That one verse: 2 Thessalonians 3:10 and the worship of work

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good.

Before we get into how this verse has sent waves of distortion throughout Western society, we should first try to understand what Paul is getting at in his verses. He talks about the example that he and his fellow missionaries set when living with the Thessalonians. Even though they could have, by merit of being church officers, expected the church to provide them lodging and food, they decided, instead, that they would set an example for how members within a body of believers should behave. That is, to say, that they provided their own finances instead of burdening the local church. This part is well understood and has become a model for missionary support - that the missionaries seek their own sponsorship from home, or they find a job in an area and provide their own support, ministering on the side.

However, Paul, says, there are some who are financially abusing the church. He calls them undisciplined busybodies. I think a pretty good correlation to today's society is that the Thessalonian church had a bunch of "Kens" and "Karens" running around telling people how to live their lives, and expecting special treatment in the form of food and money. Somewhat like the Kens of the world who use some perceived slight to demand special treatment. Paul gives an interesting command that rings true today. Shut up and get a life! I bet it would be interesting to channel Paul when talking to the church micromanagers of today!

Paul was talking specifically about the church, though. The church was functioning somewhat like a communist society. The rich were selling property so that they could support people in the congregation, such as widows without families and people who were religiously persecuted. People who were in true need. The widows, some have suggested, took on diaconal ministry for the church, but they were primarily people with no ability to earn wages and no family to provide. As often happens, greed entered the picture and there were people who provided fake diaconal ministry (busybodies) and expected a free lunch (undisciplined).

Out of Context and out of proportion

This narrow command to address a problem in the early church of undisciplined busybodies taking advantage of church-based charity ends of taking on a life of its own and being used as a bludgeon to beat down all sorts of sensible practices. First, it is taken out of context - from the local church to a general principle of personal charity and societal structure. Then it is blown out of proportion. Instead of undisciplined busybodies, this is applied generally to all needy people everywhere.

When the context is expanded, there quickly become conflicts with other laws. For example, the Old Testament commands a charitable system that works in an agricultural system. In Deut. 24, God specifically commands a form of societal charity - limit your harvest so that the poor and disadvantaged can eat. Now that we aren't generally agricultural, Paul's argument wears new wings - work or starve. In other words, there is no longer a need for charity because charity in the Old Testament required people to work a harvest, therefore we can just tell poor people to "Get a job". There's no longer a need for any sort of state-managed system to combat poverty because we just tell everyone "work or starve". We may give when a hurricane hits or we may give when fire burns someone's house down, but something like structural poverty (remember Jesus said you will always have the poor with you?) doesn't need to be addressed.

Likewise Paul's argument is blown out of proportion. Here we have a few people who are taking advantage of the church for whom Paul recommends a specific form of discipline - essentially being freed to experience the consequences of their actions. Certainly in many cases, people develop poor discipline because they are protected from the consequences of their actions, but it is very Pharisaical thinking to say that all negative consequences are a result of negative actions. It was their rationale that said a man born blind was either himself a sinner or born of parents who sinned. Not some general concept of sin, like living in a broken world, but they did something so evil that God punished their child with blindness. Job's friends assumed that he had committed great sin and was being punished by God. This type of thinking persists in Evangelical thinking. The person who is begging on the street is assumed to be there because of some poor or evil decision. The man who is destitute because a medical issue wiped out his finances wasn't sufficiently frugal. So, we've turned "undisciplined busybodies" into a generalized accusation of all poor people. If only they tried harder (legalism), they would experience the blessing of God and better employment. I fell into this trap myself - trying to push people who were experiencing poverty to work harder or make themselves more marketable.

How does this get twisted in Reformed Christianity? Let's talk about some of the ways:
1. Individual charity - since our country is rich, we don't need to help people other than tell them to fix themselves. Maybe we can help people who don't work or give to a GoFundMe to help someone in dire straits, but for the most part if people just got off their butts and worked there would be no need for charity. Besides I pay my taxes, so that's all taken care of anyway, even though I only vote for candidates who want to lower my taxes and reduce any government payouts.
2. Church charity - if only our churches had enough people that we could give to the poor we could make progress. We barely have enough to make ends meet. For churches that have more, we really want to invest in ourselves first - maybe an associate pastor and a fellowship hall would be good. Once we feel comfortable then maybe we look outside the walls to help those in need.

Tying value to work

Another facet of this verse is the Evangelical focus on work - it comes in many forms from legalism (focusing on the works we must do to demonstrate our faithfulness), to vocation (a word that elevates our work to a religious necessity) and calling (similar to vocation, but expanding on the idea that God somehow has a unique purpose for our daily grind).

What is interesting is that Jesus's vocation was to preach the gospel. Not in the sense of today's pastor who gets paid to prepare a sermon each week, but more like a street preacher who maybe passes around a hat after he's done. He was a carpenter's son, but nothing is said about what he did before he was 30 years old. So, if his supposed job as a carpenter was a "calling" why do we hear nothing about that spiritual experience?

I'm not saying that work should be useless drudgery devoid of spirituality. My pastor comments often that people watched Brother Lawrence wash dishes "in the presence of the Lord". The emphasis, though, isn't on him being called to wash dishes, but that he learned to experience joy in the presence of God even doing something his fellow monks thought servile and perhaps pointless.

Maybe this idea came from contrast with the Catholic church. Priests take a vow of poverty, and maybe it seems so ridiculous that poverty is somehow spiritual (remember that many in the time of Jesus also associated poverty with a lack of blessing and thus sloth or some other sin) that Protestants decided that poverty is a sure sign of some moral failing.

I wonder how much of this is conflated. For example, consider a person who retires and within a year or two dies. Pastors love to say that the retiree forsook work and because work is so built into our DNA that the retiree lost their sense of worth and died. Is it that work is somehow core to our being, or is it, perhaps, that work is core to how others value us? Do we see retires as valuable, or are they just waiting out their days until they die?

When I say we worship work, that is what I mean. We as a society, and as a church, value people for their capability to contribute tangibly to something than their value as a human being. As a friend of mine says, "We are human beings, not human doings!" I've had to have that internal struggle with work. I want to be present with my family and with God, but it's difficult, to say the least, when my boss also expects me to be present in ways that make me have to choose between being a "good" worker, good father and good Christian. It's difficult to feel a tangible value as a family man and a church member when work writes my value on a paycheck each month. Work-based value is built in our society at many levels. Schools value children based on their intelligence and ability to output work. I know people who struggled with school who were told to "work harder". It's hard because we obviously want people to learn to the best of their ability, but when school is consuming 10 hours a day and a student is still sinking, maybe the solution isn't to spend 12, and maybe even striving for the 'A' isn't what is best for the person. I think it's easy for a person who is struggling with work to end up in a spiritual crisis, just like the retiree. 

That one verse: 1 Cor 11:27 and Session Controlled Communion

For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. (1 Cor. 11:27)

This verse is half of the basis of session-controlled communion. The other half is:

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. (Heb. 13:17)

Maybe the title should be "Hebrews 13:17 and session-controlled everything" because the Hebrews passage becomes, in the RP sessions' (and pretty much every session everywhere's) minds that they get to order every member around about everything, whether big or small. I would also say that for many elders, it gives them the permission to nitpick about everything with or without the consent of the session. I had an elder that put his own personal spin, e.g. "You're a hypocrite!" when he informed me of a session decision. If I had realized how much personal liberty he took implying that the session approved of his messaging, I might have brought him up on charges of insubordination. Since this isn't something peculiar to the RP church, I'll probably drop that for now.

Session-Controlled Communion is a RP / conservative NAPARC doctrine that "fences" the communion table from those who might take communion in an unworthy manner. We would expect church leaders to prohibit those who are under church discipline for unrepentant sin from taking communion, but RP elders take a more all-encompassing approach.

Fencing the table from visitors

Most RP churches refuse communion to anyone who isn't a member of an RP church. Practice varies. Elders in smaller churches will generally talk to a visitor to make sure they are in the club, and to inform them that they are not welcome to take communion. Some churches will announce that the table is fenced from those who have not "met with the session". I was in a church that would hold a brief, informal session meeting with visitors who wanted to take communion.

This was a source of never-ending comedy as maybe once every couple of years the elders would have to take action to physically bar a visitor from communion. I remember a homeless person walking in and grabbing a piece of bread as it passed by to the shock and horror of the elders, who then had to quickly coach members in that row to pass the plate away lest he get a teaspoon of wine, too. Or the time a visitor objected vocally to being refused. "I'm a Christian! How dare you!"

