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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment