Gaslighting in RP sermons

A common thread among abuse victims is the thought of "walking on eggshells". When the abuser comes home, the victim tries to do everything right because she doesn't know what will trigger the anger of the abuser. Is there a speck of dirt on the dishes? Will my response show a bit of frustration? Will I overcook the casserole?

Healthy people look at this situation and understand - there is no justification for abuse, but the abuser carefully works through a process to seed uncertainty and self-doubt in the mind of the victim. That process is called gaslighting.

Seemingly, the God of the RPCNA is an abusive God. No matter how hard RPs work at the Christian disciplines - prayer, Bible reading, devotions, fasting, family worship - there is always some area that they are failing. God, then, waits for those failures to be just in sending all sorts of trials in their lives. Sermon after sermon is preached to show this or that common failure and prescribe more and more exhaustive lists of symptoms. Lacking joy? Pray harder, read more, fast more, sing louder. Having a hard time? Pray more diligently, read your Bible more, spend more time fasting. Maybe you're not tithing or evangelizing your neighbors enough.

If you dare question whether this is really depicting a merciful and gracious God, RP leaders are quick to point out that your judgment is flawed. How dare you question the leader God has sent and ordained to be over you?!?

Again and again, I'm drawn back to the gospels. Who did Jesus treat with mercy and kindness? The people that would never be allowed in an RP church. The sinners, the adulterers, the lepers, the outcasts. Who were the people Jesus challenged and berated at every occasion? The leaders who prayed hard, fasted, etc.

What was the problem, though? The Pharisees portrayed God as an abusive God who demanded sacrifice (works) rather than mercy. When bad things happened to people, it was because God was punishing them for their sin. The solution was to fix your sin - figure out what thing God was punishing you for and try harder. The Pharisees were the ones who had it all figured out - they were rich and bastions of righteousness. But there was a big problem. Jesus HATED THEM. He called them vipers, hypocrites, whitewashed tombs. He said, beware of their teaching. He said they put heavy burdens on people that they could not bear, and they make their converts sons of Hell.

RPs should be repulsed by the leaven of the Pharisees, but instead, they seek it out. They seek more and more sophisticated pastors who can slice and dice doctrine and rant against the other denominations who have this or that theological error.

Instead, we need to think about who God is. Yes, God is holy and God is just, yet God loves us so much that he crushed his own son, Jesus, so that he could show us kindness and mercy rather than judgment for our sins. Why would that God then wait for our every little infraction so he can smack us?

The Bible shows us picture after picture of God's love. Hosea, whose wife was a harlot, is a picture of God. Homer returns to her prostitution and yet Hosea repeatedly brings her back and restores her. What about the prodigal son? He wishes his father dead and blows the family fortune, yet his father sees this pile of sin coming from afar off and runs to embrace him. Where is the smack? Where is the judgment? None of that. Just love, mercy, hugs and kisses. God's wrath is reserved for his and our enemies.

Perhaps it's not surprising that, when I treated my own child like I thought God treated me, it drove a wedge between us. I waited for the inevitable infraction and punished it swiftly - thinking that it would bring righteousness and closeness, but instead, it brought defiance and distance. In the same way, why are we surprised that generation after generation of RP children, brought up in legalistic nitpicking chooses to reject God, or find a church where grace is taught?

How do we understand the law?

The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) talks about three categories of law:

I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.  

II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man. 

III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.  

IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.  

V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.  

VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace. 

VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.

The real question is how to understand the implications of these laws.

He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. (Matt. 19:8)

But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. (Matt. 12:7)

These aren't one-off responses or loopholes Jesus is inventing to evade questions. Instead, this is a pattern for understanding the Old Testament law from God's intended perspective.

Do we expect children to understand and behave like adults? Of course not. There is a natural progression of knowledge. For example, Natural numbers do not contain zero. We don't necessarily teach the concept that zero is a number to a three year old learning to count. In the same way, elementary teachers might say their students can't subtract 7 from 5, or divide 10 by 9. Is it "wrong" to teach that way? I don't think it is - the children's brains are not developed enough to understand those abstract concepts. As their minds develop they can handle the concepts of zero, negative numbers, fractions, irrational numbers and so on.

In the same way, we are locked up in childishness with regards to sin. God consistently calls the Israelites "stiff-necked" and "hard-hearted". Paul admonishes the Corinthians:

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? (1 Cor. 3:1-3)

What does this have to do with the law? Remember that the law of divorce was due to "hard-heartedness". To unroll this further, Israel was a nation where women and children were considered to be property. It was lawful to own slaves, including slaves meant for sexual gratification of men. So, why was it necessary to allow divorce? For the protection of women. In that society, women had very little means of support outside of a male provider. Women who were married were supposed to be provided for by their husbands. So, in Israel, a man could refuse to provide for his wife and yet not officially divorce her (this still happens today). This law was to protect women by allowing them to remarry and be provided for.

So, how do we differentiate between "Moral Law" and "Judicial Law"? What is general equity? Moral Law is the natural order created before the Fall. Judicial laws are applications of the Moral Law to the unique circumstances of the Israelites (including their hard-heartedness).

Consider slavery. There was much to-do about the Biblical justification of slavery - the OT has laws discussing how to acquire and free slaves, and laws talking about the treatment of slaves. This became a huge debate, since those who wanted to justify slavery could easily point to the apparent approval of slavery in the Old Testament. Yet, as we have come to believe, "sanctioning" slavery is not "approval". This becomes an important principle. The law meets us where we are - hard-hearted spiritual infants sucked up in a sinful culture.

So, when we read Paul's instructions, like "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man", do we understand it from a "Moral Law" perspective, or from a "Judicial Law" perspective. Was Paul's prohibition due to some universal moral principle, or was it due to a specific problem in a specific time and place? I think scripture leads to the latter. 1st century culture still promoted slavery, patriarchy and women and children as inferiors and property. So, Paul, who incidentally CIRCUMCISED Christians to further the gospel, isn't necessarily claiming a universal principle, but is pushing for laws that make accommodations for the hardness of the 1st century Greek heart.

I think this is an important discussion now because so many churches are looking at these specific sanctions in light of more general passages that say, for example, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female", or "your sons and daughters shall prophesy", and coming to the conclusion that daughters should NOT prophesy. Instead of trying to find roles, they push women to the side. Is God's heart in this really to push women out of any public ministry in the church?

Women and spiritual gifts

Speaking of the downtrodden RPs. I wonder what sort of lens we are supposed to apply to scriptures like these:

Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? But earnestly desire the greater gifts. (1 Cor 12:27-31a)

“It will come about after this
That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind;
And your sons and daughters will prophesy,
Your old men will dream dreams,
Your young men will see visions.
“Even on the male and female servants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days. (Joel 2:27-28)

I guess the question that this should raise, but seems not to have is the question of whether women are included here. Women are told that they cannot be spiritually gifted to be teachers. So if we take Paul's enumeration of the gifts here: 1 - apostles, 2 - prophets, 3 - teachers (pastor/elders), this raises some significant questions:

1) The Reformed church teaches that women are spiritually equal to men, and that they simply have different "roles". However, Paul enumerates spiritual gifts, and commands all (men and women) to pursue greater gifts. So, if men are spiritually able to pursue the gift of teaching, and women are not, then doesn't this therefore say that women are spiritually inferior to men, despite claims otherwise?

2) Many women are called prophetesses, and the Joel passage talks about women prophesying. If the spiritual gift of prophecy is greater than the gift of teaching, then why do we think that women cannot teach? That would be like saying that women can play volleyball at the high school and olympic level, but not in college or professionally.

Bruce Hemphill wrote a paper asking the RPCNA to study whether women can be elders. One thing that was troubling was that the committee assigned to counsel Bruce spoke to him and at presbytery about a "Patriarchal lens" that should be applied to scripture. I've been taught all my life that scripture interprets scripture, so if scripture doesn't say to interpret scripture with a patriarchal lens, where does that come from?

Instead, scripture seems to suggest the opposite. The idea that the husband will "rule over" his wife being a curse suggests that the "patriarchal lens" men apply to scripture is part of the curse, not part of a correct interpretation of the will of God. Instead, we see suggestions of an "equality lens" in the Joel passage - that God pours out His Spirit on the noble and the lowly, without regard to position. Paul says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:28). Does Paul suggest a patriarchal lens?

This gets to one of the core RPCNA issues. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. What I mean is that Bruce Hemphill was considered an enemy by many in that presbytery, and the committee that counseled and charged Bruce Hemphill was seen as the enemy of the enemy. Yet, people were not on guard for what the committee was about to do:

1) They circumvented due process: The committee recommended that Bruce be "counseled" to request termination of his ordination within 120 days. In other words, they wanted a deposition trial, without an actual trial. Bruce was simply supposed to punish himself. In fact, when Bruce was charged and tried, one of the charges was "contempt of court" for not punishing himself.

2) They, according to Bruce, introduced a heretical view (Eternal Submission of the Son) as the basis for their rejection of Bruce's paper.

3) They introduced the "patriarchal lens" at presbytery as partial basis for rejection of Bruce's paper.

4) They charged him for rejecting query 4 of his vows (Do you believe in and accept the system of doctrine and the manner of worship...) and yet they haven't explained why he should be treated differently for his rejection while many elders and deacons are not charged or even refused office when they reject "women deacons".

So, the "friends" did go after the "enemy", but what has the church sacrificed in taking the easy road? Another rejection of due process? Tacit approval of heresy?

This is exactly what the RPCNA got when they approved the Worship Committee paper as a response to a paper against Exclusive Psalmody. The WC paper introduced "worship as covenant renewal", the "dialogical principle" and stronger liturgy. Interesting that Synod rejected covenant renewal in the Directory for Worship rewrite only to have the committee chair reassert it later in an RP Witness article.

Why the Westminster Larger Catechism teaching on the 5th commandment is wrong and dangerous.

Q. 124. Who are meant by father and mother in the fifth commandment?

A. By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not only natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts; and especially such as, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth. 

Q. 125. Why are superiors styled father and mother? 

A. Superiors are styled father and mother, both to teach them in all duties toward their inferiors, like natural parents, to express love and tenderness to them, according to their several relations; and to work inferiors to a greater willingness and cheerfulness in performing their duties to their superiors, as to their parents. 

Q. 127. What is the honour that inferiors owe to their superiors? 

A. The honour which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence in heart, word, and behaviour; prayer and thanksgiving for them; imitation of their virtues and graces; willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels; due submission to their corrections; fidelity to, defence, and maintenance of their persons and authority, according to their several ranks, and the nature of their places; bearing with their infirmities, and covering them in love, that so they may be an honour to them and to their government. 

Q. 128. What are the sins of inferiors against their superiors? 

A. The sins of inferiors against their superiors are, all neglect of the duties required toward them; envying at, contempt of, and rebellion against, their persons and places, in their lawful counsels, commands, and corrections; cursing, mocking and all such refractory and scandalous carriage, as proves a shame and dishonour to them and their government. 

Q. 129. What is required of superiors towards their inferiors? 

A. It is required of superiors, according to that power they receive from God, and that relation wherein they stand, to love, pray for, and bless their inferiors; to instruct, counsel, and admonish them; countenancing, commending, and rewarding such as do well; and discountenancing, reproving, and chastising such as do ill; protecting, and providing for them all things necessary for soul and body: and by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary carriage, to procure glory to God, honour to themselves, and so to preserve that authority which God hath put upon them. 

Q. 130. What are the sins of superiors? 

A. The sins of superiors are, besides the neglect of the duties required of them, and inordinate seeking of themselves, their own glory, ease, profit, or pleasure; commanding things unlawful, or not in the power of inferiors to perform; counseling, encouraging, or favouring them in that which is evil; dissuading, discouraging, or discountenancing them in that which is good; correcting them unduly; careless exposing, or leaving them to wrong, temptation, and danger; provoking them to wrath; or any way dishonouring themselves, or lessening their authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or remiss behaviour.

This is a long quote, mainly so that it doesn't look like it is taken out of context. There are four significant issues with this teaching. The primary one is a sin of omission, and the remainders are sins of commission. 

1) The most notable omission is the lack of any talk about abuse and abusers. Abuse is taking upon yourself authority not granted, or exercising granted authority using inappropriate means. It is also called "domineering". For example, elders are told not to Lord it over the flock. Jesus states that a defining character of gentile leaders is domineering and told his disciples that they are not to be that way.

So, why is the omission of domineering so crucial to the teaching of the fifth commandment? Since the RPCNA follows the Westminster standards, the omission has invaded in many ways when superior/inferior relationships are taught. Because we ignore the sin of domineering and abuse, we don't teach them. When we don't teach them, people think that they don't exist, and when people don't think they exist, then when sheep are domineered, they turn a blind eye, or even applaud. For example, the session that ruthlessly goes after a wayward member is rewarded for "the marks of a true church". When the member complains about the abusive treatment, the congregation rallies around the leaders and ignores the member or worse, says that the member deserved the harsh treatment because of his waywardness. No one ever deserves abuse. Jesus was harsh towards the Pharisees, but they were the abusers. Think about that. Jesus was gentle towards wayward sinners, but he was harsh towards those who were oppressing and battering the sheep. Because of Westminster, we are the opposite. We harass and defame those who are being abused, and we praise and honor the abusers. Just like in Jesus's day. Perhaps things haven't changed all that much.

2) Westminster defines superiors as those superior in "age and gifts". This is taken, for example, to mean that children ought to obey adults. But, this is ludicrous. Age doesn't say one specific age, neither does gifts say specific gifts. Age and gifts cannot be lumped together with those in authoritative relationships. They are a different category altogether. Yes! I should respect and honor those who are older and more gifted, but I should respect and honor everyone. I should respect children and I should respect the aged. I should respect the mentally incapacitated and I should respect the mentally superior. Separating them out as a special class having to do with the 5th commandment is neither helpful, nor Biblical.

3) Westminster uses the terms "superior" and "inferior" to refer to roles. As many elsewhere have pointed out, while we can weasel around those words meaning simply stations in life or roles, actions speak louder than words. For example, the Bible says that iron sharpens iron, and that we ought to submit to one another. Matthew 18 does not qualify "brother". This goes beyond correction. There is a presumption that a superior is intellectually, morally and spiritually more advanced. This was a claim of the Pharisees, who rebuked correction due to their supposed superiority. With it goes a presumption of innocence of superiors and guilt of inferiors. Would my child be heard if she said that I was abusing her, or would she be dismissed? Are spiritually abusive leaders opposed or rewarded?

4) Westminster talks about "lawful commands". The RPCNA take on lawful commands is commands that do not require me to sin. That is, commands that are in accordance with the law of God. This is an abusive definition, and we have double standards to prove it. We all know that a policeman must have a warrant to enter my house to search it. So, we are taught. Ask for a warrant. A warrant is LEGAL AUTHORITY to search. But... is letting the policeman in sinful? Probably not. So, we recognize that a lawful command is not necessarily an authoritative command. There is a difference. And we teach that difference - that we only need to obey the government's authoritative command, not commands that go beyond their authority, yet don't require us to sin.

But... when it comes to husbands, elders and fathers, this difference goes out the window. Wives, members and children are taught to OBEY, OBEY, OBEY, unless the command is immoral. If my session wants me to lead the singing. OBEY. If my husband wants me to only wear ankle-length dresses. OBEY. If my father tells me to clean up his vomit after a drinking binge. OBEY. Yet, one could hardly argue that God explicitly gives that authority to the elders, husbands and fathers.

All told, this is much of why the RPCNA continues to maintain an abusive view of authority, why they continue to support and defend abusive husbands, fathers and elders, and why they continue to batter the sheep.

Anonymous comments -> enabled

Hi all,

     I have been looking at moving to WordPress because they allow commenting without an OpenId. When I looked at the settings on Blogger, I realized that I could allow Anonymous comments. It's not perfect, but it's better than having to potentially expose your information.

     Since I grew up in the RP church, I know the potential stigma of having your name or id out in the open for searching. In fact, I do know some examples where people have been linked to their online comments.

     So, please feel free to comment anonymously. I am considering whether I should remain anonymous as well, as I am not sure whether it is healthy to fear whatever backlash I might get from having my real name out there.

Abusive power, Satan's stronghold in conservative Christianity.

To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” [Gen 3:16]

Thus says the Lord, “Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.  For if you men will indeed perform this thing, then kings will enter the gates of this house, sitting in David’s place on his throne, riding in chariots and on horses, even the king himself and his servants and his people.  But if you will not obey these words, I swear by Myself,” declares the Lord, “that this house will become a desolation.”’” [Jer 22:3-5] 

 ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will demand My sheep from them and make them cease from feeding sheep. So the shepherds will not feed themselves anymore, but I will deliver My flock from their mouth, so that they will not be food for them.”’ [Ezek 34:10]

How long will the conservative Evangelical church continue to abuse without impunity and still remain? I don't know. The church should be defending the powerless and weak, and yet instead it sides with the oppressor. How can that be, you ask. The hypocrisy of submission.

The church teaches that authority has limits, but it also teaches that we should submit to authority in the Lord. Someone who demands obedience beyond those limits is a sinner. That person is usurping authority. So, we can divide a command from someone in authority into three categories:

Lawful commands within the sphere of authority: I can require my child to stay inside during a tornado warning. As his God-given protector, I have a responsibility to keep him from harm, and that may require me to issue commands for his own protection. These can always be worked backwards to a positive need. It is dangerous to be outside if a tornado hits, and it is my responsibility to keep you safe from harm, so I need you to stay in the basement. Another one might be, "Put away that fireplace lighter!" - you don't yet have the skills necessarily to handle accidents that might arise from use or misuse of a fireplace lighter, so you may not use it without my active supervision. Or "Take your medicine." You could get more sick or even die if you don't take this medicine, and it is my responsibility to keep you reasonably healthy, so you need to drink this medicine. When I am acting with proper authority, there is always a path from God to me as a parent, etc., to the person under authority.

Lawful commands without authority: I could command my child to sing karaoke at the next church talent show. In this case, there is no clear scriptural warrant for my command, yet my child is not sinning by obeying, so this is a lawful command. Yet, it is usurpation. When my child inevitably asks "why?", what is my answer.  Well... "I love hearing you sing and it would be great for you to sing to the church." See this answer starts from my personal preference, not from Biblical command or warrant. How about "Because I'm your father and I said so!" Well, again, it starts with me and ends with obedience. How is this proper authority from God? If you can't walk your command back to God then perhaps you don't have the authority to require it. Jesus says "render to Caesar that which is Caesar's." He doesn't say "render to Caesar everything he commands you." I don't believe God requires us to obey commands without authority, lawful or not.

Unlawful commands: These are clearly to be disobeyed. If I ask my son to steal a candy bar from the grocery store, he is required by God to say no. This has mostly been settled since the "Divine Right of Kings" era where the king thought that he could command things that were sinful for his subjects, yet have them be required to ignore their consciences, because, after all he WAS the king.

Church abuse: I believe that churches abuse those under authority, whom they should protect, when they require submission to "lawful commands without authority". So, let's say my son is terrified on being on stage at church, and while he loves singing at home, he doesn't want to get up in front of so many people. Perhaps a loving and gracious father might find ways to encourage and work through that fear, but for the sake of argument. I just double down. "You WILL sing for the talent show." When he refuses, I punish him. He still refuses. Finally, I take him to the pastor. "Pastor Harry, Nick is refusing to obey me. I told him that he has to sing for the church talent show and he is refusing. Could you help me out?" Well, our good conservative pastor reminds Nick that "children are to obey their parents!" and tells him that he must obey whatever I say.

What just happened? Well, first, I abused my son. I commanded him to do something that wasn't my right to command. My authority is limited in this case. When he refuses, (if I don't have the right to command, then why does he have the responsibility to obey?) I punish him (wrongly and thus abusively). Then when that doesn't work, the pastor commands him to obey me (the pastor has no right to require that which the Bible doesn't). If that still doesn't work, he might be disciplined for insubordination. But, there's more. Nick was just abused and the church sided with his father's abuse. Nick knows it is unjust and he now faults the church with injustice.

Submit.... to what? The RPCNA is hypocritical when it comes to submission. The Bible talks about authority and submission interchangeably. Wives submit to husbands. Children submit to parents. We submit to our government. We submit to our elders. The church submits to Christ. Christ submits to the Father. The words submit and obey are generally used interchangeably, although submit is generally seen in the sense of a higher order - we submit to the plans and dreams rather than submitting to make dinner.

Why is this important? Because we need to understand that submission is always within the context of authority. In order to submit, I need something to submit to. I don't submit to a person, I submit to an authoritative role. A policeman. An elder. My parent. My boss. That authoritative role is limited. My boss cannot claim spiritual oversight, just as a policeman can't make me clean my room.

The reason the RPCNA is hypocritical is that they reserve certain roles: parent, husband and elder, and say that their authority is absolute - meaning that one must obey any lawful command given by one of those three people. Yet, there is no difference between the submission we are told to give the government. What is different? It's not hermeneutics. It's simply that it's nonsensical.

Everyone knows that a policeman has no authority to demand entrance to your house without a search warrant. There are other extenuating circumstances, but those are not pertinent. So, a policeman shows up to your door tomorrow and commands you to let him into your house. That is indeed a lawful command, because police can request entrance any time. What would you say, well NO of course. If you want to search my house, you need a warrant. That is a very clear example of a lawful command without authority. Policemen who then use physical force to obtain entry are breaking the law. Okay, so we get that.

But... here's the problem. It is the same for fathers, husbands and pastors. We can say NO... But we really can't. That's because the RPCNA wields and supports abusive power. Let me clarify. The RPCNA is a haven for child abusers, spouse abusers and spiritual abusers. The RPCNA doesn't stand alone. You see, Nick is all alone. He has been abused and the church says it's his fault. He didn't obey his dad. Just like the wife. When her husband hits her, well, yeah, that might be a little wrong, but she should submit to the fact that he wants to take money out of her bank account.

Don't be fooled. There are many godly and wise leaders in the RPCNA, but they are so completely absorbed in their desire to enforce submission (their definition) that they will completely humiliate and destroy anyone who stands in their path. The ones that aren't so godly or wise are going to take the path of least resistance, which means abusing the powerless. If you are a leader, you need to repent and seek to change this before God takes away the lamp stand. If you are a member. You've been warned. If you are a child... be strong and wait. What feels unjust to you is probably unjust. There are other churches where you can find godly leaders who understand authority and heal, but for now you must endure.

Authority and our view of God

Something that has enlightened me over the past few weeks and months is how my view of God has been shaped by the peculiar RP views of authority.

Unquestioned obedience:

RP's like to teach that the "superiors" should enjoy unquestioned obedience from their "inferiors" due to the superiority of their wisdom, gifts and position. Children are taught to obey their parents, members are taught to obey their elders and everyone is taught to obey the governing authorities. This somehow stems from the fact that authority relationships ultimately portray our relationship with God, and we should unquestioningly obey God. However, this is not supportable from scripture. First of all, God doesn't expect us to obey Him without establishing a relationship first. For example, God didn't send Moses back to Egypt without miraculous displays of power and graciously handling Moses's questions. But, many of the people who questioned God got gracious answers and not punishment.

• Gideon questions God and God responds by miraculously manipulating a fleece.
• Samson's father, Manoah asked God to come back and repeat the commands regarding Samson. (Interestingly, God's command first came to Samson's mother)
• Samuel questions God when he is sent to anoint David and God gives him a way to avoid tipping Saul off.
• When God told Hezekiah to put his house in order before his death, Hezekiah prayed that God would let him recover, and God healed him.
• God told Ezekiel to eat cakes baked over human dung. Ezekiel protested that he had never eaten anything unclean, and God allowed him to eat it over cow dung instead.
• The angel who appeared to Mary graciously answered her question about how Jesus would be born when she was a virgin.
• Ananias questioned God when he was sent to heal Saul, but God graciously answered him.

There are surely other examples, and there are examples where people are "punished" for doubting God, but we see that God graciously handles questioned obedience. If we are to be authorities who represent God faithfully, then why do we expected unquestioned obedience?

Letter of the law:

RP's like to think that God's will is served by strict adherence to his commands. We tell kids that their obedience should be willing and cheerful, but that instead creates a two-faced obedience. That two-faced obedience is a signature of Reformed authority. For example, Ted Tripp talks about shepherding a child's heart, but that shepherding is just a second legalistic layer added onto the first legalistic layer. In other words, if I tithe, that is the first layer of obedience, but then the church says that if I tithe without the right attitudes or reverence, thankfulness, etc., then it is also sinful. Instead of cultivating a gracious and loving view of God, we just doubly weigh down people.

My relationship with God was destroyed by his unapproachability. What I took away from what I was taught was that instead of God graciously accepting me where I am, instead, God ungraciously condemns me for every slight infraction.

That also translated to those in authority. That is, those who are under authority have to act graciously and lovingly to those who are their superiors, but those who are superiors have, seemingly, no such requirements towards their inferiors. That is, when a child erred, the parents had the green light to take care of that by whatever means necessary. Parents who graciously redirected their children or calmly explained the error were "spoiling" their kids, while those who took them aside and beat them for even minor infractions were "good" parents. In the same way, the sessions who ungraciously steamrolled the sin out of their congregation showed "the marks of a true church", while those that worked slowly to resolve and reconcile sin were weak. Perhaps it's better to say that enforcing the letter of the law is more important to superiors than the grace and love they show in the enforcement. I've been told by elders that, if I agree with what was ultimately accomplished then I will come to accept the means by which that was accomplished. The ends justify the means. So, is it therefore okay to establish a household of fear and intimidation to get children to obey the letter of the law? What would their view of God be in that case? I would argue, a similar view to the one that I grew up with and had - that home and the church are the places where you put on your righteous happy face and outside of that is where we can be real. There are so many RP children who confessed to this two-faced existence. I don't believe it's an accident. It's encouraged by the legalism and fear encouraged in RP parenting.

Superiority / Worthlessness:

This is a little trickier to explain and defend. We all know and are taught that God is perfect and superior. Yet, we are also taught that we are "united with Christ" and "co-heirs with Christ". We are also taught that Christ and the Father are equally perfect. Yet, they have different roles: father and son. So, we need to be very careful when we talk about the superiority of our roles - elder to member, husband to wife, parent to child, government official to citizen.

This is, I think, the greatest weakness of those in authority, and it is also the least talked about when dealing with authority. Instead, one of the ways, seemingly, to help us respond appropriately to those in authority is to beat the drum of superiority. Yet, in the passage I keep referring to it's different:

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Matt 20:25-28)

The natural condition of those in authority is to assert that authority and claim dominance (lord it over). Not surprisingly it happens through those means above. Yet, as with many things in the Christian church, authority is portrayed as the opposite. We honor father and mother, yes, but in the church it is the "less honorable" that we bestow honor upon. In the same way, those who are in authority are not served, but are the ones serving. The concept of servant leadership misses this point completely. Servant leadership is like the abusive parent who thinks he is serving his child by punishing him severely.

So, as a parent, I have to be careful to portray the responsibility of their care without claiming superiority. I have to be careful to apply discipline, not to create an environment of unquestioned obedience, but to help them develop the proper understanding of right and wrong. I've discovered with my children that harshness does not convey anything but harshness.

The flip side of this coin is that in painting those in authority as superior, we portray those without authority as inferior. No surprise, since those are the EXACT words used in the Westminster Larger Catechism, and although my pastor friends like to hedge those words when confronted, the message in sermons is loud and clear. Why else would an elder tell me what I should believe and then refuse to listen to my scriptural objections? Why else would a church require an elder to be present whenever there is instruction? Why else would a church refuse to listen to a wife or child claim abuse, or why would they then ask, "well, what did YOU do?". Why would a Presbytery insist on hearing the Session's side of a complaint before the member's?

This also affected me in terms of seeking office. As someone who grew up worthless, I aspired to the eldership, not because I wanted to serve, love and help people, but because I understood it as the only way to not be worthless. Now that I'm older and wiser, I don't feel called to that - not that I'm less knowledgeable or qualified than many RP elders, but that I'm not sure that I have been taught to love, or have grown to love God's sheep as I feel I would need to.

Approachability:

The RP view of God on His throne is that of a majestic king in unapproachable glory. A very true picture, but we need to be complete in our view of God who is also described in more approachable terms:

For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” (Rom 8:15)

We need to be careful, then, to understand that our adopted Father in heaven is yes, the great king on the throne, but also our loving, devoted, proud father. One who wants to know how our day went and the fact that we scraped our knee on our bike and that we got an A on our test. He is the one who allows us to be angry with him and yet runs with open arms to hug us when we mess up and repent. This is yet another picture of godly authority - love, grace and familiarity. When we focus on the picture of the throne room - sovereignty, perfection and judgment, we miss the family room - snuggles, conversations and warmth.

One of my greatest struggles with God is approachability. Because my own father was distant, cold and judgmental, it is hard for me to grow beyond that in my view of the Father. The cold, distant stereotype is so pervasive in the RP church that it is no surprise that the leaders we choose are the most cold and distant. It has been really, really hard for me to grow from being a distant, code and judgmental father into one who is warm and approachable. One who values, loves and shows grace to my children. When my kids scrape their knees when they fall off their bike, for me it becomes a natural lesson in carelessness and not an opportunity to show love. What, then am I portraying about God?

We are struggling with this as an entire society. The recent police violence has been one, I think, fed by the move towards the distant, cold and judgmental officer, rather than police being trained in warm graciousness. We want a country ruled by cold regulations and cold jails rather than charity and grace.

Perhaps this is why Deism has become more of the country's religion. We no longer believe in a loving, warm and near God. Instead, we believe in a cold, distant, judgmental God who snapped the world into existence, and now sadly looks at the state of affairs from an impenetrable distance.

Conclusion:

I thought this especially applicable, given the routine abuse and authoritarianism of the Catholic church:

Synodality, as a constitutive element of the Church, offers us the most appropriate interpretive framework for understanding the hierarchical ministry itself. If we understand, as Saint John Chrysostom says, that “Church and Synod are synonymous”, inasmuch as the Church is nothing other than the “journeying together” of God’s flock along the paths of history towards the encounter with Christ the Lord, then we understand too that, within the Church, no one can be “raised up” higher than others. On the contrary, in the Church, it is necessary that each person “lower” himself or herself, so as to serve our brothers and sisters along the way. ... 

Let us never forget this! For the disciples of Jesus, yesterday, today and always, the only authority is the authority of service, the only power is the power of the cross. As the Master tells us: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave” (Mt 20:25-27). It shall not be so among you: in this expression we touch the heart of the mystery of the Church, and we receive the enlightenment necessary to understand our hierarchical service. (Pope Francis, 17 Oct 2015)

If the role of those in the church is to lift one another's burdens, then it is the calling of those in authority to be lifting even more burdens. Perhaps God has given us strength, not so that we can swing the whip harder, but that we can stand more weight on our backs.

Geneva's new president, just like the previous ones.

According to Geneva College's website, Dr. Calvin Troup has been elected to be the next President. http://www.geneva.edu/about-geneva/president/

Consider the backgrounds of the last few Presidents:

Dr. Ken Smith, public university department chair
Dr. John White, Geneva department chair
Dr. Joseph McFarland, Director of Academic Affairs for Kansas Board of Regents
Dr. Donald Felker, public university department chair

Although most presidents suffer from the same issues, one stands head and shoulders above the rest in terms of his accomplishments. Yup, the one who was an administrator and not an academic department chair.

I'm not sure how someone who "leads" an academic department gets to be considered a leader, but I guess in a denomination that doesn't know leadership from autocracy, it shouldn't be surprising that it doesn't take that much to be considered one.

So, if you're a Geneva employee, the story won't change. The leadership will talk about how wonderful you are and how much you exemplify Christian character, but behind closed doors: in the Trustee meetings and in one-on-one conversations, you're a money-grubbing moron.

If you're a Geneva student, same thing. The college LOVES LOVES LOVES you, but unfortunately, they don't have enough money to provide basic maintenance to your dorm room, despite charging 3x going rent rates. If you mess up there will be no mercy (from the administration, not the faculty, mind you). If you complain, you will get a sob story about how tight finances are, while you see thousands blown on the administration's pet projects. Oh yeah, and when you're a senior, prepare yourself for the lecture about how you need to "pay it forward" because of how well you were treated.

Stephen Covey's "The Speed of Trust" has some pretty wise words. If you as a manager really are a soulless jerk, at least be honest about it. Your employees probably already know you are and you're already paying that trust penalty!

The RP church is all about manufacturing soulless jerk leadership.

Looking for the wrong people in leadership

As a result of good sermons and a lot of thinking, I've come to the conclusion that we are looking for the wrong leaders. Is a true leader person who came great because they sacrificed those around them to rise to the level of great accomplishment, or is a true leader the one who sacrificed so that others around them could rise to a level of great accomplishment?

In some ways, we see both of these play out in the life of Jesus. His disciples often quarreled about who was the greatest, and who would be second-in-command when Jesus came to his throne, but Jesus instead showed true leadership by making those around him great.

I don't want to get into politics, but why are we looking at people like Donald Trump as leaders? He has gotten ahead in life by manipulating and using those around him. Which of his employees have risen to the top? even someone like Bill Gates created scores of millionaires as Microsoft grew.

A recent sermon talked about the "subversive" story of the church. The world has its faith in wealth, power and fame, but the church is different. Our faith is in God's riches, God's power and God's name for us. It sounds trite, but it is perhaps the biggest struggle in the church.

Think of the Roman Catholic church. As it grew in its own riches, power and name, it attracted men who also were attracted to those riches power and name. It became as corrupt, if not more so, than other human institutions. The idol of its name and reputation actually became the beginning of its downfall. In the Reformation, the church was so consumed by gaining wealth that it would rather try to kill Martin Luther than give up on indulgences. Even more recently, the church covered up gross sexual abuse by its leaders to keep its name.

So, as we think about leadership, should we look for people in the church who manipulate others around them to get a great name, or should we be looking for people who build others around them up and look to God for their great name? Should we look for wealthy people, or generous people?

I think it is the same for our governmental leaders. We call them public servants, but haven't we turned that on its head? The public servants are the one who expect to be served. There is so much hypocrisy today. Those who speak out against gun control do so behind metal detectors and armed guards. Those who speak out against the 1% ARE the 1%. Those wanting to shrink government want to expand the military. What should we expect? Haven't we voted for unfaithful men and expected them to govern faithfully?

More thoughts on authority, or, how the Roman Catholic church destroyed Western Culture

As I pointed out in the last article, Jesus flipped the concept of authority on its head. Authority was about service and protection, not control and submission. This concept, however, got skewed over history to become again, flipped on its head. The servant became the servant-leader and the protector became the abuser. Instead of maintaining the leadership model of Christ, the church adopted the leadership model of the world. This leadership model has become, perhaps, the most destructive force in our Western culture.

Consider this in Ezekiel 34:1-10

Then the word of the Lord came to me saying, “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy and say to those shepherds, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock? You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat sheep without feeding the flock. Those who are sickly you have not strengthened, the diseased you have not healed, the broken you have not bound up, the scattered you have not brought back, nor have you sought for the lost; but with force and with severity you have dominated them. They were scattered for lack of a shepherd, and they became food for every beast of the field and were scattered. My flock wandered through all the mountains and on every high hill; My flock was scattered over all the surface of the earth, and there was no one to search or seek for them.”’” 

Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: “As I live,” declares the Lord God, “surely because My flock has become a prey, My flock has even become food for all the beasts of the field for lack of a shepherd, and My shepherds did not search for My flock, but rather the shepherds fed themselves and did not feed My flock; therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will demand My sheep from them and make them cease from feeding sheep. So the shepherds will not feed themselves anymore, but I will deliver My flock from their mouth, so that they will not be food for them.”’”

With that in mind, consider this passage:

John 21:1-11

So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus *said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He *said to him, “Tend My lambs.” He *said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He *said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” He *said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus *said to him, “Tend My sheep.”

Peter was to be a shepherd of the sheep, a high calling. He was to protect and feed the sheep from wolves. In fact, Paul is forced to call Peter out when Peter sides with the Judaizers and begins to dissociate with the Gentiles.

This brings me to the point of the article. The authority church leaders have is not primarily in forcing their will on the sheep, but is instead for the protection of the sheep. But, that authority soon became what was condemned in Ezekiel "with force and with severity you have dominated them". This is the theme of Western culture, the superiority and dominance of the authoritative.

There are two sides of this shown in 1 Cor 5:1-8:

It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

It should be no surprise that Western Christians see this as Paul authoritatively asserting his judgment and condemnation, but instead, this is a call to protect the sheep. "A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough" - instead of being faithful shepherds and protecting their flock, they fed themselves at their sheep's expense (became arrogant). Then it seems, they go overboard in their continued punishment. In a passage that many see as a conclusion to the matter (2 Cor 2:5-8).

But if any has caused sorrow, he has caused sorrow not to me, but in some degree—in order not to say too much—to all of you. Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority, so that on the contrary you should rather forgive and comfort him, otherwise such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. Wherefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him.

If this is truly the same person, we can see that the purpose of church discipline is not "making an example" or "punishment", but protection of the flock and seeking the lost sheep, and those leaders who are "arrogant" are the ones who are more concerned about being well-fed rather than serving those around them.

This is important to understand because it puts the Papacy in perspective. Early in the history of the church, the leadership forgot about service and remembered obedience and being served. There became hierarchies of church leaders and finally, the Archbishop of Rome declared himself to be the supreme leader (Pope) of the church. From there, matters got worse, much worse. Is it any surprise that the church did everything it could to protect the abusive shepherds who molested children rather than protect the sheep? To a lesser extent, the Presbyterian form of government, which is meant to protect the sheep, commonly protects abusive shepherds instead.

This perspective overflowed into Western culture as a whole. The "Divine Right" of kings is to require complete obedience of their subjects, immediately and without question. The hierarchies of corporations are supposed to protect customers and employees, but instead cover up abuse and protect the leaders from scrutiny. We see this problem when policemen kill innocent civilians and then their superiors, who are sworn to protect the citizens, instead defend the guilty.

Why do we see pastors rail against the "ME" generation? Yes, there is perhaps a problem with this innate selfishness, but perhaps it's the rejection of false authority that irks pastors the most. People who say "Why?" instead of "Yes, sir!".  Is it significant that the priest sex abuse scandal broke during this generation? Do we blindly assume that the church never had a problem with molestation until the last 30 years? Is it significant that authoritarian churches are imploding when members stand up to their abusive pastors? Consider Bill Gothard who hid his impropriety in plain sight for decades until the "Me" generation exposed him. Those from generations past are still trying to defend him. In fact, RPCNA pastor Roy Blackwood served on Gothard's board for much of this time.

Thoughts on authority

Growing up in an authoritarian denomination, authority is all about who makes the final decision. We were reminded that submission meant following the leader, whether it was the best decision or not, and that authority was being responsible for those decisions.

It's surprised me, then, that I've never been in a position to do that as the "authority" of my family. Not only do I value my wife's opinions, but I have never tried to overrule her. We have often had heated discussions about the best approach, but we've never gotten into a situation where I was forced to make a decision against her will. I don't even know if that's biblical.

But, that is what we learned in the church. Authority is primarily about who calls the shots and who submits. Why? Well let's look at a family argument.

We, as good RPs, decided that homeschooling was the way to go. The public school was public enemy #1, and parents who gave their children over to the state were handing them over to the devil. Since homeschooling was "God's Way", we should expect that everything would work out, but in second grade, homeschooling our eldest was heading for disaster. We opted for an "enrichment program" for third grade that was created even more friction. Two months in, my wife had enough and wanted to enroll her in public school. We discussed it quite a bit and we both gave in somewhat. We researched the schools around us and decided on our top preferences. The top school had a waiting list a mile long, the second school was good, but we couldn't get her in until the next Fall, and our default school had relatively poor ratings of teachers and administration. So, I gave up the homeschool is best philosophy, and my wife stuck it out until the Fall to enroll in the school we both agreed was better. After that, we've never looked back, even for the other children, all of whom opted for public school.

Now this seems like a reasonable approach, but things could easily have been different for the RP macho husband and the RP submissive wife. Consider Doug Wilson's article here (he did "retract" it here, although only this specific example rather than the thrust of his argument)

She can learn on a representative problem. She would be overwhelmed with a requirement that she change everywhere, all at once. If, for example, the problem is one of poor housekeeping, he should require something very simple, i.e. that the dishes be done after every meal before anything else is done. 

The first time the dishes are not done, he must sit down with his wife immediately, and gently remind her that this is something which has to be done. At no time may he lose his temper, badger her, call her names, etc. He must constantly remember and confess that she is not the problem, he is. By bringing this gently to her attention, he is not to be primarily pointing to her need to repent; rather, he is exhibiting the fruit of his repentance. 

He does this, without rancour and without an accusative spirit, until she complies or rebels. If she complies, he must move up one step, now requiring that another of her duties be done. If she rebels, he must call the elders of the church and ask them for a pastoral visit. When the government of the home has failed to such an extent, and a godly and consistent attempt by the husband to restore the situation has broken down, then the involvement of the elders is fully appropriate.

So, here, the role of the authoritative husband is to tell his wife what her duties are, in this case, keep the house clean. If she neglects her duties as assigned by her husband, he needs to remind her that those are her duties (because he said so) and that she needs to do them. If she persists in her "rebellion", then he needs to call for reinforcement (church discipline).

Even if the situation is far-fetched, the idea of authority is not. There is no real difference between wife and child, except perhaps for the means of discipline. The husband picks the stuff he wants to do, assigns the rest to his wife and when she fails to accomplish it takes her before the church. While many husbands and wives do enjoy the "traditional" separation of duties, Wilson baptizes them with some well-twisted scripture and makes them Biblical roles.

This is the same way we think of church authority(in fact all authority). The pastor and leaders decide what they want to do and then direct the church to do the rest. Those who drop everything to submit become the next generation of leaders, and those who don't stay bottom-feeders or worse.

If the dishes need to get done and my wife is putting the kids to bed, will God strike me down if I dare get my hands soapy? Or is the family a team effort? Is this within my authority?

The symptoms can of course vary. He may be distressed over her spending habits, television viewing habits, weight, rejection of his leadership, laziness in cleaning the house, lack of responsiveness to sexual advances, whatever.

Seriously? "Hey honey, you seem to have gained a few pounds, go get on the treadmill or I'm gonna call the pastor on you!" Is that the model of leadership Jesus displayed? In John 13, we first see an affirmation of Jesus's authority:

Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God, got up from supper, and laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself.

Also consider Mark 10:

Calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them.  But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all.

In our standard Pharisaical way, we flip this on our head - you see the husband "serves" his wife by the proper use of his authority (i.e. lording it over her), just as the church leaders "serve" their congregation through dictate and fear of church discipline. Jesus instead demonstrated his authority by taking the job all of his disciples considered beneath them.

In fact, I think this may change the way we should look for church leaders. Instead of looking for people who are found leading every charge, maybe we should be looking for the ones who are found cleaning up afterwards?