A couple of churches I've visited - in areas where I suspect it is a more common issue - give visitors a questionnaire to fill out if they want communion. It's a sort of self-fencing with some accountability, I guess.

Fencing the table from members of other churches

The practice I've seen for the most part is that NAPARC members are accepted with a brief (I'm a member at ... OPC) interview. That said, I've experienced some churches where NAPARC membership isn't good enough. These are the smaller churches who refuse communion to anyone who is not "known" to the session. If there is a person who attends regularly, the elders will chat and suggest meeting with the session if they plan to attend and want communion. Anyone who is not NAPARC gets the full interrogation.

Fencing the table from other RPs

This is pretty rare and I've only experienced this sort of behavior when transferring membership. Since the RPCNA is "presbyterian", the consequences of this mean that churches cannot police each others' membership rolls. In other words, if I'm a member in good standing of Middletown RPCNA, then I can take communion at any RPCNA church as a member in good standing, and I can transfer my membership anywhere as a member in good standing* (of course, Great Lakes-Gulf in their infinite wisdom has decided that they get to dictate this, too, ala Heb 13:17). Even so, I've heard of RPs being denied communion in other RP churches because they didn't meet with the session.

Fencing the table from baptized members

As I mentioned in the previous post, the RPCNA practices a sort of half-way covenant. In Israel, there was a covenant meal (passover) and, as far as I've read, no gatekeeping ceremony to prohibit people from taking part. What I read in the Old Testament is that people "reject" the covenant or "break" the covenant and are thus excluded from participation in covenant benefits.

So, on the one hand, baptized members are members of the covenant, but on the other hand, they are treated, for all intents and purposes, identically to non-Christians. As an example, I was a baptized member of an RP church. When I became a communicant member, I had moved away from my home congregation. The church I became a member in never "transferred" my membership, and I doubt even notified my previous church that I had become a member.

So, it really doesn't make sense to call communion the "covenant meal" at the same time believing "covenant theology" and talking about "covenant children" and railing at the Baptists for treating their children like outsiders. If someone can tell me any material way an RPCNA child is treated differently than a Baptist child or even a kid off the street, other than being on a magical list, I'd be grateful!

That one verse: Infant Baptism and Acts 16:15

A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.  And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us. (Acts 16:14-15)

I want to preface this by saying that I hold to covenant theology and infant baptism, but I don't think it is a fundamental issue for the church.

This verse has been used to "prove" that baptism should be performed not just on believers, but also their children. The central argument is that Lydia believed and her household was baptized, with the assumption that her household didn't necessarily believe. What is ironic is that the word "household" becomes both a reason to include children in baptism, yet exclude them from communion.

I'm trying to find a link to a pamphlet, but there is a Reformed brochure in many RP churches on paedocommunion. The author claims that if there is any proof that children partook in the passover, then children should not be excluded from communion. When faced with:

Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying, ‘On the tenth of this month they are each one to take a lamb for themselves, according to their fathers’ households, a lamb for each household. (Ex 11:3)

The author proposed that "households" is NOT meant to be inclusive of children, so Ex 11:3 is not proof that children took part in the Passover meal. Seems like Reformed theologians want to argue different meanings for the same word in order to justify their particular views. Isn't it eisegesis to put one's view above the Scripture? This is the sort of hermeneutical compartmentalization we come to expect from Reformed-types. As long as the argument makes sense for baptism, who cares if the argument makes sense for communion? 

So, I think there are two reasonable approaches to the church through scripture. The first is the view of covenant theology. Israel was a nation of families, and thus the church has hereditary characteristics. So, children are included in the church, like they were in Israel. The second is the view that the church is those who have professed faith, without a hereditary component.

Of course, the RPCNA botches this. For baptism, it's hereditary. For communion, it's profession of faith. They try to explain it like voting or driving - I'm a citizen of the US, but I can't vote until I'm 18. However, I don't have to take an oath or profess loyalty to the US in order to vote.

Baptists tend to be more consistent. Baptism and Communion are upon profession of faith.

The end argument ends up being completely historical. Because Reformers and Baptists clashed over baptism and covenant theology, we are the beneficiaries of that schism. So, church leaders on both sides are going to assert a fundamental belief. This is where I have issues.

