Recently, the Netflix documentary 'I am God' has received great social attention, and due to the program, debates on the reality of pseudo- religions are emerging. The episode related to the Christian Gospel Mission (JMS), which focused on the religious leader's allegations of sexual violence against female believers, was particularly controversial. However, regardless of the program's social impact, the provocative and sensational portrayals and reenactments in the program are receiving a lot of criticism. But should we look at this unpleasant description only negatively?

In the episodes about JMS, there were naked bathing scenes of female believers, recordings of conversations at the scene of sexual assault, and detailed descriptions of the sexual assault process. Some viewers expressed their opinion that there were many unnecessary sensational scenes, and that there was no protection and consideration for the victims. It has also been pointed out that this documentary does not give an answer to the question of how pseudo-religions are propagated and what the social structural problems are that allow such religions to remain implicitly tolerated.

I believe that this program and its production crew cannot be criticized unconditionally. In the end, it is because the provocative descriptions and delivery of the facts of the damage brought public attention and quickly spread awareness of the problem. The attitude of consuming only stimulating things with the context removed does not fulfill the social responsibility of citizens to make society a better place. It would be best to get public attention by excluding actual scenes as much as possible and focusing more on structural problems, but the producers’ purpose of the program, with the consent of the victims to eradicate this deep-rooted problem, should not be criticized.

The facts covered in this documentary could not be more shocking. Contrary to the expectation that pseudo-religions would intensively target minorities, or the social underprivileged, JMS believers are spread evenly among high-ranking members of society, including celebrities, people from prestigious universities, and doctors.
In order to break this vicious cycle, it is most important to focus on the facts themselves, and make structural improvements so that it does not repeat, rather than throwing stones at the production crew who have conducted long and difficult interviews. Concluding this article, I pay my respects to all the journalists who are struggling between conveying the facts and embracing the pain of the victims.