Preface: Building from the First Bridge
This essay builds upon the ideas introduced in my earlier post, Navigating Identity, Family, and Belonging: A Secular Perspective on Reconciliation with Evangelical Loved Ones. In that piece, I explored the emotional and communicative strategies that LGBTQ+ individuals may use to maintain relationships with family members whose faith frameworks often marginalize them. It was a broad reflection, grounded in empathy, strategy, and hope.
But this essay goes deeper. More personal. It reflects not just a philosophical exploration, but a lived one—my own. Here, I turn my lens toward my extended family, who lead a global Evangelical ministry that excels at connection across cultures but falters in connection at home.
The paradox I confront is one many know intimately: how can people who preach unconditional love set conditions on their kin? What happens when you are both part of the story and excluded from its blessings?
This isn’t a story of bitterness. It’s a story of clarity, curiosity, and—above all else—the enduring effort to understand.
My Motivation: Why I Keep Trying
Before diving into the essay, it’s worth asking: Why do I keep trying to connect with relatives who frame their love through doctrine? Why continue these conversations with my aunt Vera, my cousin Maxim, and others when so often they result in silence or sorrow?
The answer is layered. At times, I wonder if I’m clinging to a hope that has long since expired. But reflection has shown me something more.
Part of me seeks recognition—not agreement, but acknowledgment. The desire for kin to see my life as whole, not broken. I long for the people who raised me, shaped me, and shared stories with me to look into my life and see not a project to fix, but a person to know.
I also write because I want to reclaim the narrative. To name what was once unnamed. To document the subtle erasures and overt exclusions that theological language can mask. And to witness—to tell the truth not only for myself but for others caught in similar contradictions.
There is also, admittedly, a yearning to understand: How can such successful communicators fail so profoundly in empathy when it comes to someone like me? What does that reveal not just about them, but about the structure they serve?
And finally, I write because the story is not over. I am still here. Still family. Still reaching.
Postscript to Earlier Blog Readers
If you arrived here after reading Navigating Identity, Family, and Belonging, thank you. That post laid the groundwork for this one, but here I shift from broad strategy to personal narrative. What follows is not only a critique of communication tactics within evangelical circles, but a reflection on how those tactics fracture in the face of lived difference—especially when that difference lives inside the family. I invite you to read with curiosity, with empathy, and perhaps with the same questions I’m asking.
A Conversation with Vera: Theology as Boundary, Not Bridge
After one particularly strained visit, I sent this message to my aunt Vera and uncle Aleksey:
“Тётушка, привет! Лариса написала телефон. Буду искать общения с Патриком. Спасибо! Хочу ответить на наш недавний разговор. Да, мы по-разному видим мир. Ты говоришь о грехе и очищении — я тебя слышу и понимаю. Знаю, что за твоими словами стоит вера и искреннее желание помочь, даже если мне это трудно принять. Я много лет размышлял — не в бунте, но в честности с собой. И в глубине этой тишины понял: я вовсе не сломлен, не одержим, не обманут. Люблю искренне: тебя, дядю Лёшу, свою семью.”
This message wasn’t about reconciliation. It was about recognition. I didn’t ask her to change; I asked her to see. To witness who I am without interpreting it through sin or deliverance.
Her silence was louder than any response.
The pattern became clear: love is promised, but always in the future. In the meantime, silence is used to keep boundaries intact without confrontation. It is a spiritual cold war—no weapons, just withdrawal. Their love is preserved rhetorically, even as it is withheld relationally.
Structuring a Long-Form Analysis: Beyond My Story
This essay functions on two levels. One is personal: documenting the pain and contradiction of seeking relationship in a family shaped by totalizing belief. The other is structural: analyzing how Evangelical ministries weaponize empathy and media fluency to preach love, while drawing strict theological lines that erase real people.
In doing so, I aim to:
- Analyze theological rhetoric vs. real-world impact
- Expose patterns of spiritual control masked as love
- Connect personal experience to broader evangelical trends
- Offer a case study from the inside—from someone whose bloodline runs through the same pulpit
This is not just a letter to my family. It is a lens. Through it, I examine the machinery of modern Evangelical communication—not as an outsider, but as a relative standing just outside the frame.
Final Thoughts: The Pivot and the Lens
I no longer write in search of belonging. That longing, once so sharp, has softened into something more durable: a commitment to truth.
I write to tell what is true for me, even if it unsettles those who raised the platform I once stood on. I write not to dismantle their ministry, but to hold it accountable to the very principles it claims to embody: connection, compassion, truth, and love.
This is my pivot. From petition to perspective. From silence to witness. From the child at the threshold to the adult holding the lens.
And I will keep writing.
Even if the bridge only stands on one side.
Mikhail Oparin 
One Reply to “”