It's okay to be a baptist RP, as long as you don't have children. If you have children and join an RP church, refusing to baptize your children will get you put under church discipline and potentially excommunicated. I was told this by a person who waited a year to join the RPCNA because he hadn't been convinced of infant baptism. I also know a couple who were baptists, but were allowed to join without discipline because their children were old enough to decide for themselves whether to get baptized.

In the same way, I know RPs who wanted to join a baptist church and were forbidden until they were baptized.

It seems to me that baptism and communion are secondary issues and we shouldn't be forcing people into a specific view of one or the other in order to maintain fellowship. Do we really think all Baptists are heretics because they don't baptize their children? If not, why would we excommunicate someone over the issue? Maybe it's because "insubordination" is considered worse than doctrinal error? 

That one verse: How a single OT command turns the Regulative Principle on its head

Also in the day of your gladness and in your appointed feasts, and on the first days of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; and they shall be as a reminder of you before your God. I am the Lord your God.” (Numbers 10:10)

The RPCNA uses their interpretation of the Regulative Principle of Worship to claim that instruments in worship were only associated with sacrifices in the Old Testament, and thus, forbidden in worship in the New Testament.

Worship is to be offered only in accordance with God’s appointment, and in harmony with the scriptural principle that whatever is not commanded in the worship of God, by precept or example, is forbidden. (RP Testimony 21:2)

The Psalms are to be sung without the accompaniment of instruments, which are not part of the New Testament pattern of worship. Musical instruments were commanded for use with the offering of sacrifices in the Old Testament temple worship. The death of Christ being the perfect and final sacrifice brought an end to this way of worship. There is neither command for nor example of the use of musical instruments in the words or practice of Christ and the apostles. The command of the New Testament is to offer the sacrifice of praise—the fruit of our lips. (RP Testimony 21:6)

Eisegesis is a common failing in Biblical interpretation. When the Bible is interpreted through the lens of "what do I want it to say" and not "how do I gain understanding from what it says," we end up with convoluted and often inconsistent approach to practice.

The RP Testimony goes above the Westminster Confession of Faith which says:

The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the  acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture. (21:1)

WCF says that worship is "limited by [God's] revealed will" and he "may not be worshipped" in "any other way not prescribed in ... Scripture". RPT says whatever is not commanded or demonstrated by example is forbidden. Very clear cut and black and white.

There is a secondary argument, though. "the New Testament pattern of worship". So, the RPT seems to be saying that command and example must be specifically through the lens of New Testament worship. What this means is that even though musical instruments are used throughout the Old Testament, their use is forbidden in modern worship. That also applies to dancing, even though the Psalms suggest, or even command praising God with instruments and dancing (e.g. Psalm 150).

What about baptism?

What is missing in the RPCNA consideration of worship is a careful evaluation of other worship practices. For example, circumcision was done on the 8th day after birth in the Old Testament. It is not coupled to any sort of worship. In the New Testament, the examples of baptism are arguably outside the context of congregational worship. People are baptized when they are converted, not when they are presented to the congregation.

What we see here is thus eisegesis. Instruments are forbidden not because of "command or example" but because "command or example" is a convenient way to claim the spiritual high ground over personal opinion. If "command or example" is the litmus test, baptism cannot be done in worship, as there is neither command nor example in the New Testament of baptism being done in worship.

What about the offering?

What else gets dismissed? Offerings. Offerings are clearly an aspect of worship in the Old Testament, although it's questionable how it worked within congregational gatherings. Paul says, "On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come." (1 Cor 16:2) As far as I know, this is the only suggestion that offerings belong in worship, and it fails on two points. First, it is a special collection for downtrodden saints in Jerusalem, not an offering to support the ministry of the local church. Second, the fact that it is "on the first day of the week" does not couple it to corporate worship. That would be like saying that churches can "thresh grain" in worship, because the disciples did it and it was clearly on the Sabbath.

What about the benediction?

The benediction is clearly commanded in the Old Testament in Numbers 6:22-27, but, that is the Old Testament, and RPT is saying that only New Testament commands and examples count for determining what can and can't be part of modern worship. Even if we can make that argument, the command is specifically the Aaronic Blessing - "The Lord bless you and keep you, the Lord..." not the blessings sprinkled throughout the New Testament writings.

As an ex-RP, I don't agree with the RPT interpretation of everything must be re-established in the New Testament (it's clear that they do not walk the talk anyway!) I hold the WCF interpretation, that what God wants in worship can be understood from scripture and that we are likely sinning when we invent new worship practices (bowling??) or try to follow practices from other religions without supporting them from scripture.

What are your thoughts on how God wants to be worshiped?

Scot McKnight on blogs - "like a coffee table conversation"

This came across my feed this morning. It's a very good read. After decades of experience as a preacher and professor, Scot McKnight proposes a mental model of blogging that is less about trying to proclaim or teach, but more like having a discussion in a coffee shop. Here are some excerpts, but the full post is worth a read. https://scotmcknight.substack.com/p/an-oldie-but-i-think-goodie

When I first began to blog I had to learn that blogging is not the same as the pulpit or the rostrum, no matter how deep those instincts were for me. A blog post might be written as a sermon or as a lecture or even an outline for a dialogue, but once the post goes public it can become a free-for-all. It can turn south, get ugly, or go ballistic faster than any media of communication I know. Some other image had to give me an image of what was going on.

So, as I sat there and watched it happen, all along deleting inflammatory, accusing, personally-destructive comments, I arrived at an image that has worked for my blog. A blog is like a coffee table conversation at a public café. If the pulpit gives the image of preaching and teaching and the rostrum the image of dialogue, the café table gives the image of personal conversation.

...

Our goal on the blog is to create civil conversations about Jesus and about orthodox theology and about sports and (sometimes) about politics. Keeping some topics civil can be immensely challenging and one reason is that civil conversation is not easy for some of us.

That idea resonates with me. A coffee shop conversation has to recognize that people are not on the same page.

This blog is meant to be a coffee table discussion for those in various stages of questioning the RPCNA culture. I would like it to encompass more than just theology and church polity because there are many more aspects of growing up within the RPCNA microcosm that have affected me personally.

One big example is that it is easy for me to transfer the legalistic baggage. For example, it's hard to navigate a grace-filled approach when I find patriarchy to be abusive towards women, but there are a lot of versions of patriarchy that are, in my opinion, still wrong, but much more thoughtful and caring towards women. Preston Sprinkle talked about a patriarchal church that had a sermon review committee. Since it was not "eldership", women were welcomed to the committee and he said that many times the women on the committee provided valuable insight on points or illustrations. They might say, "have you thought about how the single moms in the church will hear this?" He said it really improved the quality of his sermons and still fit within the patriarchal bent of male-only eldership, while giving women the ability to use gifts of spiritual discernment within the church.

That's at least the goal. I don't do it perfectly or even well at times, but I ask participants to embrace or at least respect that goal. We're not on the same page or even in the same book as we seek to more closely align our lives with Jesus. What is straightforward to you might seem wrong to me, and what I think is true might seem false to you. I don't believe truth is relative, but I also don't think I get to disrespect others who have different opinions on what is true.

That one verse: How verses, often taken out of context and used anachronistically have led to the fracturing of the church (Eph. 5:15-21)

*** UPDATE ***

I've re-enabled comments on the blog and most of the posts. I will be doing some moderation and delete comments that are off-topic or uncivil.

******

Ephesians 5:15-21 (NASB):

Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit,  speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father; and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.

I can't tell you how many times I heard a sermon on the passage. It was a favorite because this was the passage that divided the RPCNA from most other NAPARC churches. We could shake hands with the OPC, the PCA, the URC and the ARP, but never quite enjoy full fellowship because they sinfully chose to sing man-written songs instead of God's inspired Psalms in worship as Paul "clearly indicated" here.

There's a strong argument that Paul isn't talking about corporate worship at all in this passage. What follows is clearly talking about how Christians interact in everyday life and this first starts with how we use our time, not getting drunk, etc., very practical advice.

Despite there being plenty of RP and RP-affiliated books on why Exclusive Psalmody is commanded in scripture, scholars dismiss exclusive psalmody for good reasons.

I think the most clear example is Hezekiah. Isaiah 38 describes how Hezekiah was going to die and God relented and gave him 15 more years of life. Hezekiah writes a song and in the song says that "we will sing my songs all the days of our lives in the house of the Lord" (vs. 20). There are other examples, though that are not as clear. Moses records a song Israel (a nation/church) sang. Miriam's song is there. There is also a song Deut 32, which is taught to the nation that is meant to remind them of the punishment for unfaithfulness. It's hard to distinguish here between what might be called "corporate worship" and what was nationalistic. Was the giving of the law in Exodus 20 a worship service or a national gathering?

