

Any theology that requires self-contempt as a condition of loving God has confused spiritual formation with self-betrayal. It may produce obedience and gratitude toward the institution that offers rescue, yet leave her estranged from the very life she is being asked to bring into relationship with the sacred.

She learned to organize her relationship with God around fear. It could appear as a persistent uneasiness beneath prayer, a compulsive examination of motives, or the suspicion that one unconfessed failure might have eternal consequences. God’s love was proclaimed, yet the believer remained responsible for determining whether she had believed correctly, repented sincerely, and remained safely within the conditions under which that love could be trusted.

A relationship governed by the possibility of abandonment or punishment produces vigilance. She learns to monitor thoughts before they become doubts, desires before they become sins, and questions before they carry her beyond the approved boundaries. Her inner life becomes a field of spiritual surveillance. Every feeling must be examined for danger, every uncertainty interpreted as possible evidence of rebellion.

The theological contradiction is profound. God is described as perfect love while remaining capable of inflicting or permitting unimaginable suffering upon those who fail to respond correctly. She is expected to feel secure in divine love while contemplating eternal torment as the consequence of error, unbelief, or moral failure. Terror must be renamed reverence so the contradiction can remain intact.

For a child, these ideas do not remain theological propositions. They enter the imagination before any capacity exists to evaluate them. Hell becomes a possible destination for herself and those she loves. A passing doubt opens an abyss, leaving her awake at night wondering whether salvation is secure, the right prayer was offered, or God knows that some part of her remains unconvinced.

Fear often generates intense religious devotion. Someone might pray constantly, study scripture compulsively, confess repeatedly, and seek reassurance from spiritual authorities. From the outside, this appears to be exceptional faithfulness. Internally, it is often an attempt to achieve safety within a universe where a mistaken belief carries infinite consequences.

Even after the theology loses its intellectual credibility, fear often remains embedded in the body. She stops believing in hell yet continues to feel that doubt is dangerous. She leaves the church yet still experiences panic when criticizing its teachings or interprets an ordinary misfortune as punishment. Religious music, scripture, or the language of judgment can activate responses that her conscious beliefs no longer support.

Leaving a fear-based religion therefore involves more than replacing one set of ideas with another. The person must learn that her thoughts are not being monitored by a hostile universe, that uncertainty does not place her in danger, and that moral life can be grounded in care rather than threat. She must discover what trust feels like when it is no longer demanded under the shadow of punishment.

A love that requires terror to secure devotion has already contradicted itself. Whatever language we use for God, the sacred, or ultimate reality, a relationship worthy of those names cannot depend upon keeping the human person frightened enough to remain compliant.

She learned that appearing spiritually successful was safer than revealing what was actually happening within her. Every community develops expectations about what a good member should look like. In certainty-driven religious cultures, those expectations often extend into the private life of belief, emotion, marriage, sexuality, and suffering. The faithful person is expected to possess answers, demonstrate victory, and interpret every difficulty in a way that confirms the community’s teachings.

This pressure shapes the stories people are permitted to tell. Testimonies move from brokenness to redemption. Doubts appear only after they have been resolved. Marital struggles become evidence of divine restoration. Grief must eventually disclose a spiritual lesson. Pain is welcome when it can be organized into a narrative that ends with the system proved right. Experiences that resist this movement remain difficult to speak because they offer no reassuring conclusion.

Communities quickly teach their members which versions of themselves receive affirmation. Confidence is welcomed, while confusion makes others uncomfortable. An overcome struggle becomes inspirational, while an ongoing one raises questions about faith, obedience, or spiritual condition. Those who narrate their lives in the approved language are seen as mature. Anyone whose experience refuses that language becomes a problem requiring explanation.

In such an environment, concealment often becomes a form of survival. A woman hides her depression because she has been told that joy is evidence of faith. She conceals an abusive marriage because preserving the family’s appearance seems more important than acknowledging what happens inside it. Doubts remain unspoken to protect relationships, livelihood, or standing in the community. The performance is rarely simple dishonesty. It is an adaptation to a world in which truth carries consequences.

