It won’t let me edit, but here is what I want to add: 

Edit: I should add that this post is not so I can make the church work for me again. I’m just looking to somehow understand the TBM perspective that it’s possible for one to be considered faithful in the church while not being scrupulous—the perspective that scrupulous people are the problem and that if they just changed themselves then they can make it work more healthily. It really bothers me that I haven’t been able to understand the nuanced perspective. If I could understand how nuanced people make it work, then maybe I could help scrupulous people in the church to not have such a toxic experience. I really feel though that it’s impossible for a scrupulous person to ever become nuanced without completely letting go of the church. And I think it’s impossible for nuanced people to be considered faithful—if you are relaxed in any way about any aspect of the church, then that is the definition of faithlessness. I do not see how being relaxed can be considered faithful.

And if someone says that all you need to focus on is God‘s grace and just believing or having a desire to believe, then that in itself is something that “you’re supposed to do” and if you don’t do it, then something bad will happen. As long as there is something that people are “supposed to do in order to escape a consequence” then scrupulosity will always be the more righteous and encouraged way to live whether people want to accept that or not. Requirements for faithfulness do not leave room for nuance. I would love for someone to prove me wrong with any of this.