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.
2 comments:
Hebrews 13:17 is sometimes quoted to demand obedience. However, it is significant that the Greek word often translated "obey" in this verse is a different word than the word translated "obey" in Eph. 6:1. The word used in Hebrews 13:17 means "allow yourself to be persuaded by" and the authority here resides in the Word of God spoken by the one leading and in the testimony of a faithful example.
I found an example of the use of this word when I helped a child of mine with an online classical Greek class. The word in Heb. 13:17 appeared in a story about King Aegeus and his son Theseus. Theseus asks his father to allow him to go with his companions to Crete so that he can try and rescue them from the Minotaur. King Aegeus does not want his son to go, but he "obeys" Theseus. Obviously he doesn't defer to Theseus because his son had an authoritative position over him, but rather because he is persuaded by his son's reasoning!
My family left an RP church seven years ago when the elders would not explain from Scripture why they ended the practice of congregational prayer in worship and started calling our evening worship service an "evening meeting" because they allowed lay people to pray. They would not allow members to participate in their Bible study (actually a study of the Westminster Confession of Faith)considering the matter, telling us that they were like the parents who make a big decision without consulting the children (the regular members.) The pastor quoted Heb. 13:17 to us, meaning that we needed to obey without an explanation from them. When I pointed out that the word in Hebrews is not the same as "Children obey your parents," he was not interested and said, "I am not here to argue with you." As lifelong RPs and longtime members of the congregation, my husband and I were shocked by the new authoritarian bent of the session. How could we "allow ourselves to be persuaded" when they refused to discuss their reasoning from Scripture?
Yes, I've heard this argument, and I think it appropriately points to the role of elder being different from the role of parent. Jesus did not use his authority to coerce obedience. When many of Jesus's disciples left after hearing hard teaching, Jesus (sadly?) turned to his disciples and said, "are you going to leave, too?"
We had a similar experience with a domineering elder. We overheard that he believed all children should obey all adults in the church, so we challenged him on this view at a session meeting. He admitted having that view. We informed the session that we tell our children that they can always "appeal" a command by someone outside our family to us, and the elder was upset that he could not expect unquestioned obedience from our children.
After individually asking the other members of session first whether they agreed with his stance (they did not), and what they were going to do about it (nothing), we decided that we needed to protect our children from that church.
I think this person is representative of the authoritarian eldership within the RP church. These pastors and elders derive their "value" from manipulating and controlling the church members to make the church in their image. Because they portray it as God's vision, most members are completely duped into submission and obedience to unlawful authority.
Even as parents, we feel that our ability to require obedience is limited by what God has clearly shown in the Bible. We would not require our children to play sports if we could not convince them it was something they wanted for themselves. We do, however, require them to treat each other and us with due respect. I'm surprised how many RPs consider that 'permissive parenting'.
Post a Comment