Over time, the gap between the public self and the lived self becomes difficult to bear. Love and recognition are offered to an incomplete version of who she is. Each affirmation deepens the fear that the full story would make her unacceptable. Belonging becomes strangely lonely when those around her know the role being performed while remaining distant from the life beneath it.

The community also pays a price. When everyone performs spiritual health, its members lose access to an honest account of human experience. They compare their private confusion with the public certainty around them and conclude that they alone are failing. The performance becomes collective, with everyone helping to preserve an illusion that harms nearly all who inhabit it.

Honesty requires a community capable of remaining present when a story does not vindicate its beliefs. It needs room for grief that offers no lesson, doubt that remains unresolved, relationships that cannot be repaired, and lives that do not conform to the promised pattern. Such a community understands that truthfulness is more valuable than the protection of its image.

If people must hide their humanity to remain welcome, they have been offered conditional acceptance rather than belonging. Belonging begins when a person can enter the room without first editing herself into someone the room knows how to approve.

She watched honest and hurting people become the subjects of gossip. Their failures were remembered long after apologies had been made, consequences faced, or lives changed. A language of forgiveness filled sermons and prayers, while the community continued to hold certain people inside the identity of what they had done.

This happens whenever a religious group depends upon clear moral categories to preserve its sense of order. Anyone who deviates from the expected path becomes useful as an example. The struggling member confirms the dangers of insufficient faith. Divorce demonstrates the consequences of disobedience. Doubt illustrates the corrosive effects of intellectual pride. Departure proves how easily the faithful are deceived.

Turning people into cautionary tales allows the group to avoid the complexity of their lives. Their decisions are attributed to bitterness, sin, rebellion, or a desire to escape accountability. Little attention is then given to failures of leadership, the cruelty of a doctrine, the absence of safety, or the years of unanswered questions preceding their departure. The institution protects its innocence by assigning the entire meaning of the rupture to the one who could no longer remain.

Gossip performs an important social function within such a system. It warns members about the cost of deviation while reinforcing the boundaries of acceptable identity. Stories about those who are absent circulate without their presence to complicate them. Motives are interpreted, failures assembled into a coherent explanation, and human complexity gradually reduced to whatever makes the community’s account feel secure.

The fear of becoming the next story keeps others silent. Anyone who sees how the community treats those who confess failure learns to conceal her own. Someone contemplating departure can already imagine the narrative that will be constructed after she leaves. Even compassion becomes dangerous because defending the excluded may place one’s own loyalty under suspicion.

Forgiveness cannot coexist with moral permanence. Accountability may require memory, boundaries, restitution, or lasting consequences. It does not require freezing someone at the worst moment of her life. A community committed to restoration must leave room for complexity, development, and the possibility that no single action or season exhausts the meaning of a human life.

People are more than the harm they have caused, the beliefs they can no longer hold, or the role an institution assigned them. Forgiveness that leaves someone permanently reduced to a warning has preserved judgment beneath the language of grace. It has released the community from examining itself while keeping the individual captive to a story she is no longer allowed to revise.

The deepest injury in this email may be that each form of diminishment arrived under the language of spiritual care. Intolerance was presented as devotion to truth. Patriarchy became biblical order. Self-contempt was praised as humility, fear cultivated as reverence, and performance rewarded as faithfulness. Exclusion could then be understood as accountability, even when its real purpose was to protect the institution from discomfort or scrutiny.

Religious harm is difficult to recognize when the mechanisms causing it are woven into the person’s understanding of goodness. The injury does not always arrive through obvious cruelty. It may come through a sermon delivered with compassion, counseling offered by a trusted leader, or a doctrine taught by parents who sincerely believe they are protecting their child. Love and harm can become entangled so tightly that naming one feels like betraying the other.

Distress may therefore be interpreted as evidence that the system is working. Shame proves that God is bringing conviction. Fear demonstrates an understanding of sin’s seriousness. The loss of confidence in personal judgment becomes submission. Anguish is read as resistance to truth rather than a signal that something within is being violated.

