Photo: RDNE Stock Project
I recently read a few sentences that describe a common distorted view of God. The paragraph reminded me of what had prodded me to get a Ph.D. in theology. The clarity, conciseness, and bold imagery impressed me, and the paragraph’s location surprised me—Christianity Today. Perhaps prominent evangelicals made critiques like this in my youth and young-adult years, but I did not recall hearing them. Before I share the paragraph with you, a bit of backstory.
In college I eagerly registered for how-to-do-ministry courses, but only took the one required theology course. I had no interest in theology—thought I knew enough. When my roommate opted to take a year of systematic theology I asked, “why, why would you do that?” How did I get from there to enrolling in a Ph. D. program in systematic theology!? Experiences in Central America led to that dramatic switch. One factor was repeatedly encountering people who viewed God as a distant accusing figure eager to punish. I wanted to understand the roots of their theology and, especially, I desired to teach an alternative theology to pastors and leaders to stem the tide of toxic theology.
Some people’s distorted views of God come from generic religious perspectives. As the paragraph below displays, others’ concept of God comes from distortions woven into Christian theology.
Most people aren’t asking whether Jesus saves sinners. Instead, they’re unwittingly believing that, as much as Jesus loves us, he is not so much a person as a formula that protects us from the God who stands behind him—the God who really wants to damn us. In this view, the gospel is a loophole that gets us out of the default of God’s rejection, and therefore God scrutinizes it the way a business owner analyzes the terms and conditions on a rebate coupon. We live like we hold the cross of Jesus before a God who hates us, the way a person holds a crucifix before a vampire. (From Russell Moore, “Yes, Jesus Loves You,” Christianity Today, 10/2026)
An experience I had recently reminded me that if someone has the view of God described above, liberation from it will likely require more than just saying to them, “that is wrong.” READ MORE
The person I interacted with, “Sarah,” actually agrees that this description of God is wrong—she wants nothing to do with that concept of God and salvation. She wants to believe that Jesus is more than a formula, that the cross is about something other than appeasing an angry God, and that God really is a God of love. She, cautiously, goes to church hoping for an alternative story and experience. I struck up a conversation with Sarah, assuming she would be a sponge for my alternative atonement theology. Instead, she resisted or rejected many of the things I said. Words I used, like “cross,” “sin,” even “salvation” not only triggered Sarah, she kept hearing me describe the cross as appeasement even though I was trying to say the opposite. For her the words themselves were saturated with the image of a God who must punish humans and will not forgive unless he first punishes Jesus in the place of humans. Thankfully, she trusted me, she leaned in and I kept trying. We made a bit of progress. A couple weeks later she reported that she was able to read Debbie Blue’s chapter in Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross and experience it as a different story. I am hopeful; but once again sobered and saddened by how difficult it is to wash toxic theology out of our system. This reinforces my conviction of the importance of intentionally communicating alternative theology and introducing people to Jesus rather than a formula--both so people won’t end up in a situation like Sarah and to offer release for those already trapped in toxicity. That relates to another experience I had recently.
I serve as a pastoral mentor to men in a re-entry and recovery program. “Mike,” the man I currently meet with, has never believed in God. Now, because of some life experiences, he is open. If I had met with him in the who-needs-more-theology season of my life, I would have directly entered into a conversation with him about the plan of salvation: believe in God, ask for forgiveness of your sins, repent and acknowledge Jesus as Lord of your life. I would not have asked, “Who is the God you believe in?” That, however, is where I began with Mike last week. Rather than just starting the construction of his Christian house on a foundation of whatever view of God he has, I wanted to do all I could to have his foundation be the God revealed by Jesus Christ. And, with Russell Moore’s paragraph fresh in mind, I am aware that Mike will be exposed to toxic theology—if not right now from others in the program, certainly in the future. I want to inoculate him! I do not reject the plan-of-salvation talks I had with people in the past; I will talk with Mike about those things. I do regret that in the past I only asked, “Do you believe in God?” rather than explore the character of the God people believed in.
A final note. Many of us imbibed elements of the theology Moore described. Even if we reject it now, and proclaim alternative theology to others, we may still have toxins in our systems. Let’s not just do the sort of evangelism described in the previous two paragraphs—proclaiming the gospel of Jesus to others. Let us also practice internal evangelism to the parts within us that have been shaped by toxic theology and still live as if it is true.