I don't think that there's anything wrong with singing Psalms and I actually prefer the Psalms to a lot of what I sing. How many hymns allow us to be angry with God? How many hymns let us despair? I think the church gets stuck in this rut where only positivity and smiles are allowed in church. You got into a huge argument with your spouse this morning and divorce is on the table? Praise God! You got fired yesterday and don't know where your next mortgage payment comes from? Hallelujah! In a sense, the church becomes irrelevant when real people aren't accepted and only picture-perfect painted smiles are welcome.

I think the RP church ends up being worse off. Real people still aren't accepted. Psalms are sung in the same joyless monotone whether it's Psalm 22, 27, 51, 100 or 150. Only emotional flatlines are accepted. Want to lift your hands in worship? You're doing it just to be a show-off! If you are in tears, you can be ignored because no one wants to get sucked into your pain.

When the RP church considered joining another church and possibly allowing freedom on Psalms, I was one of those horribly offended that we would stoop to such levels. But consider this argument. I think that God has commanded Psalm singing in worship and it is a great blessing to everyone to sing God's words back to Him. However all these other people sing hymns because they are cheesy and it makes them feel better. Aren't RPs talking out of both sides or their mouths? We say don't commit adultery because we believe that adultery hurts the offenders, not because marital fidelity is some cruel suffering we must endure to be true Christians. If Psalmody is truly what God uses to bring joy and blessing to his people if they sing inspired psalms only, then the RPCNA should be full of joyful people blessed by worship, not a bunch of people who are afraid of showing any emotion.

Second RP session ignores the rules and then plays the victim when called out...

One of the problems I've pointed out many times is that the leaders in the authoritarian system want to be portrayed as both caring and competent. When mistakes are made, they will circle the wagons and play one against the other. So, the law and order was forgotten because they were so intent on providing the utmost of care, or caring was secondary to making sure that the procedure was followed.

It seems like Second RPC is having trouble properly emotionally manipulating a few of the members in the congregation. So, now the Session is "grieved" because their "apologies" have not resulted in "reconciliation". I say these in quotes because I doubt the sincerity. My reading on it is:

The Session is upset because the members correctly identified that their apologies were insincere and realized that there was no reconciliation when one party is still convinced they are in the right. So, the Session is now going to try and bring in 3rd parties (although hopefully skewed towards justifying the authorities if at all possible) who are going to bring Psalm 133 and some obey your leaders garbage to put the members back in their place.

Assuming the complaint is correct, and I don't see any disagreement by the Session, the whole situation was brought on by BOTH a lack of caring and a lack of following law and order.

The background seems really simple. Some members of the congregation saw someone they thought would make a good Ruling Elder, and made a petition that the Session call a congregational meeting to vote on whether this person should be called.

The request IS technically out of order. As a member, I can ask the Session to call a congregational meeting to elect an elder, but it is out of order to say, "We want an up or down vote on John Doe." There is a procedure for these meetings and it is to call a meeting, ask for nominations, and proceed. There are good reasons for this, and I would argue, also good reasons why the Session should never nominate someone.

But, instead the Session made some critical mistakes.

Background on the Session clique:

Before I go any further, I want to talk about my experience. I was seen as a potential elder in a congregation in the GLG. As far as I know, there was never any formal "qualification check" but I was given more and more visible responsibility in the church, until a person or persons discovered that I held that women could be deacons (i.e. the official position of the RPCNA). At that point, the leaders did pretty much everything in their power to cut me down in the eyes of the congregation, while also trying to use me for my gifts.

So, the way I see it, the Session is like the popular girls at a high school. They want to maintain a power base and control the next generation of that power base, but their manipulation and abuse can't be obvious because being mean and catty could make them unpopular. So, they are constantly, and I mean constantly looking around for other people to pull in and people to cut down. Now imaging that the popular girls has a Constitution and law and order. The law and order says that gossip is wrong and that pre-judging people is wrong, but the Session wants to be ahead of the curve, so, of course, they are going to gossip about all the potential entrants to the Session.

