Thread by @eaton

It's impressive how densely packed these two tweets are with the language and social cues of abusive Christian fundamentalism.

For those who don't recognize them, Moore here is obliquely responding to the "exvangelical" movement that's been blossoming over the past few years.

I can't say whether the movement is *numerically* significant or not, but it's certainly had a social and cultural impact: people, many of whom experienced religious abuse and trauma in authoritarian spiritual communities, are leaving *and talking about why*.

This has thrown certain fundamentalist systems of control into a tailspin, like a referees trying to give someone a penalty because they quit the game. Matt's opening statement acknowledging "bad experiences" is a weak concession to keep potential exvangelicals on the field.

Note Matt isn't describing structural, cultural, or ideological issues in Christian Fundamentalism that exvangelicals have shed light on; the underlying systems of abuse and control that *produce* trauma. He's talking about "bad experiences that happened to occur in a church."

The next bit is an important pivot that @kristinrawls and I have discussed before on @CRightcast: using the broad umbrella "sin" when responding to accusations of specific, concrete abuse. His point here is that the only valid reason to leave a church is to "escape its sin."

…And if the only reason you should leave a church is because it's sinful, well, the secular world is *definitionally* more full of sin. So leaving won't help, and you'll be hurt and traumatized even more—by all that worldly sin.

It's worth noting that this is the unrepentant language of abuse: "Sure, sure, we hurt you a little… but it's going to be worse out there if you leave!"

Now, he's conceded that it's okay to leave a *sinful* church for a *better* church, but his closing comment clarifies what that really means: You can leave one fundamentalist church if it is "sinful," but only if you join another similarly fundamentalist one.

This is a reiteration of the foundational belief of authoritarian fundamentalism: other branches of the faith are not simply *different* or even *wrong*… they are *not a part of Christianity at all.* Fundamentalism and Christianity are, in the fundamentalist's frame, synonyms.

Now, the jab at "progressive, LGBT-affirming" churches is par for the course in fundamentalist discourse. But it's pointed in Moore's case; since being outed in 2013 when his Grindr profile was found, he's held the line on Gay Is Bad And He Doesn't Gay Anymore.

Even more telling, though, is his marriage into the Piper family. John Piper is a long-time leader in authoritarian fundamentalism, and drafted the 1987 Danvers Statement that first spelled out "complimentarianism" — the Separate But Equal of fundamentalist gender doctrine.

The doctrines Piper helped anchor in the landscape of American Christianity are not neutral; like his son-in-law Moore, he blames abuse on sinful ideas like "equality" and "egalitarianism" rather than the actual decisions and beliefs of the abusers.
baptistnews.com/article/john-p…

Piper has repeatedly platformed, collaborated with, and defended other abusive leaders in the world of Christian fundamentalism, from Mark Driscoll to (wait for it) white supremacist pastor Doug Wilson.

I could go on and on with Piper shit; the congregation *he* led for decades has been shaken by abuse accusations, resignations by besieged pastors, and counter-resignations by other pastors angry that abusers *weren't* dealt with.

What's worth noting is that Moore's statements—minimizing abuse woven into the fabric of so many authoritarian congregations, warning that abuse would be even worse "out in the world"—are not theoretical. They are a defense of *his* world.

They are an attempt to discredit people who were once his fellow-travelers but were driven out by abusers he now defends. They are an attempt to warn those who have not yet left that it will be even worse for them.