This inversion gives harmful systems remarkable durability. Every internal protest can be absorbed as confirmation of the diagnosis. Objection becomes rebellion, withdrawal becomes hardness, anger becomes bitterness, and leaving becomes proof that she never truly belonged. The system creates an explanation for every response except the possibility that she has perceived something real about the system itself.

Years may pass before she possesses language capable of separating spiritual aspiration from the structure that exploited it. She must revisit experiences once understood as sacred and ask what they required her to abandon. This often means grieving relationships that contained genuine love while acknowledging the beliefs that caused injury. It also means accepting that people who cared for her participated in her diminishment because they could not see beyond the world that formed them.

Leaving this kind of system involves a recovery of language. Fear must be recognized as fear before it can stop masquerading as reverence. Shame must be named without calling it conviction. Domination must be identified even when exercised by gentle people quoting scripture. Self-betrayal does not become sacred because it is demanded in the name of God.

The work is disorienting because it unsettles the moral vocabulary through which she once understood her life. Yet accurate naming is essential to the recovery of self-trust. A wound cannot be tended while she remains obligated to call it salvation.

This woman was taught intolerance, inferiority, self-contempt, fear, performance, and silence. These lessons may have shaped years of experience, influencing how she understood others and inhabited the world. None deserves the authority of a final judgment upon her life.

What follows religious harm is rarely a simple reversal of belief. Rejecting the doctrines that taught self-doubt does not immediately restore self-trust. Recovery begins more tentatively: noticing internal responses without immediately correcting them, allowing questions to remain open, and discovering that uncertainty can be lived without catastrophe. Authority once surrendered to the institution returns through countless acts of attention to lived experience.

Difference no longer needs to be classified. Another life becomes an encounter rather than a theological problem. Listening no longer threatens a fragile certainty because belonging does not depend upon possessing the final truth. What she hears is free to change her without making that change feel like defeat.

Her moral life also takes a different form. Acknowledging the harm she causes no longer requires declaring herself inherently worthless. Responsibility becomes a movement toward honesty and repair rather than a ritual of self-condemnation. Cruelty exists within the same human capacity as tenderness, courage, imagination, and growth. No single doctrine needs to settle the meaning of her humanity in advance.

Recovering from religious fear requires patience with the body. Ideas often change faster than the nervous system. Old anxieties sometimes return without validating the theology that produced them. A question still provokes dread, a memory reopens shame, or an act of self-assertion awakens the feeling of rebellion. These responses reveal the depth of religious formation rather than a failure of freedom.

Gradually, she discovers relationships in which honesty does not threaten belonging. Life no longer needs to be shaped into a testimony with an acceptable conclusion. Confusion, grief, anger, and change can be spoken without forfeiting companionship. Those around her need not solve the experience or force it into a redemptive arc. They simply meet her where she is.

Emails like this arrive almost every day because the damage is neither rare nor safely confined to the past. People continue to carry religious teachings in their bodies long after leaving the communities that gave them those teachings. They deserve more than arguments about whether their experiences represent authentic Christianity. Such arguments often protect an idealized religion at the expense of the person describing what happened to her.

They deserve to be believed without having to prove that every church is harmful. They deserve language that clarifies what they endured without reducing them to their wounds. They deserve communities in which truthfulness does not cost them relationship and guidance does not require the surrender of authority.

Most of all, they deserve the freedom to discover that what the church taught them about themselves was never the truth of who they are.

Become a paid subscriber ($50 annually) and receive a complimentary annual membership to the Center for Non-Religious Spirituality, a community for people exploring meaning, belonging, spiritual life, and the work of being human without creeds, religious conformity, or surrendered authority.

Your membership includes access to workshops, community gatherings, discussion circles, support groups, and conversations with others building lives beyond inherited religion. It is a place to bring your questions without being handed predetermined answers and to explore spirituality without having to betray your own experience.

Your paid subscription also supports the writing and helps sustain a community where people harmed or displaced by religion can find language, companionship, and a larger place to stand.