When faith is used to harm

The short answer

Jesus and the Bible have been invoked to justify domination, conceal abuse and turn neighbours into enemies. An honest inquiry must face that history. It must also distinguish an interpretation we disagree with from a practice that threatens, exploits or dehumanises people. Calling something “biblical” does not settle whether it is faithful, reasonable or just.

Jesus’ teachings offer resources for challenging religious wrongdoing: love of enemies, care for vulnerable people, truthful speech and leadership expressed through service. Yet it is not enough to rescue Christianity’s reputation by declaring every offender a counterfeit Christian. Churches, teachings and systems must be examined too. Misuse neither proves nor disproves every Christian claim; it does create a responsibility to tell the truth and prevent further harm.

Go a little deeper

A real quotation can carry a false conclusion

Imagine a leader saying: “If you question me, you are questioning God.” The crucial move has already happened. One person’s judgment has been given divine protection. Questions become disobedience; evidence becomes an attack; loyalty becomes silence. That is an illustrative warning sign, not a quotation from a particular church.

Matthew’s temptation narrative makes a related point. The tempter cites Psalm 91 while urging Jesus to throw himself from the temple. Jesus rejects the proposed action despite the scriptural quotation (Matthew 4:5-7). Within the story, knowing a verse does not guarantee using it well.

Three different problems deserve different responses:

Misunderstanding: a reader misses context, genre, translation or historical setting. Better reading can help.
Disagreement: readers understand the relevant evidence but interpret it differently. Explain the competing reasons.
Weaponisation: religious authority is used to threaten, exploit, silence or excuse harm. Interpretation must be accompanied by accountability.

These categories can overlap. Harm can be done by sincerely convinced people as well as deliberate deceivers. Sincerity matters to understanding a person; it does not make an action safe.

Name the harm, then examine the record

Four documented examples keep this discussion grounded:

Slavery and racism

The Southern Baptist Convention’s 1995 resolution acknowledged that slavery helped shape its formation and that racism marked its history. This is an institution confronting its own past, not merely an accusation from an opponent. Read the source (opens in a new tab) ↗

Scripture was also used to resist slavery. But listing courageous Christians does not cancel the responsibility of Christian enslavers. Freedom resulted from the work and resistance of many people, including enslaved people themselves. The moral question cannot be settled by counting only a tradition’s admirable members.

Canada’s residential schools

The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation documents a system involving government and churches that separated Indigenous children from families and cultures. Survivors described abuse, punishment for speaking their languages and failures of accountability. Religious intent did not make those actions benevolent. Listening to Survivors is part of assessing what institutions actually did. Read the source (opens in a new tab) ↗

Protection of institutions over children

Australia’s Royal Commission documented failures across religious institutions, including responses shaped by reputation, misplaced trust in leaders and inadequate accountability. Its findings concern organisational practices as well as individual offenders. A theology of forgiveness cannot substitute for protecting children and investigating abuse. Read the source (opens in a new tab) ↗

Collective blame against Jewish people

Jesus was Jewish, as were his earliest followers. Turning the passion narratives into blame against Jewish people across generations is an indefensible leap. The Catholic declaration Nostra aetate, section 4, explicitly rejects collective Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ death and condemns antisemitism. This is a significant corrective, not a reason to forget earlier Christian hostility. Read the source (opens in a new tab) ↗

The Crusades and inquisitions also deserve careful historical treatment. Each involved particular institutions, actors and circumstances. A list of atrocities is no substitute for that work, just as a list of charities cannot erase it.

Read what surrounds the verse

“Do not judge” is not a ban on accountability. Matthew 7 challenges hypocritical judgment, then tells readers to recognise false prophets by their fruit. Read the whole movement of the chapter (Matthew 7:1-5; Matthew 7:15-20). Refusing to examine a leader’s conduct can contradict the very passage being used to demand silence.

Forgiveness is not the same as restored trust. Forgiveness, reconciliation and accountability answer different questions. A person can renounce revenge while maintaining distance and seeking justice. Reconciliation involves a relationship; it cannot reasonably be demanded from one person while the other continues the harm. This is our ethical application, not a claim that a single verse supplies a complete safeguarding policy.

Submission is not permission to abuse. Ephesians 5:21–33 (opens in a new tab) includes mutual submission and a demand for husbands’ self-giving love, alongside language about wives’ submission that Christians interpret differently. Those disagreements should be stated honestly. No reading excuses coercion or makes another person responsible for enduring violence.

The “sword” saying needs its immediate context. In Matthew 10:34-39, Jesus describes divisions within households caused by allegiance to him. Reading that as permission to attack religious opponents ignores the passage’s subject and conflicts with his instruction to love enemies (Matthew 5:43-48). Strong imagery is not a licence for violence.

Giving is not a purchase of guaranteed success. The Gospels call for generosity and warn about wealth. They also portray faithful people suffering. A promise that a donation will guarantee healing or financial return needs evidence; attaching a verse does not supply it. Compare Luke 12:13-21, Mark 10:21-27 and John 16:33.

Service is a test of leadership. In Mark 10:42-45, Jesus contrasts domination with service. A leader who demands sacrifice from everyone else while remaining above correction should be measured against that standard. The standard applies to us too.

Some problems are in the text, not just its misuse

We should not pretend that every troubling passage becomes harmless once someone says “context.” Leviticus 25:44–46 (opens in a new tab) permits the holding of foreign slaves. Deuteronomy 20:16–18 (opens in a new tab) presents commands for destruction in war. Ephesians 6:5–9 (opens in a new tab) addresses enslaved people and masters within slavery rather than directly abolishing the institution. These are serious moral difficulties.

Christian responses differ. Some read such texts as concessions within a developing revelation that reaches its centre in Jesus. Some emphasise historical setting, ancient rhetoric or the particular covenant involved. Others argue that the texts preserve morally limited human understandings of God and require explicit ethical criticism. These approaches carry different views of biblical authority. None should be presented as a universally agreed solution.

The Hebrew Bible itself also contains powerful demands for justice, mercy and care for outsiders. Jesus draws on Israel’s scriptures when teaching love of God and neighbour (Mark 12:28-34). A contrast between an allegedly cruel “Jewish God” and a loving Jesus misrepresents that relationship and can feed prejudice.

Reading through Jesus can be a coherent Christian commitment. It should be explained as an interpretive commitment, then applied consistently. A reader remains entitled to ask whether it satisfactorily answers a difficult passage.

Five questions worth asking any religious authority

What does the passage actually say? Read the paragraph, identify the speaker and check whether this is a command, a description, poetry or an argument.
How was the conclusion reached? Ask what steps connect the ancient text to the instruction being given today.
Who benefits, and who bears the cost? Benefits do not automatically disprove a claim, but concentrated power or hidden money deserves scrutiny.
Can the claim be questioned safely? Look for independent oversight, transparent decisions and a real way to challenge wrongdoing.
What happens to the person who is hurt? Protection, truthful investigation and practical repair matter more than preserving appearances.

For someone harmed by religion, this inquiry asks for no hurried return to a community and no public performance of forgiveness. Seeking independent support and maintaining boundaries are compatible with taking moral questions seriously.

The question is not only, “Can this person quote Jesus?” It is also, “What happens to people when this interpretation is put into practice?”

Good outcomes do not establish every doctrine, either. A harmful practice can discredit a leader’s claim to moral authority or expose a destructive interpretation. It does not, by itself, resolve whether God exists or whether Jesus rose. Conversely, a belief’s possible truth does not excuse the harm done in its name. We owe both questions an honest answer.

Sources & further reading

Scripture links open the passage or its chapter. Research links identify the underlying studies; historical and theological interpretations are distinguished in the article. The summaries are editorial explanations, not quotations from the researchers.

Research and source checks: October 2026. These articles develop the revised questions supplied for The Jesus Inquiry. No specialist peer review is claimed.