Skip to content

More Presbyterian “Rev” John Shuck: Why He’s Not Saved & Why He’s a Minister Anyway

January 25, 2011

I recently wrote a piece on Clergy Letter signer and Evolution Sunday celebrant, “Rev” John Shuck in which I examined many of the statements off his website. Not content to misrepresent him, I went over to his website and asked him directly whether he realized that there was a link between affirmation of evolution and a loss of faith. Recalling an email conversation with atheist Dr Michael Zimmerman wherein I asked him if the signers of his pro-evolution Clergy Letter could even affirm basic Christian beliefs, I also asked him whether he could affirm the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Shuck’s response revealed that that there is [at least] one Clergy Letter signature that confirms my worst suspicions regarding the type of “clergy” which might sign Zimmerman’s letter and actually celebrate evolution from our pulpits with a special service:

revTony: Are you completely unaware that evolution leads to apostasy? Or are you suffering from the whole frog in a kettle syndrome?

Let me ask you a direct question, “Clergy” Letter signer: Do you believe in the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Rev Tony Breeden

John Shuck: Are you completely unaware that evolution leads to apostasy?


Or are you suffering from the whole frog in a kettle syndrome?

Ummm. Ribbit?

Do you believe in the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?


Have a nice Darwinmas!”

revTony: “John Shuck,

If what your response to my comments were honest, you’re ordination and office are a farce, for you are not even a Christian if you do not affirm the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ [per Romans 10:9].

Your own evident lack of faith in core Christian beliefs is symptomatic of the link between faith in evolution and religious unbelief. Might I suggest you read Already Gone by Ken Ham & Britt Beemer? I know you have no love for Mr Ham, but unless you are prepared to arbitrarily accuse him of lying, the statistics he presents in this book should convince all but the most heretical liberal of the link between evolution and loss of faith.

Rev Tony Breeden”

John Shuck: “@Tony

Ho hum.

the link between evolution and loss of faith

Science has a way of undoing superstition. May the loss of “faith” continue!”

revTony: “”Rev” Shuck,

Your glib attitude toward the fate of men’s souls is unbeffitting a true minister of the Gospel. You do realize that when I speak of loss of faith that I am in no way refering to a loss of superstitious belief. Rather I am talking about people abandoning all Christian belief and going to an eternal hell!

If that doesn’t bother you [and it should since that is your destination is you don’t get saved, friend], you’ve no business pretending you care at all about the flock you illegitimately tend.

For the record, I do not deny science; merely the erroneous evolutionary interpretations of some of that science. To conflate science and evolution is to commit the logical fallacy of equivocation. Would that your commitment to reason and the Cross matched your devotion to evolution and leftist political agendas! Clearly you’re nothing more than a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

How can you escape the damnation of hell?

Rev Tony Breeden”

John Shuck:I am in no way refering to a loss of superstitious belief. Rather I am talking about people abandoning all Christian belief and going to an eternal hell!

And that’s not superstition?

Well you have been a barrel of laughs. I am pleased you commented here. It is always good to be reminded with whom we are dealing.

You can move along now.

You know, Tony, it is polite that when you do a post on someone to at least let them know?

Ah well, carry on…

revTony: “It is polite but not mandatory. Nevertheless I included a link to my site in every post so that you would have the opportunity to see exactly who you were dealing with before you responded to me. Frankly, given the rather flippant tone of some of your responses, I was under the impression that you had already seen the post in question.

You’re everything I expected when I asked Dr Zimmerman a year or so ago whether any of his alleged clergy on his Clergy Letter could actually affirm basic Christian beliefs. You cannot and you are even proud of your unbelief.

Unfortunately for Zimmerman you serve as a prime example of why his Clergy Letter is simply crap. Rather than being Christians from many different traditions, those who’ve signed their names appear to be liberals who’ve long ago abandoned Christianity in all but name. Worse still, if they cannot affirm the bodily resurrection of our Lord, they’re unsaved and headed for hell… like you.

Yet you seem completely unconcerned about your own eternal salvation.

I pray God grants you repentance.

Rev Tony Breeden”

John Shuck: “Your god doesn’t exist, my friend, nor does his hell. So I am not afraid for my “eternal salvation.” I do pity you for believing outrageous fairy tales and cruel ones at that. I hope you will repent as well and stop spreading fear and ignorance.

revTony: Waitaminute!

