MRC_Hans said:
I'd like to amend my advice about being nice: Be nice if you want to avoid trouble. If you feel more like being nasty, however: Go for it!
Ruby: you have every right to be angry, and to express that anger. If this were a movie and there were a scene with you telling this person off in strong colorful language, I'd be mentally cheering right along with the rest of the audience.
However, this being real life, I think Hans' original advice still has a lot of merit. A reason to avoid being nasty to this person, if you can, is for the sake of the other people still in his clutches.
If you respond to him harshly, he will be able to take your words and offer them to those who have not escaped him as "proof" that you are an angry, spiteful, bad person -- someone they should avoid and pay no attention to. Remember how he was able to attack you from the pulpit
even when you were still there? Imagine the performance he can put on, reading from your letter or "quoting" what you've said aloud, when you're not there.
You can't stop him from lying, but you can avoid giving him ammunition. If he makes speeches about all the vile, hateful things he claims you've said, but everyone who has had contact with you since your departure from the church knows you have said nothing ill-mannered, it may be easier for them to reach the same truth that you've discovered -- it's
him, not you, that has the problem, and it's
him, not you, they need to cut out of their lives.
If you can be strong that way, you may be doing some of them a great service.
Being civil does not mean being silent. By all means, speak out
strongly and
plainly about what has happened and why to any of your friends who will listen. But I believe they are more likely to want to listen, and to be able to hear, if nastiness is not part of your message.