When I sat down with Ruslan KD, things got tense. We tackled NDAs, sermon plagiarism, spiritual abuse, and the messy truth behind deconstruction. We didn’t always agree, but we didn’t hold back either.This is a conversation every christian should here, especially church leaders!Find out more about the Spiritual Abuse Institute and the Church Disrupted Podcast at https://www.spiritualabuse.institute/.Want to support SAI financially?https://donorbox.org/sai-initial-funding-campaignJoin the church disrupted COMMUNITY here: https://discord.gg/nbWwg8Sz6ZLearn more about the Safe Church Pledge Here: https://www.spiritualabuse.institute/safechurchpledgeCheck out our Awareness Apparel HERE: https://church-disrupted.sellfy.storePlease Subscribe and Share!

CHAPTERS:00:00 Introduction to a Controversial Church Convo01:53 Why This Conversation Happened03:19 Ruslan's weighs in09:17 Ruslan's Reaction to Dr. Michael Brown16:46 Too Charitable OR Too Critical?24:54 Sin is Sin?31:34 NDAs in Churches44:46 Power Dynamics47:27 Legal and Ethical Questions50:47 Real Church NDAs57:23 Non-Disparagement vs. Defamation01:06:17 A Better Approach to NDAs01:11:13 Legal Loopholes and NDAs in Churches01:16:19 SAI's Perspective01:20:58 Deconstruction - Good or Bad?01:27:13 Reconstruction and Faith Journeys01:37:58 Responding to Deconstruction01:43:48 Church Trends01:50:47 Celebrity Conversions and Faith Journeys01:53:33 Reasons for Deconstruction?01:56:17 Extreme Swings02:02:19 To the hurting02:15:30 Final Thoughts and Encouragement
Fair Use Disclaimer:This video may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. All clips used are protected by the Fair Use Doctrine within Title 17 of the United States Code. This doctrine safeguards the use of copyrighted material for transformative purposes, such as commentary, criticism, review and news reporting. Under Title 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), any person who makes a false, bad faith, or misleading copyright claim or uses a copyright takedown to infringe on free speech, criticism, or commentary can be held liable for damages to the content creator.Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).