Are you actually stating that you don’t believe that people need to be saved? That there is no heaven or hell? That Jesus died for nothing of eternal consequence?

Why did you become a minister if not to preach the Gospel? Does the PCUSA know you have these beliefs and convictions [or lack thereof]??

Of course, he didn’t reply to my last question. Instead, he decided to ban me from his site for “emotional abuse.” [It appears he can dish it out but…]

I did a little bit of further digging, trying to ascertain why exactly he remained a minister since he does not ascribe to the faith. Surely his integrity [yes, unbelievers are sometimes afflicted with this trait as well as Christians] would force him to resign, right?

What I discovered is that John Shuck is a militant liberal who hopes to subvert the church. He’s not saved and he’s only in the Presbyterian denomination to undermine their efforts. So why hasn’t he been  removed  or censured by his presbytery [Holston Presbytery], who simply respond to each protest of outrage by saying that Shuck “is a minister in good standing??” Since Shuck is a member of the leadership of his presbytery, why haven’t those higher up within the denomination taken that presbytery to task for protecting him and allowing him to continue to preach blasphemy and undisguised heresy? Would they allow a Wiccan in their pulpits? A Satanist? What other devils do they call “ministers in good standing?” You would not be judged in this matter if you judged yourselves.

First, let me underscore an important point. He’s not saved. One of the requirements of saving faith is a belief in your heart that God raised Christ from the dead [Romans 10:9; I Corinthians 15:12-18]. Another requirement is a belief in a supernatural God. He’s unrepentant and mocking of the faith.

Commenting on Roy Hoover’s essay in the Fourth R, Tradition and Faith In a New Era [wherein Hoover laments: “Those who insist upon the unaltered retention of traditional forms of religious understanding and language and who retreat from the challenge posed by the actual world after Galileo want to direct the Christian community into the confines of a sacred grotto, an enclosed, religiously defined world that is brought completely under the control of scripture and tradition; and they want to turn the ordained clergy into antiquities dealers.”], Shuck declares in an Easter 2010 post called “A Church Without God”:

“Don’t let them. Don’t give up without a fight.

We are facing huge changes. Our universe is 13.7 billion years old as of the latest tally. Human beings have evolved as has every species on this beautiful blue ball. We were not placed in any garden by any divine being. No god/man came to Earth, walked on water, rose from the dead and sits on a heavenly throne. That is religious fiction. It is metaphor, story, myth, human invention. It is how our ancestors tried to find meaning. Bless their hearts.

As we are in a period of transition we will wrestle with our inherited language. For some, the term “God” will have meaning. For others it will not. Religion is moving away from its supernaturalistic roots. “God” will be redefined accordingly. We are in the process of redefining meaning. “

No one with these views on God or Jesus could ever be considered anything but a rank unbeliever! Why does the PCUSA allow this wolf to remain over one of their flocks? [And, yes, those above him must give an account before God for why they allow Shuck to remain without so much as a rebuke.]

I think the Presbyterian Church USA is a little concerned that they’ll make a martyr of him if they remove him from his pulpit. He’s ceratinly itching for a fight:

“It could and likely will get ugly. Those who cling to their superstitions will be ruthless. There will be inquisitions. There will be heresy trials…. My advice for clergy and for laypeople who are growing out of a childish supernaturalistic past is to stand your ground. Don’t let them set the terms or the rules. Don’t resign.”

But those above him need to remember Jesus’ warning that a little leaven leavens the whole lump. His congregation beleives he represents a more authentic Christianity. Will they wait until rank unbelievers supplant the faithful? Frogs in a kettle!

I pray the Presbyterian Church finds its boldness and reaffirms its commitment to holiness to the Lord by ousting this wolf from the flock of God.

I also pray that people will remember that those who affirm the Clergy Letter, by and large are unbelievers like John Shuck: hypocrites with a subversive agenda. So when Zimmerman or other evolution enforcement advocates try to use the Clergy Letter to try to convince school boards that there is no conflict between authentic Christianity and evolution, remember that his entire project is a scam. He doesn’t care whether these guys really believe the basics of the Christian faith. Zimmerman is an atheist who only cares that his signators profess some allegiance to Christianity – Since he only wants to use it as a weapon to force the exclusive teaching of evolution is schools by attempting to negate the argument that evolution leads to loss of faith, he doesn’t care whether any of the signatures are from real Christians so long as he can give other people the impression that they are.

