Premarital Counseling and Marriage as Covenant

In our community we had a "Wedding Chapel" where couples paid local pastors $75 and got an instant wedding. I, and some others, refused to do that. I won't officiate a wedding ceremony unless a couple agrees to meet with Linda and me at least six times for premarital counseling.

We only work with premarital couples who are part of our church family. This gives us more than enough to do. If they are with us, Linda and I love assisting them on the road to marriage.

We are passionate about helping premarital couples enter into a marital covenant with God that will last a lifetime. There aren't a lot of marriages like that, so we feel pretty intense about this. Our experience is that nearly all premarital couples desire a marriage that lasts a lifetime. In order to achieve this they need a lot of help, since it's likely that they lack parents who stayed together and modeled a healthy marital relationship for them. The lack of this creates problems for people who want to get married. In counseling we address this, along with many other things.

Linda and I love getting to know premarital couples! When we finally come to that moment where we're standing before God ,and the man and woman are expressing vows to each other, we can say: We know these two people. That's important to us.

In premarital counseling we have, for years, used the FOCCUS premarital inventory. Couples individually respond to statements like the examples below. The materials are sent in and, for a small fee, processed and returned to a Facilitator like myself. I get a packet of information that works like an MRI of the premarital couple's relationship. It's broken down into categories such as "Communication," "Financial Issues," "Family of Origin Issues," and "Extended Family Issues." In the premarital counseling sessions we work from the areas that have the least amount of agreement on the preferred answers.

Here are some sample statements from the actual FOCCUS inventory.

Here are some thoughts we have about learning about Marriage As Covenant (rather than "contract").

• THINK OF HAVING A LIFE PARTNER. Most couples we work with, when they think of marriage (rather than co-habiting), think of a life partner. But the idea of covenant may not be there, at least intentionally and reflectively. "Covenants" are forever; "contracts" can be negotiated and broken.
• DO THE FOCCUS PREMARITAL INVENTORY WITH A THIRD PARTY WHO CAN INTERPRET IT (GET EXCELLENT PREMARITAL COUNSELING). 
• The FOCCUS material asks covenantal questions. You don't have to be engaged to do this survey. Note: 10% of all who take it decide not to get married and end their relationship.
• FIND A COVENANT MARRIAGE AND TAKE THEM OUT TO DINNER. Do you know of a two persons who have been married many years, and selflessly and sacrificially love each other? Go out for dinner with them and ask them questions about their marriage. Treat them. They deserve it. Note: Linda and I were once hosting the Jewish novelist Chaim Potok for a series of presentations at Michigan State University. In a session with high school students a girl asked him, "Mr. Potok, I don't have any moral values. How can I get them?" Chaim answered: "Find a family that has moral values and hang around them." A lot of the stuff we have been taught has been caught.
• REJECT THE MYTH OF COMPATIBILITY. Understand, from the beginning, that no two people are compatible enough to weld together for life. So, you won't need to divorce on the basis of "incompatible differences." Expect them. Again, find a successful, long-term covenant marital couple. They've learned how to love in the midst of their differences.
• SAVE THE SEXUAL (INTERCOURSE) RELATIONSHIP UNTIL COVENANTALLY WELDED TOGETHER. This builds trust, and increases real love which is: loving the other for who they are in Christ and not for the sex they can give you. Contractual relationships are all about what I get; covenantal relationships are all about God first, and the other person second.
• READ GARY CHAPMAN'S BOOK. We really like Chapman's Things I Wish We'd Known Before We Got Married. Everyone should read it.
• READ LES AND LESLIE PARROTT'S BOOK Real Relationships. 
• READ THESE TWO BOOKS BY WALTER TROBISCH. Before I got married (41 years in August!) my pastor had me read these two marvelous books by Walter Trobisch - I Married You, and I Loved a Girl. Prepare to be ushered into another, beautiful, alternative noetic framework.
• READ MIKE MASON'S BOOK. We strongly suggest reading Mike Mason's famous The Mystery of Marriage. This is all about the nature of covenant relationship.
• WATCH "SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE," ALONE. The Tom Hanks character knew his wife, inside and out. The Meg Ryan character longs to have a husband like this. And she hasn't even seen his face. Such is the quality of covenant relationship; viz., it grows in an ever-newness of love while the face and body sag and decline.