Back to the issue at hand:

So, the Session has already gossiped about John Doe and they've already decided, for one reason or another that John Doe would not be a welcome addition to the popular girls table - it could be for many reasons, maybe legitimate, maybe not. Now a significant group in the congregation says that they think John Doe would make a good elder.

Now, if they were clever, they would "seriously consider" the petition and get their story straight. Perhaps now is not a good time to elect an elder, or maybe they hadn't thought about John Doe in that way and they need time to consider (how to undercut) him in his potential leadership. But, instead, they let it slip that they "didn't consider him qualified" having done no consideration on the record (in constituted court).

The "Oh Crap!" moment:

Instead of "submitting", the members called the Session out for the glaring mistake. The Session, now stuck in a corner, decided that their way out would be to allow the election, but, presumably, undercut John Doe so that he would not be elected. Instead, the congregation voted 85% in favor of calling him as a Ruling Elder. OH CRAP! So, now the Session is in a situation where they don't want someone to join the Session, but this person is too popular to reject on the basis of approval rating. They are now under a microscope. The Session gives their "apology" to the congregation while trying to backtrack the severity of their mistakes.

The backdoor conversation and resignation:

Since anything "public" will be scrutinized, the Session decides to have an "off the record" discussion with John Doe. Most likely, John is told that he really doesn't have what it takes, and that the congregation is ignorant about what it takes to be an elder, and disrespectful towards the Session by calling them to account instead of "submitting". Doe is likely told to quietly resign because that's best for the congregation. However, aspects of this conversation demonstrate that the "apology" is bogus. So, John resigns, but does so in a way that calls out the Session for their abusive tactics.

Damage control:

The Session now has to figure out how to regain their position of caring curators of the law and order of the church, despite having been exposed for a lack of care and a lack of consideration for the law and order of the church.

Oops, we did it again:

Remember that the Session doesn't want their REAL discussions to be on the record, but no decisions can be made off the record, so the solution is to have a Session meeting without telling the congregation so that no one can show up and hold them accountable. So, the Session freezes the members out of their continued John Doe discussion by holding a secret meeting (thanks, Dave Long for the inspiration!!!) where the only thing on the record is accepting the resignation.

We're "grieved"!1!!

So, after demonstrating a total lack of respect for John Doe, the congregation and the law and order of the church and being called out for it, what is a session to do? DARVO => Deny, Accuse, Reverse Victim and Offender.
Deny - The Session is going to damage control by alternatively portraying themselves as caring (this was somehow best for the congregation, but you're too stupid to understand right now), and keepers of the law and order (this isn't how elections are done, so we mistakenly accommodated your request and look where it led!) The session will also meet to control the narrative. Only the approved timeline will be represented, and everything that members remember will be 'not how it happened'.

Accuse - The Session might theorize that this is all some sinister (Satanic?) plot to undermine God's ordained servants in the eye of the congregation and start calling out members for their lack of respect and submission when they disagree with the Session's approved narrative.

Reverse Victim and Offender - Since the complaint is mainly that the Session misused the law and order of the church, we are most likely going to see "caring" weaponized. I think the complaints are already pre-groomed since they said:

We believe the elders had good intentions through much of this process. We respect and acknowledge their authority and their many years of faithful service and love for the congregation. We believe that the 2RP Session has acted sincerely to do what they believed is for the good of 2RP.

I don't believe this. If they truly believed what they were doing was good and for the good of the church, then they have conflated their will with the will of God. That is, they made idols of their personal perspective. The law and order of the church is there for a reason, and disregarding the law of the church is putting oneself as judge over current and previous authorities.

Let me put this a different way. If the Session were authoritative about who should or should not be the next Ruling Elder, the RPCNA would be the Reformed Prelacy of North America. The whole point of congregational elections and Session qualifications is that the church as a whole recognizes that God can and should bring alternative and contradictory views into leadership, and that it is the sheep who recognize the shepherd, not necessarily the religious leadership.

The actions of the 2RP elders scream out that they are afraid of a possible alternative or contradictory view joining the Session, and that fear is most likely in black and white. John Doe CALLED THEM OUT for their abusive tactics. So, put two and two together. The Session of 2RP is scared that John Doe will hold them accountable for their abusive tactics and did everything in their power to maintain abusive control. How exactly could we understand that as being "caring" and "for the good of 2RP"?