Don’t buy it. The truth is that kids who are indoctrinated in an uncritical, rosy view of evolution as scientific truth mostly go on to reject religious truth wholesale. As I mentioned in my last post, Shuck admits that his loss of faith was influenced by the evolutionary propaganda he swallowed in school: “As a kid I was bugged by this end of time idea, as well as evolution. It didn’t coincide with what I was learning in science and history classes, and I decided that this religion is not working well.” And just look where he is today?

Arm yourselves with the truth.

More information is available here: Ex-Christians: The Evolution Factor and in Ken Ham’s excellent book, Already Gone: Why Your Kids Will Quit Church & What You Can Do About It!

And may I suggest that instea dof celebrating an Evolution Sunday this year, celebrate a Creation Sunday this Feb 13, 2010 instead. You can view and add a Creation Sunday event in your area at

14 Comments leave one →
  1. vel permalink
    January 25, 2011 9:32 pm

    You say “arm yourselves with the truth”.

    There’s at least some sort of evidence, some sort of history, to justify an evolutionary standpoint. Is this heresy or common sense?

    Or are we just supposed to blindly march off with nothing to justify our faith? Why not accept something for which there’s evidence? Why discount what’s right in front of your eyes?

    It seems like you’re more concerned with attacking Rev. Shuck (OBVIOUSLY a very Christian thing to do), and skipping other key points – such as that evolution isn’t incompatible with the existence of a god. Why couldn’t evolution have been set in motion by a divine power? This post seems marvelously narrow-minded.

  2. January 25, 2011 10:50 pm


    I do say to arm yourselves with the truth. And the truth is that evolutionists and creatiuonists do not have separate piles of evidence. We have exactly the same evidence, but we have different interpretations of that evidence. We generally interpret that evidence and construct our histories according to our presuppositions. The cornerstone of any presupposition [and we all have them] is what we hold our ultimate authority to be. For more information on how the Creationist interpretation better fits the universe we observe, see How Did We Get Here?

    Which is to say that in asking whether it’s heresy or common sense for a minister to accept evolution, you’re begging the question of whether evolution is true; frankly, that’s the issue at hand. Now that’s not to say we are to blindly march off with nothing to justify our faith. As noted, we have our own interpretations of the evidence. Pascal noted that we have been given too little evidence to be certain, but too much to ignore. Christianity is a reasonable faith; the faith versus reason straw man has ever been a false dichotomy.

    As to the charge of attacking “Rev” Shuck, I should mention that rebuking and exposing a false teacher like Shuck is actually commanded in the Bible. Jesus himself had strong words for hypocrites in his day and a man who does not believe a word of Christianity who only remains a “Christian” minister in which to undermine it from within is a hypocrite of the very worst sort. I would caution you against having your concept of right Christian action defined by popular culture than by Christendom’s Sourcebook, the Bible. I think you’re idea of a Christian is too tame, too nice, too polite and civilzed; Jesus himself would be condemned by this false stained-glass Sunday School version of Christianity.

    On any case, “Rev” Shuck has admitted he fails a requirement of saving faith, so he is merely an unbeliever illegitimately occupying a pulpit.

    As to whether God used evolution, what sort of God? Evolution might not be incompatible with some concepts of God; for example, an impersonal First Cause such as the one you allude to. Yet that’s hardly the God revealed in Scripture, is it? The Genesis record reveals a God who spoke everything into existence in six days and created all living things after their kind [and we observe this in nature: that a dog is still a dog whether a wolf, English bulldog or weiner dog] and that death and suffering are the results of man’s sin. Evolution is an unguided, impersonal process of death, mutation and suffering wherein one kind of animal successively resulted in new kinds of animals and eventually resulted in man. Beside that point, evolution does away with a literal Adam and Eve which does away with a literal Fall for which a literal Savior would be needed at all. So you see evolution is particularly incompatible with the existence of the Christian God as revealed in Scripture. Good thing the evidence can better be interpreted via the Creationist worldview, eh?