Don't "Protest" In the Church

Monroe County Court House

I heard of someone who said they didn't like something in their church and were going to protest, and mobilize and recruit people to be part of the protest.

NEVER DO THAT.

Not in the Real Church. "Protesting" in the Church is one of Satan's strategies to divide, conquer, and kill a church family. Protesting polarizes. Love understands, and reconciles. Protesting starts wars. Love makes peace.

So, then, what is a person to do if they don't like something, or someone, in their church family? Here are my thoughts.

1. There is always something, or someone, not to like in any family, including a church family. Depending on the situation, God might lead you to show grace towards them. I probably would lose count if I knew how many people have chosen to show me grace and love when I have not pleased them.

But some situations need to be confronted.

2. There is always everyone to love in a church family. So, if you don't like something someone does, then your job description is to love them. This means...

3. Speak the truth, in love, to them. Here is how you do that.

4. Scripture tells us to go to the person with whom you have an offense. (Matthew 18:15) This is so crucial that you are not even supposed to worship until you go to a brother or sister who has something against you. (Matthew 5:23-24)

This is revolutionary! I remember teaching these verses in a class. A woman from Malawi, Africa, was there. I remember her saying, "If we really practiced this in my church, all of us would leave the building and find people we are in conflict with!"

5. If that does not work, then approach church leadership. Share with them that you want help in dealing lovingly and truthfully with someone or something that has upset you.

What if that doesn't work? You have tried, and God is pleased with that. Keep praying for that person.

I Had a Religious Experience (A Few Thoughts)

Monroe, In the Country

Forty-seven years ago I had a religious experience. Someone said "God loves you" to me, and it set off an inner revolution.

I had heard those words a bazillion times before and they meant nothing to me, functioning at most as a kind of greeting like "Have a nice day." I awarded them no intellectual assent. But on that day, in that moment, those three beautiful words kick-started a movement in me that has not stilled.

This was my beginning with Jesus. It was not phenomenally the same as what happened to C.S. Lewis, but qualitatively similar. Lewis wrote:

"As the dry bones shook and came together in that dreadful valley of Ezekiel's, so now a philosophical theorem, cerebrally entertained, began to stir and heave and throw off its grave cloths, and stood upright and became a living presence. I was to be allowed to play at philosophy no longer. It might, as I say, still be true that my "Spirit" differed in some way from "the God of popular religion." My Adversary waived the point. It sank into utter unimportance. He would not argue about it. He only said, "I am the Lord"; "I am that I am"; "I am." People who are naturally religious find difficulty in understanding the horror of such a revelation. Amiable agnostics will talk cheerfully about "man's search for God." To me, as I then was, they might as well have talked about the mouse's search for the cat." (From Surprised By Joy)

God found C.S. Lewis, and God found me. I was receptive. I was ready to hear that he existed, and he loved me. 

This did not happen in a vacuum. The soil of my heart had been softening for some time. I had started to look for God. Then it happened. What shall I make of this?

• If this event had not happened I cannot be sure I would have become a Jesus-follower. It was that important to me. I needed something palpable, tangible, experiential. I don't know if everyone needs such a thing. But I, and Lewis, did.
• The Day of Experience was not only the day God came to me, but it marked the last day of three years of drug and alcohol abuse. My pursuits of girls for sex came to a halt, except for one time in my first year as a Jesus-follower where I returned to Egypt and blew it. That failure hit me hard, raising deep questions about who I had become, and what God wanted for me.
• The fact that others in the world religions have religious experiences does not diminish the value of my own. I know, in my study and teaching of comparative religions, that persons in other religions claim religious experiences. I have platoons of books on my shelves containing testimonies of people of other faiths. I've visited and taught in countries that are predominantly other-religious. But this does nothing to refute the experience I had and, BTW, still have, to the present day. I agree with William James who, in his Varieties of Religious Experience, writes: "A mystical experience is authoritative for the one who experiences it. But a mystical experience that happens to one person need not be authoritative for other people." I'm good with that. (With this exception: the mystical-religious experiences of certain other persons have carried authority with me because of their credibility. For example, my wife Linda has experienced many things, from God, that amaze me.)
• The initial religious experience ripped me out of non-reflective deism, weak agnosticism, and practical atheism into full-blown Christian theism. Historically, this is undoubtable. I now believed in God, and in Jesus. I changed my undergraduate major from music theory to philosophy (fortunately for me the philosophy department at Northern Illinois University was excellent!). I viewed Philosophy as the intellectual agora for addressing and discussing life's Big Questions. I now believed. This experiential belief had an evidential quality for me, and propelled me to go after an understanding of what had happened. 45 years later, this has not stopped. Today I am a deeper believer in God and Jesus than ever.
• I think true religion (not the jeans - they are way too expensive) necessarily includes experience. In my studies of world religions, experience is paramount. Hebrew-Christianity, for example, is essentially about a relationship with God, a mutual indwelling experiential reality. This includes praying-as-dialogue with God, the sense of God's presence, being-led by God, and so on. As well as worship. Worship is experiential and logical in the sense that: If God is love, and God is real, and love is about relationship (love has an "other"), then it follows that one will know and be known by God. ("Know," in Hebrew, means experiential intimacy, not Cartesian subject-object unfamiliarity.)
• I realize certain atheists claim to have no religious exerience at all. John Allen Paulos, for example, in his Irreligion, claims to not have a religious bone in his body. I don't doubt this. This fact does not rationally deter me, just as I am certain C.S. Lewis's religious experiences don't move Paulos from his atheism. (I'm now thinking of Antony Flew's conversion from atheism to deism. Flew was moved by the logic of the fine-tuning argument for God's existence. And the case of the famous and brilliant British atheist A.J. Ayer who had a vision and began to be interested in God.)
• I am often taken back to my initial God-encounter. It functions, for me, as a raison d-etre. Philosophically, it's one of a number of "properly basic" experiences I've had and still have and may quite well have tonight. See here philosophers like William P. Alston.
• Since that original encounter I've supplemented it with ongoing biblical, theological, and philosophical studies. These are important to me. For example, if I thought that Jesus did not actually exist I would abandon Christianity. (About ten years ago a teacher at one of our local high schools told his students that Jesus did not actually exist. One of our church kids was in his class. She called me, crying. "The teacher told me that he would consider evidence to the contrary if I could come up with some and bring it to class." I told her: "Why not bring me in?" It happened. I spoke in the high school auditorium to 170 students. The word had spread, and some other teachers allowed me to make my presentation. I spoke for 90 minutes on the actual, historical existence of Jesus. That was so much fun! I had students come to me saying things like, "I saw someone on the internet claim that Jesus never existed, but now I see that their reasoning was wrong." For some stuff I've posted on this go here.)

My initial life-changing encounter with God has led to a lifetime of Jesus-following and God-knowing and seeking. I remain forever thankful that God did and continues to reveal himself to me. 

And that it's not sheerly logical and theoretical, but relational and experiential.

*****
For further reading check out I (Still) Believe: Leading Bible Scholars Share Their Stories of Faith and Scholarship, John Byron and Joel Lohr, eds. 

Hoping the Church Has a Setback

Chicago

Secular culture has invaded and colonized the American Church. Large segments of the Church are post-Christian. Discipleship, due to its low entertainment value and requisite lifetime commitment, has been supplanted by an audience of consumers. Worship "services" (a concept foreign to the early church) are for people who come waiting to be serviced. 

The Church must rediscover its raison d'etre, its reason for existing. Billy Graham knew this years ago, as seen in this story told by Philip Yancey.

"During the Brezhnev era at the height of the Cold War, Billy Graham visited Russia and met with government and church leaders. Conservatives in the West harshly criticized him for treating the Russians with such courtesy and respect. He should have taken on a more prophetic role, they said, by speaking out against the abuses of human rights and religious liberty. One of his critics said, “Dr. Graham, you have set the church back fifty years!” Graham lowered his head and replied, “I am deeply ashamed. I have been trying very hard to set the church back 2000 years.”" (Yancey, Vanishing Grace: What Ever Happened to the Good News?, pp. 253-254)

Skeptical Theism and the Problem of Natural Evil

I am preparing (again!) to teach section 2 of my MCCC Philosophy of Religion classes, which is: the Argument from Evil Against the Existence of God.

Thus I've been reviewing some things I have written in the past, especially when it comes to the problem (supposedly for theism) of "natural evil." See the two recent posts I've made on Joel Feinberg and Greg Boyd.

I've also been following what's happening at the University of Notre Dame's Center for Philosophy of Religion. If you wanted to study Philosophy of Religion today the place to do it would be Notre Dame.

UND's Center for Philosophy of Religion has been granted (in 2009) a $1.4 million Templeton Grant for their project “The Problem of Evil in Modern and Contemporary Thought.” "According to [UND philosopher Michael] Rea, who is also director of the Center for Philosophy of Religion, the multi-faced project will place special emphasis on questions about how the problem of evil was raised and addressed by important historical figures in the 16th and 17th centuries, on philosophical problems raised (then and now) by the existence of natural evil, and on strategies for explaining—or showing why we shouldn’t expect to explain—why God might permit the kinds and amounts of evil we experience in the world."

One focus is on Skeptical Theism's response to evil, especially of the natural variety. From their website:

"Theists often maintain that God permits the evils we see in the world for the sake of greater goods. But when pressed to say what greater goods might possibly be served by evils like the pain and suffering that follows in the wake of a horrible earthquake or a terrorist’s bomb, theists often come up short. Such evils seem to be absolutely pointless, and contemporary atheists have forcefully argued that the prevalence of apparently pointless evil provides strong evidence against the existence of God.

In response to this challenge, “skeptical theists” express skepticism about our ability to determine whether the evils we encounter really are pointless. Emphasizing human cognitive limitations, they argue that we have no reason to think that we could discern divine purposes in allowing horrendous evils if there were any, and so we have no warrant for believing that such evils do not serve a divine purpose.

In contemporary philosophy of religion, skeptical theism has emerged as a prominent form of response to evidential versions of the argument from evil. However, it is not without its own share of challenges.

This component of the Problem of Evil research project funds independent research, including fellowships, workshops, conferences and public events, on both the promise and the pitfalls of skeptical theism."

I am very much looking forward to the studies being generated out of this project!

Greg Boyd on the Problem of "Natural" Evil

Detroit

Greg Boyd argues that, if Christian theism is true, then it is rational to believe in Satan and demons.

NOTE: If an atheist or non-Christian asks me to prove that Satan exists I would not do it directly. I need to know:

Do they believe in God?
- If not, then I won’t spend time trying to prove Satan exists. If they don’t already believe in a super-natural being such as God they won’t believe in a non-physical spiritual agent called “Satan,” or in nonphysical agents such as “angels” and “demons.” In fact, on atheism of the "hard" variety, there are no non-physical realities.

If they do believe in God, then I want to know…

Do they identify themselves as a “Christian?”
- There are self-identified Christians who believe in God but not in Satan.
- At this point I could use Boyd’s biblical and theological reasoning.
- Greg writes: “I will argue that there is a class of evils in the world that cannot be explained adequately except by appealing to Satan.”
- This means, for the person who already believes God exists, such evils cannot be explained “naturally.”

- I would also argue from biblical textual evidence that "the satan" (= "the adversary") is best understood as a personal agent. On this see the recent, excellent Understanding Spiritual Warfare: Four Views, eds. Beilby and Eddy. (The four views are those of Walter Wink [the satan is not a personal agent], Greg Boyd, David Powlison, and Peter Wagner [the satan is a personal agent].)

Boyd’s argument (slightly revised): (Satan and the Problem of Evil, 298)

1) “If God is perfectly good, he must do everything he can “properly do” to prevent evil.
2) The only evil God cannot “properly” prevent is evil arising from the willing of a free agent, for preventing this would result in a loss of the greater good of having freedom.
3) “Natural” evil exists.
4) “Natural” evil cannot be attributed to any human agent or to God.
5) Therefore, “natural” evil must be attributable to a perverse nonhuman agent. This is the only possibility that is totally consistent with the belief that God is all-good and all-powerful.

In Satan and the Problem of Evil Greg writes: “So, common sense theism is epistemically committed, not only to the affirmation of free will, but to the existence of a devil as well.” (298)

BUT… An atheist might object by saying: Can’t “natural” evil be better accounted for without adding “God” and “Satan?” On atheism, evil just happens. We don’t need to posit a “Satan” to explain it. But this presumes the truth of atheism. Of course, on atheism, there’s no “Satan.” Note also: on "hard atheism" there's also no evil, at least not objectively so.

At this point someone such as I argue for the truth of theism. My response then becomes:

I believe God does exist.
Which means: I accept the noetic framework of Christian theism as true.
Within Christian theism evil doesn’t “just happen.” It can’t be accounted for in the same way an atheist would account for it. This is precisely because: If God is all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful, God would both want to and be able to stop any evil from happening that was not attributable to some agent’s free will.

Therefore I cannot attribute “natural” evil to either God, persons, or chance (it “just happens”). Hence, quoting Boyd: ““Natural” evil must be attributable to a perverse nonhuman agent. This is the only possibility that is totally consistent with the belief that God is all-good and all-powerful.”


***
FYI and attention Christian theologians - see these reviews for Understanding Spiritual Warfare: Four Views:

Four Views on Spiritual Warfare
"This illuminating book helps readers sort through the plethora of approaches to spiritual warfare. Positions exist in addition to the four explored here, but the range offered is informative and will help the reader sort through why he or she agrees or disagrees on various points. Anyone who wants to understand and hear the case for various positions should start here."
--Craig Keener, Asbury Theological Seminary

"Spiritual warfare--shouldn't all Christians be engaged in it? And if it is indeed warfare, doesn't that mean there's a lot at stake? Or are some versions of spiritual warfare a paganization of the Christian gospel? There are many 'four views' books on the market, but this one on spiritual warfare is one of the few that ably addresses important issues of global Christian theological and practical concern. No seminary education is complete without it."
--Amos Yong, Regent University School of Divinity

"This is a four-views book at its best, a satisfying engagement between the advocates of four very different approaches to spiritual warfare. Each of the representatives has been influential in a particular segment of Christianity, and here is the chance to see them in a respectful-but-sharp dialogue about the key texts and the critical issues."
--Clinton E. Arnold, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University

"Finally we have a theological, biblical, and multidisciplinary assessment of spiritual warfare, a topic which continues to divide and inspire many Christians. Here is a resource that helps put the dominant hermeneutical and spiritual orientations in perspective. The choice of topic and contributors is bold and innovative and the editors' introduction is brilliant. Talk about a dynamic dialogue! Highly recommended."
--Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Fuller Theological Seminary; University of Helsinki, Finland

"A topic as controversial and divisive as spiritual warfare has long needed a volume like this. Whether or not one wholly embraces any one of the four views presented here (I don't), hardly a text is left unexamined or a question unanswered. The church cannot afford to live in ignorance of such a vital subject, and this excellent treatment goes a long way in bringing us the knowledge we need."
--Sam Storms, Bridgeway Church, Oklahoma City

Where Was God... in Las Vegas? When the Hurricane Came?

ONE-HOUR SEMINARY

Oct. 3

With John Piippo

"Where Was God... in Las Vegas?

When the Hurricane Came?"

FACEBOOK LIVE

The video is saved on my Facebook page, with the Q&A.
Become a FB friend to view it.

What If Evil Didn't Exist?

Chicago

Soon I'll begin teaching the atheistic argument from evil against the existence of God in my Philosophy of Religion class at MCCC. 

Atheist J.L. Mackie, in his logical argument from evil against the existence of God, affirms that evil does exist, and from this concludes that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God could not coexist with evil.

Mackie goes on to say that if evil did not exist, then there would not be a "problem of evil," any more than we have a "problem of unicorns."

"Evil," in the philosophical discussion, is usually defined as "gratuitous suffering," aka "pointless suffering." If value is added to suffering it is not gratuitous. If the suffering is needed to allow for a greater good to happen, or to prevent a greater evil from happening, then the suffering is not gratuitous, but redemptive.

Now Mackie says evil exists. But atheism-as-metaphysical-naturalism says "evil" does not exist. Metaphysical naturalism does not contain the word "ought." Science only tells us what "is," but from "is" you cannot derive "ought." ( To believe you can derive "ought" from "is" to commit "the naturalistic fallacy.")

Atheist Richard Dawkins seems to recognize this, and denies that evil exists. Dawkins writes:

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference... DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."

On Dawkins' version of atheism, "evil" and "good" do not exist. He is correct, if atheism is true. But this means the "problem of evil" is only a so-called "problem," akin to "the problem of unicorns." Because, as Mackie has said, if evil does not exist, then there is no "problem of evil." 

Again, Mackie believe the statement evil exists is true. Dawkins says it is not. Thus, Mackie-type (and Rowe-type) arguments from evil are, seemingly, in trouble. Objective evil  must exist for there to be an argument from evil.

Most of us believe objective evil exists. Bill Craig takes the statement evil exists and gives an argument from evil for God's existence. It is:

1. If there is no God, then evil (objective evil) does not exist.
2. Evil exists. (Mackie's third premise)
3. Therefore, God exists.