    As to the last charge, of narrowmindedness… Are you saying you’re openminded to the possibility that Biblical Creationism is acceptable?

  3. vel permalink
    January 27, 2011 12:01 am

    Sorry about the delayed response. I don’t have email notifications on, and didn’t refresh the page until today.

    You bring up Pascal. While we’re on the subject of Pascal, can we discuss his famous Wager? There are so many “gods” in the world, who’s to say which one is the right one – and wouldn’t the right one be more pissed off if you were worshiping the wrong one rather than not worshiping any at all?

    You’re taking the Bible as holy writ – using an unproven document as evidence. Please don’t do that; it makes me cry a little bit. Historically, the Bible is much more a compilation of stories, an oral history eventually written down. At the very least there has been a lot lost in translation, or even modified during the oral history. What we have now is not a document that should be taken at its word – especially since councils of MAN have picked through it, revised, edited, cut, left out books (extra gospels being the most notable among those) . A lot of people read the “7 days” as being metaphorical at most (I won’t cite sources, I’m sure you’ve read them already), why not take that into consideration when we talk about creationism?

    No, Rev. Breeden, at the moment I don’t have much of a reason to look at biblical Creationism. There’s no solid evidence to back it up. Are you saying God put fossils in the ground just to confuse us, or that carbon dating is a lie – or is there perhaps another explanation here?

    Apologies for the brevity of this response. Haven’t had a lot of time on my hands recently.

  4. Peter permalink
    February 1, 2011 7:38 pm

    You seem quite sure of your opinions. I wonder if your biblical interpretation is always so literal. Do you eat kosher? Do you keep the Sabbath? Do you stone the disobedient son? Do the women in your church always wear hats? Do you pluck out your eye, rather than be led into sin?

    Biblical Creationism is not a science, since it starts with a conclusion and then attempts (poorly) do shape the evidence to fit the conclusion. It is a superstition based mental game.

    Perhaps you should take the log out of your own eye, rather than be concerned with any slivers in the eye of Rev. Shuck.

  5. February 2, 2011 11:25 am


    As for why the Creator must be the Biblical God, I’ve answered this before:

    As for my taking the Bible as holy writ or supernatural revelation, of course I am. I am boasting that the Bible is the ultimate authority and that it’s the supernatural revelation of an omnipotent God who preserved it through history. Men didn’t pick and choose what went into the Bible – they simply recognized it for what it was and rejected Gnostic heresies [your false “gospels”].

    To say there’s no solid evidence for biblical Creationism is to misunderstand the origins debate entirely. Facts do not interpret themselves; they must be interpreted. Creationists and evolutionists have the same body of evidence but differing interpretations of that evidence based on what we hold our ultimate authority to be. As a Christian, I must unapologetically declare that we ough to trust the revealed Word of a perfect, infallible God who was there and never lies rather than the grasping, ever-changing word of fallible, finite men who were’nt there, don’t know everything and often lie [eg. Haeckel’s embryos, Piltdown Man and Holocaust deniers]. See for more on why the biblical Creationist worldview is a better fit for the universe we observe!

    I’m not saying God put fossils in the ground to confuse us. The Bible says there was a worldwide Flood in the days of Noah. If there really was a worldwide flood we should expect to see, as Ken ham puts it, billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. See for more evidence from geology.

    As for carbon dating and radiometric dating for that matter, it’s based on assumptions. We assume that we know the original parent/daughter ration, that the rate of decay has remained constant and that we’re dealing with a closed system. Rocks dated from volcanoes we know to be less than 100 years old often show dates of hundreds of thousands of years by these dating methods. Clearly these methods aren’t infallible and need to be calibrated. Perhaps there is a better explanation here: perhaps the Bible really is true!