Therefore, atheism has a problem when it comes to morality. On the one hand, atheistic naturalism has no place for value judgments like "good" and "evil." On the other hand, atheists like Mackie use the existence of evil in an argument against God's existence. Further, if objective evil does exist, it then seems that God exists (Craig's argument).

Does evil exist? I believe so. I woke this morning to hear of the worst mass shooting in the history of America. What the shooter did was evil. The thoughtful atheist will be unable to affirm this. The atheist alternative of utilitarianism is devoid of value judgments, giving us only pleasure and pain, happiness and unhappiness, not right and wrong.

Self-Attention and Self-Abuse Cease When Honor/Shame Hierarchies Are Removed

(On Sunday morning, Oct. 8, I'm preaching at Redeemer on "Healing from Shame.")

Our backyard

(This is an idea in progress...)

When Jesus came he did away with cultural honor-shame hierarchies. You see this in Luke chapter 1. Mary sings her song of the new status-realities her son is going to bring in. With Jesus it will be an upside-down world of inverted hierarchies.

Eventually this will be seen as the abolition of hierarchies in the Pauline observation that in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.

With this the gate is opened whereby subhumanity might enter into true humanity, where the false self might be exchanged for the true self. This is because self-adoration, self-hate, self-pity, self-centeredness, self-will, self-hiding, and self-ignorance all depend for their existence on the honor-shame hierarchy. All such punishing aspects of the false self are rooted in the comparative evaluation of the self as essentially against other subhuman selves. (One is always, simultaneously, "above" and "below" others.)

The honor-shame hierarchy excludes and never embraces. This is where questions like "Who is the greatest?" are asked, and people say "Thank God I am not like that other person." On the honor-shame hierarchy the "other" is essentially one's opponent.

But in the incarnation, the Greatest became the Least to bestow kingdom status on all who come to him. (This, BTW, is the core idea behind James Cone's theology of the Christ as black.)

Note:

On the "reversal motif" in the song of Mary see R. John Vijayaraj, "Human Rights Concerns In the Lukan Infancy Narratives (Luke 1:5 - 2:52)."

On honor-shame hierarchies in New Testament times see Joel Green, The Gospel of Luke. Of the four gospels Luke is the most socially concerned.

To further study honor/shame hierarchies see honorshame.com.

***
My book is Praying: Reflections on 40 Years of Solitary Conversations with God.

I hope to finish my manuscript of Leading the Presence-Driven Church this month (it's taken longer than I thought!).

Leaving Church Is Anti-Christian

Amish youth in Ohio

Church is not something you go to.

Church is something you are.

Now and then I meet a person who says they follow Jesus but they will have nothing to do with the church because they see the church as so messed up. So they leave.

Let's call this what it is: Heretical. Unloving. Hypocritical. Anti-Christian. Arrogant. Judgmental.

Jesus came to build his church, not leave it. 

Real Christianity is a community thing. It's the word "you" in the letters of Paul, which is nearly always plural.

If you see something wrong in your church community, then help it, for God's sake.

Real church forges Christlike character. This is part of how Jesus builds his church.

The main test of love is how you do community. How you live and get along with others. How you further the corporate movement. How you work together. How you serve one another. How you work to understand one another. How you disagree, yet still love (like a healthy marriage). "People will know you are my followers," said Jesus, "if you love one another." (John 13:35)

One another.

Think of all the "one anothers" in the New Testament. There are fifty-nine of them. (For example, here.) Fifty-nine exhortations to do loving things to the others in your Jesus-community. Leaving people is not one of them. Nowhere in Scripture does it say, "Love one another by getting mad at them and leaving them." When that happens the gates of Hades are prevailing.

That is spiritual immaturity. What biblical ignorance to view church leaving as an option. And, since you, as a Jesus-follower, are the church, how irrational to think of leaving yourself.

New Testament scholar Scot McKnight writes that

• "Everything I learned about the Christian life I learned from my church."
• "A local church determines what the Christian life looks like for the people in that church."
• "We all learn the Christian life from how our local church shapes us."
• "These three principles are a way of saying that local churches matter far more than we often know."
• McKnight, A Fellowship of Differents: Showing the World God's Design for Life Together, p. 12

***
Yes, some individual churches are toxic. Some pastors and Christian leaders are controlling and abusive. Have nothing to do with them. Find an imperfect church where an imperfect person like yourself can serve and grow.