  6. February 3, 2011 12:16 am

    Peter Gabel,

    I AM quite sure of my opinion. I’ve noted on more than one occasion that anyone who comes out of an argument with me still convinced of their own opinion… simply wasn’t listening. I came about my opinions by critical searching. Yes, I was raised in this worldview, but I then rejected it and accepted its polar opposite for nearly a decade before coming back to the faith of my youth. Like G K Chesterton, I really did set out to create a heresy all my own, and when I had put the finishing touches to it, I found it was orthodoxy! More on my journey can be read at:

    I quite object to the hyperliteralism straw man. Biblical literalists do take into account normal usage of speech, context, round numbers and even cultural contexts. It’s amazing how many folks pull out that chestnut and suppose they’ve really got us. For more on the inerrancy of the Bible, see:

    Now you state that Biblical Creationism isn’t science because it starts with a conclusion and then goes on interpret the evidence in accordance with this conclusion; evolutionists do the same thing. Evolutionists start with two presuppositions: [1] methodological naturalism, which excludes the possibility of God’s agency from all consideration [more on why it’s a mistake to equate science with pure naturalism can be found here: ] and [2] that vertical microbes-to-man evolution is a fact of history [more on the assumption of unobservable goo-to-you evolution can be found here: ]. Every scientific interpretation of facts must affirm these two presupposed conclusions in order to be considered vaild per the evolutionist. When you criticize Biblical Creationism for this, you’re being inconsistent since you do not hold evolution to the same standard. You see, you’re simply begging the question. [more on why the Biblical Creationist worldview is a better fit for the universe we observe can be found here: ]

    As for the lamentable “reverend” Shuck, he admits that he doesn’t believe a thing authentic Christians believe. He admits that he’s only remained a member of clergy because he wants to subvert his denomination from within. “Rev” Shuck, I am quite sad to say, is going to hell with all other liars. He is a wolf in the sheepfold and if the leadership of the Presbyterian Church had any integrity left [and I have seen the testimonies of a great many faithful ministers within the denomination he faithlessly holds office in who agree with me here] they would remove this unsaved sinner from the ministry he illegitimately holds.

    Rev Tony Breeden

  7. Mark King permalink
    May 3, 2011 11:12 am

    I just got to reading this. It’s interesting how God’s side is open to lengthy, reasonable debate; yet, the evolutionary “scientific” side tends to do one-liners and put-downs instead of responding with valid arguments (probably because they don’t have any).

    Without Christ there is no Christianity; there is only a self-help social club, which must be what Shuck’s church is. Unfortunately we’ve proven over the centuries that we can not help ourselves. It pains me that Shuck still has a church to pastor, while my congregation was stolen from me.

  8. Harold Stassen permalink
    June 5, 2012 1:26 pm

    Your church and Shuck’s are both crashing and burning. People don’t have time for fairy tales anymore, whether it’s Jesus on a dinosaur or Jesus as Che Guevara. It’s all nonsense; you’re both wasting your time; you both have delusions of relevance. If the rest of us, the rational community, could somehow lock you in a room and watch you yell at each other, it would be a great relief and source of entertainment.

  9. June 5, 2012 3:01 pm

    What makes you think we would yell at each other? Jesus commanded us not to waste our pearls of wisdom on those who will only trample them underfoot and then attack us personally. My guess is that Shuck and I would simply look for a way out.

    No one’s preaching Jesus on a dinosaur. That’s simply a cheap shot, a misrepresentation of what we believe that makes it easier for you to ignore the fact that the issue is really about the ultimate authority of the Bible. Unless you’re advocating pragmatism rather than absolute truth [aka Biblical truth], does it really matter if people don’t have time for something? It’s our job to make the best of the opportunities God gives us.

    I hope you get that chipo off your shoulder and actually make the effort to fully examine what it is you so vehemently object to.


  10. Rev. Adel Thalos permalink
    June 26, 2012 11:45 pm

    Just wanted to let you know that the PCUSA is apostate just as the Episcopal church and the United Methodist church in the USA, and other mainline denominations. Most have sold their souls to theological liberalism, which is merely humanism with a whitewash of Christian language. The worldview of most leaders in those denominations is closer to pantheism and forms of agnosticism.


  1. Tennessee’s Rev John Shuck’s Upcoming Evolution Sunday & What It Means: Portrait of a Pro-Evolution Clergy Letter Signer «
  2. Just the Facts – Concerning Rob Boston’s Defense of “rev” Barry Lynn’s Ark Snark Video |
  3. Give Me That Mountain! or Why Caleb Is One of My Favorite People In the Entire Bible «
  4. Creation Is Bad Theology? Answering A Misinformed Editorial at Indiana’s Journal Gazette «

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: