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?
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?
82 comments:
FYI, changed screen name because, apparently, there is a recoveringrp on Twitter that is not me, so I figured it was better to change to avoid confusion.
I stumbled across this blog today, and I'm sorry to hear of your experience. I'm a lifelong lay person of the RPCNA, and I've not had the experiences you've had. I've been encouraged to grow in my faith, to seek truth, to love, and to show mercy and grace through it all. My pastors and elders (I've had several and have lived in several different places), have been Godly and gracious men who encouraged me always through their words and actions. I have no doubt that the RPCNA has it's own issues. Every church this side of heaven does. But I'm thankful for how the denomination has been used by God in my life and in my family's. I hope you can find a body of Christ that feeds your soul as the RPCNA has done for me. Blessings.
Whoops, left my name off. Chris Mathews
Hi Chris,
Even within a bad system, there will be some who truly benefit. I don't think the RPCNA preaches a false gospel, but it is a gospel corrupted by a lot of bad teaching about authority and obedience. People like us who grew up in the system from birth certainly didn't know what else is out there, other than the obvious fact that they don't have our worship practices.
I don't know if I've said it here, but my eyes weren't really opened to the systemic abuse until I experienced it in those I cared deeply about, and then when removed from it for a time realized that the same sorts of things happened to me. Then, I started questioning whether all of the "lost generation of RPs" I experienced were, as I was told, people who forsook the purity of the RP faith, or were instead, those who found churches outside to be more gracious and loving.
I did find a body that teaches truth, shows grace and feeds my soul. Unfortunately, there were many things I had to give up.
Interestingly, some of my suffering was due to holding an RPCNA position - women deacons. When the church allowed open disagreement with that position, it also opened up discrimination against those who believed the Testimony. The pastor and elders were completely opposed to women deacons, and since I was a potential leader, they had to bring me down in the eyes of the congregation.
There are definitely good congregations, but at the rate RPTS is turning out Pharisees, I'm concerned they will be fewer and farther between. I am struggling to think of a pastor younger than about 50 that isn't caught in the RP authoritarian trap. Behind the facade of kindness and grace is the bare teeth of "I'm the elder and you're not." Greetings to Colleen as well. :)
Clearly you've had a different experience than I have. I'm sorry for that. I certainly don't believe the RPCNA is the only good denomination out there, but I appreciate the strengths and consistency to the Scriptures that I have found that it holds amidst a culture in which evangelical churches are abandoning it with saddening frequency. I don't doubt your experience, though, and I appreciate your perspective. It's a good reminder for all of us of how to live out truth and grace in the midst of a sinful world.
Blessings again,
Chris
Not sure how much you want to go into this debate. I thought I was a happy RP who grew up in a solid RP family. Over time, and it was a long time, I was awakened to the fact that my church wasn't so happy. Then I was awakened to the fact that the RP church wasn't so happy. Finally I'm being awakened to the fact that my family wasn't so happy.
Evangelicals think that the message of utmost importance in the Bible is that we are worthless and in need of a savior. While that is an important part of the gospel, once we are saved, we are no longer spiritually worthless - we are sons and daughters of the King and we have a mission, not to live in worthlessness, but as co-heirs.
However, two things happen in Evangelicalism. First, somehow we forget that we're not spiritually worthless anymore. I could point you to RP sermons on SermonAudio where the pastor is preaching to a room full of RP members talking about how worthless we are. It would be like adopting a child who refuses to eat at the table for family dinner - not because she somehow despises you, but, no matter how much you tell her she has the right to eat at the family table, she feels like she doesn't 'deserve' to.
Second, Evangelicals want to extend that concept of our worthlessness beyond the spiritual realm. So, fathers, mothers, civic leaders and church leaders are all taught that part of leading people to Jesus is taking steps to demonstrate that worthlessness. Here is a quote from a paper approved by a Presbytery showing this exact thing:
-----
But the message of the gospel is that we must first recognize how far short of the glory of God we fall, how much we have sinned against God and the terrible consequences sin has brought into our life. Are Christians called to help other people build their self-esteem, to help them become rich and prosperous so that they can do the things they want to do? No. Christians are called to bring the gospel as Jesus did when He said, “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.”
-----
You see, this presbytery confused _spiritual_ self-esteem with _emotional_ self-esteem. Don't you think that this is license for emotional abuse? Fathers and others in authority being taught that destroying self-esteem is the way to get them to recognize their need for a savior?
But, this is not just one errant presbytery, this is an epidemic in the RPCNA. Sermon after sermon is preached trying to demolish self-esteem (not merely spiritual, but emotional as well). It's the church saying that members aren't worthy to sit at the table with Jesus and the Father.
I certainly don't claim to be an intellectual superiority when it comes to some of these matters, so it's possible I don't read deeply enough into things, but that's never the sense I've gotten while in the church, and that's not the sense I get from reading your quotes from the paper.
Being unworthy and being worthless are two very different things. Because of my sin, I am unworthy to stand before the living God on my own accord. I am only worthy when I am wrapped in Christ's righteousness. But that doesn't make me worthless. The fact I am made in the image of God, and all humans for that matter, gives me great value. The Bible says as much, and I've never had the sense from any pastor or elder to think otherwise. The fact God sent his own Son to die on my behalf means I have immense value.
Clearly you have thought much more deeply about this topic than I have, particularly as it relates to your experiences in the RP church. But as one who sits under the same (I assume more or less essentially) preached Word that you did for so long, I've never felt the conviction that you have. I don't see a problem with reminding people of their own spiritual helplessness outside of the work of Christ lest people become puffed up and think that it is their own actions that warrant the grace of Christ in their life, which ironically seems to be what it appears you feel many of the leaders of the church need to be reminded of, the very thing that the Pharisees long forgot. It wasn't the mint and cumin that saved them, it was a heart trusting in Christ.
If I ever felt my pastor or elders were telling me I was worthless, I'd recoil at that, because it's not Scriptural. Maybe I've misunderstood your point here, or maybe I just haven't been exposed to the type of heresy that you have. But I am not troubled the way that you are by this message I've heard from the pulpit/RP church, either from the sermons I have heard, or from the paper above, as I don't read it the same way you have.
Blessings,
Chris
If you agree with the presbytery, why is "help[ing] other people build their self-esteem" in opposition to being "called to bring the gospel as Jesus did when He said, 'Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.'"?
It's always helpful to have the full context, but the quote "Are Christians called to help other people build their self-esteem, to help them become rich and prosperous so that they can do the things they want to do?" sounds exactly like the prosperity gospel at play. This sounds like something out of the Joel Osteen handbook. The prosperity gospel is a false gospel. The message that the God of the Bible wants everyone in this life to be happy and wealthy and to never have to go through hard things is just not true. When I read that excerpt you've posted I think it is speaking out against that false gospel. Maybe if I had the larger context of the whole paper it would seem different. Certainly the gospel encourages the soul, and it changes hearts and lives for the better. No one I know would debate that. But to view the gospel as some sort of self-help-make-you-happy-and-wealthy strategy is a big problem within certain segments of the church today, and it needs to be spoken out against.
I guess that's not how you read that excerpt then?
Blessings,
Chris
Maybe the context would be more helpful, but the problem is that when you agree with the conclusion "prosperity gospel = bad", then it really doesn't matter how false and illogical the statements are against the prosperity gospel as long as the end result agrees with your predefined conclusions. In this case, it isn't about the prosperity gospel, but let's talk about that.
The problem with the prosperity gospel is that those who hold it believe that happiness, wealth and power are a result of our faith and works. They believe that we can pray the right things and God will answer with what we want.
The logic is still flawed, not necessarily in the positive, but in the negative. Self-esteem, riches and prosperity are not the enemy of repentance, they are not the enemy of Christianity. But, when we make statements that SAY that self-esteem, riches and prosperity are opposed to repentance and Christianity, then we are, in fact, promoting the "emotional abuse" gospel and the "poverty" gospel.
And that is a core problem in the RP church today. The RP church believes that in order to take a stand against the "feel-goodism" prevalent in prosperity gospel churches that they need to preach an emotionally abusive gospel. Both are false.
As to the "end justifies the means" conclusions from failed logic, I'll give you a real-life example.
Tim McCracken wrote a paper questioning exclusive psalmody. The response to that was a committee report on worship. Synod accepted the report because it came to a conclusion (pro exclusive psalmody) that Synod liked. However, the paper introduced two concepts in argumentation, worship as "covenant renewal" and the "dialogical principle", to make those conclusions.
Bill Chellis, capitalizing on the approved report, wrote a paper requesting a new directory of worship, which included the consequences of those two concepts - that is a liturgical worship that follows the path through covenant renewal, and followed the dialogical principle (worship solely between God and man).
Synod appointed a committee, which included those two things in their directory. Synod voted against the covenant renewal and dialogical principle language in the revised directory (thankfully), and finally approved a new directory.
The chairman of the committee then wrote an article in the Witness that re-introduced covenant renewal and the dialogical principle as the basis for the new directory.
So, as you can see, simply trying to defend exclusive psalmody led down a path where new theology snuck into the RP church through the back door, and that theology, which has never been debated separately at Synod, is now being taught as part of the RP doctrine.
In the same way, emotional abuse has secured a foothold in the RP church, not as something that was debated (in fact, the Testimony appears to condemn it), but as something that gets snuck in to arguments as an answer to issues that arise. However, it's gaining a significant foothold, as pastors believe and preach (and use in logical arguments) that making people feel unworthy is the key to bringing them to repentance.
Interestingly enough, the prosperity gospel is not without emotional abuse. People who try all of the self-help guidance and praying for money guidance and don't find help or money are told that they lack faith, or that they aren't trying hard enough. That is the same shaming message that is heard in RP sermons. We're told God punishes us when we don't tithe. We're told that we don't have joy because we lack faith. The Pipers of the world are just as bad, if not worse, than the Osteens. I think I'd take a God who loves me and spoils me any day over a God who is waiting for me to screw up so he can whip me.
Man, your view of the God of the RP church is completely foreign to me. I don't doubt you, I just haven't experienced that sort of message, that God is some kind of angry bully just waiting to whip us for the slightest transgression. If that was the case, I would have been a dead man long ago. I'd prefer the other option too. But what I'd actually prefer is a loving Father who disciplines me when I need it, but blesses me as well, one that cares for his children like a loving early father does. That's the God I've come to know through the RP church.
The prosperity gospel is not just that happiness, wealth, and power are a result of our faith. It's that they are the end goal. If you want to be happy, wealthy, and powerful, then come to God. That's not the message of the gospel, and it's certainly not the example we see in Christ's life.
Again, neither Colleen or I have felt this emotionally abusive gospel you speak of coming from the RP pulpits. Maybe it's there, and it's just too nuanced for me to pick up, or I'm not sharp enough to catch it, or I've just been fortunate to have avoided it. I do appreciate your perspective, though. I always find it helpful to hear what others have to say, even in disagreement.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris, I've talked to people with the same opinion. Usually when I go to their churches I hear the same messages. As I've said, there are a few older pastors that still preach without the abuse, but all of the younger ones I've heard are very authoritarian and legalistic.
I would say, you may be in one of the few RP churches where this isn't being taught. They do exist, but based on my experience, it's more likely that you haven't picked up on the difference between the two.
Here's one you may have heard... Joel Beeke at the RP International Conference speaking on dealing with children who will not participate in family worship.
"So the next day you have family worship or that same night and there you see one of your children not singing, you pull him aside afterward and say 'son, you will participate in this family worship', and if he rebels and says, 'Dad, I won't do it', you say, 'son, no singing, no food.' He will sing."
The conferees thought that was funny. You can listen to it here. Is that a message of grace or is that a message of abuse? Why did the RP church invite Joel Beeke to speak about family worship, knowing that this exact thing is written in his book on family worship?
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=82121557151
Is that a picture of being a father like our Heavenly Father? No worship, no food? Or do we believe in a God we're supposed to model, who showers rain on the just and the just?
There was a pastors' panel the next day, and not a single RP pastor was willing to confront this evil teaching.
I was at that conference, though I didn't hear all of Beeke's teachings that week. I don't recall this one. I appreciate a lot of Beeke's ministry, but I agree he errors in this regard. After this conference, we were given some of Beeke's family devotionals to use for young children during family worship, and I wasn't particularly impressed with some of the content, so we stopped using them.
I am obviously not in most congregations in this denomination, so I can't speak with any authority about what is and isn't being preached from the pulpit at the vast majority of churches. I appreciate your warnings, though. One of the things I really appreciate about the RPCNA is how strongly they view the Scriptures, the very Word of God, and how deeply the leaders encourage all people to study it, to the very nooks and crannies of it. Because of this, I think there is a great depth of knowledge on the Scriptures in our denomination, and that is a very good thing. But I can see how with great knowledge one could fall into the trap of elitism, egotism, legalism, etc. I think that's a sin that is common for any institution when there is deep knowledge, whether that be the church, academia, corporations, or just a simple social club, so in that sense your concerns are reasonable.
One of the blessings that I've enjoyed since moving to Pittsburgh 14 years ago is that I get to know, listen to, and interact, with many future pastors that are stationed here for a few years while they are in seminary, and I have found most of these men to be humble and Godly men, so it's hard for me to accept your sweeping characterizations of most, if not all, of these men as abusive in their theology. That is far from what I've experienced.
These are no doubt hard issues to work through. Finding the balance between grace and truth requires great wisdom at times. One without the other is problematic and at the very least an incomplete, if not outright false, picture of the gospel. And I would agree that if the RPCNA is going to fall into error, it would be on the side that is lacking in grace. It's a trap that I think is easy to fall into, and I've seen it in the past in my own words and thoughts at times.
But I'm very thankful for the RPCNA, and I'm thankful for my home church. The Lord has blessed us with a Godly pastor and a Godly session, and the Lord has seen fit to grow our body significantly over the years, and I'm always encouraged when I hear visitors from non-reformed backgrounds talk about how refreshing the sermons from our pulpit are.
Blessings,
Chris
You know that Beeke is the President of a Reformed seminary, and that his seminary graduates students into RP pastorates, right?
I'm pretty sure I posted this, but many of the authoritarian RP leaders are the nicest, godliest, humblest men out there. That is, until they put their "elder" hat on. When that hat is on, the offense or disagreement is no longer with their nice, humble self, but is a disagreement with God's appointed shepherd. Seminarians tend to be humble because they don't have an "elder" hat to put on.
I think Beeke works really well into this. I'm sure he would teach about how fathers need to be loving and caring, godly and humble. But, then, here's a situation where the father is more than merely a father. He puts on the hat of priest of his family and leads his family to the altar of Christ in family worship. Now that he is wearing his "priest hat" it's completely okay, if not commanded, for him to be abusive. (You agree that starving your child is abusive, right?)
So, someone who is laid back and non-combative, like you, will think the RP system is great. If you disagree, you hold your tongue, or maybe you ask a question. In the case of Beeke, you just put his books aside and say it doesn't work for your family. But, what if you're in a Bible study and an elder starts talking about family worship and how it is so important that we should starve our children if they refuse to participate? Would you go with the flow and shut up, or would you oppose him?
I've been in that situation a few times and I called people out on it. Interesting how the most humble, nice, godly RP elders react when they're told they're wrong in front of a class full of members. It's even worse when they try to put me in my place and discover that I know more RP doctrine and scripture than they do, even though they are "God's anointed".
When I started asking around, I found that it's not "going with the flow". It's FEAR. People know that if they disagree with an elder in front of others that they will get called out on it. They know that because every once-in-awhile some fool dares try it and gets smacked down. Instead of disagreeing, they smile and nod in class and when they get home they throw the doctrine in the trash where it belongs. Or they look around and see everyone smiling and nodding and they assume everyone agrees with the teaching.
Another example... have you read the online Synod minutes this year? A family from Las Vegas was in a church that used wine for communion. The family felt they could not in good conscience drink wine, so they petitioned the session to have a split cup. The session refused. The family appealed it all the way to Synod, because at each level the Session's refusal to split the cup was upheld. Now, despite the fact that the RP church has no official position on grape juice vs. wine, and despite the fact that Kokomo was told many years ago to split the cup under the same circumstances so that the members could partake, this year, Synod told the family to suck it up and drink wine, or not partake in communion. Not only that, but Synod reminded the family how gracious and caring the Session and Presbytery were in telling them to suck it up!
Interesting that a very similar situation comes up in the Bible. God tells Ezekiel to bake his bread over human dung. Ezekiel protests that he has never been defiled by unclean things. Instead of telling Ezekiel to suck it up, God says that he can use cow dung instead.
So, one shows grace and the other becomes defiant and protects the authority structure. Interesting? The committee tells them that they can overrule their conscience and drink wine at the direction of the church. Then the committee reminds them of their vow to "Submit in the Lord to the teaching and government of this church" (vow 4), and somehow Synod still thinks that the committee is merely giving them advice. Why would they pull out the "vow 4 card" unless they're saying that refusing to drink wine is a lack of submission to the leaders?
Interesting again, Paul in Corinthians tells those who have the freedom to eat meat sacrificed to idols to regard those with weak consciences and abstain, lest their weak consciences be violated. In this case, the RP church says, screw your conscience and drink, because you vowed to submit to us!
I think it's probably best for me to go ahead and sign off on this one. I feel like with each new post of yours there is more and more anger and resentment coming out in your posts, and I don't think that's a healthy thing. You clearly hold a lot of bitterness towards the RPCNA, and I am sorry for that and whatever experiences you've had that have hurt you. If your point is that the RPCNA is made up of leaders who are sinful and don't always get it right, then I'd agree. But if your point is that the vast majority of pastors and elders are power hungry, authoritarian, abusive leaders, I have to very much disagree.
Again, I pray you find the Lord's blessing in whatever body of Christ you now are a part of, and that whatever healing needs to occur in regards to the RPCNA can occur for you.
Blessings,
Chris
I'm not sure why you expect me to be emotionless and detached about being abused. I think that is part of why I think you're in the same boat I was in - thinking that people who showed emotions (such as anger or bitterness) were somehow sinning.
My point is that the RPCNA church is an abusive _system_. I think there are a few that take advantage of that abusive system because they are power hungry, but I think a lot more are trapped. They want their lives to have value and meaning, and they what they see culturally and theologically has subtly twisted the value proposition from finding value solely in Christ to finding value in approval by Christ's chosen representatives (father, elder, pastor, husband). Pastors and elders supposedly find their calling and value from Christ, but that gets twisted to finding value in respect and obedience (and outward righteousness) of the congregation, and approval of their peers. And, as I said, this change in value proposition is so subtle that its very hard to differentiate between those whose value is in Christ, but they submit in the Lord to their leaders, and those who think their value is in Christ, but that value is being determined by how Christ's representatives value them.
Abuse, is a pattern of behavior, not the intent to harm. The parents who killed their child "spanking her to death", I'm sure did not _intend_ to harm her. They probably, to this day, think they were obeying God and scripture. Michael Pearl's book, "To Train Up a Child" has been implicated in that death, and in multiple other deaths and child abuse cases. Yet, I still hear RPs talking about Pearl's and Ezzo's theories and practices as if they're straight from the mouth of God.
So, yes, I'm angry and bitter. I'm angry that authoritarian theology was used to elevate men to a position between me and God. I'm angry that authoritarian theology was used to justify emotional and spiritual abuse at the hands of my parents, pastors and elders. I'm angry that those same people are preserving the abusive culture by exemplifying it in the preached word and spiritual abuse within the congregation, and I'm angry that those within the system silently watch while their fellow sheep are ripped apart by the wolves.
I'm just thankful that, unlike RPs, God doesn't wash his hands of me because I'm angry and bitter.
If I'm right and the RP church is abusive, I hope that God opens your eyes to that without having to personally experience it like I did.
You have every right to leave the discussion, you have every right to note that I seem to be angry, but calling someone "angry and bitter" is an Evangelical codeword for someone it's okay to ignore and dismiss.
We respect each other and we disagree. Let's leave it at that.
To be clear, I'm not dismissing you because of your emotions. If that was my intent, I wouldn't even have engaged you to begin with. I'm also not even stating that it is sinning. You know me. I don't know you, and that's fine. I don't need to know who you are. But I believe you to be making some pretty bold and damaging widespread claims that I don't agree with. If you faced abuse, I even understand why your emotions would be raw. But that doesn't mean that I like to stir those emotions up within people, which is what I felt like this discussion was doing to you. I don't believe that to be wise or profitable, particularly in this sort of odd public forum where you know me and I don't know you. I do acknowledge how clearly personal and difficult these matters are to you.
So again, I wish you no harm or ill will. I consider whoever you are to be a brother or sister in Christ, even amidst our disagreements. I do wish the Lord's blessing upon you, and again just want you to find a gospel preaching body of Christ where you can grow and experience the fellowship of God's people, and from the sounds of it, you have. So for that I am thankful.
Blessings,
Chris
Got it. You would probably understand the reason I'm anonymous more than most others. There are a lot of ways that those you know and you yourself could get hurt if you started writing about painful RP experiences having grown up in a well-respected RP family, and having the vast majority of that family still entrenched in the RP church. Also, even if there were specific people who hurt you deeply, there are also those who were loving and kind.
As you can see if you look at comments, there seems to be some joy and power in putting a name (e.g. Kathy Stegall) to your anonymous opponent as if suddenly they are wrong and you are right. FYI, I'm not Kathy, but definitely don't think she's the arch-enemy of the RP church as she's been labeled.
Well, I grew up in the same church with Ron and Kathy. Their kids were my age. Ron was my pastor when I was young. Kathy was not only a Sunday School teacher but also a teacher for me in the Christian school in Lawrence. Both are very gifted at what they do, preaching and teaching. I think very highly of them, and I consider them friends, even though I may not agree with them theologically on everything. They are wonderful people and have been used by God in my life in multiple ways.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris, this was part of my struggle growing up. I was much better acquainted with Faith Martin. When her book came out and Synod had to deal with it, the things said about her and my experience were completely different. She was always kind and gracious - she would often start a conversation with me, which was pretty rare for me because I learned how to be neither seen nor heard.
There are two RP people, though, that really stand out as godly, kind and respectful in some of my darkest times. They both saw past the protective walls I had erected and took personal interest in me, not some image of themselves they wanted me to become. I later found out that one of these men, who I had probably repeated all sorts of authoritarian theological garbage I had learned was a "liberal". He never got angry or debated or corrected. He simply let it go and treated me like a real person. The other man was just in my life a brief time, but when virtually everyone in my church ignored me, he spent the time to get to know me. I was able to see him again to tell him that I probably would have walked away from church if it hadn't been for him.
When I finally recognized what I had experienced as abuse, I eventually realized that, with a few exceptions on both sides, it was the theological conservatives that treated me like garbage, and the theological liberals (RP liberals, mind you) that treated me with respect and dignity.
In fact, my whole world flipped upside down. The men and churches that were held in high regard growing up, I realized had been abusive, while the men and churches (e.g. Lawrence) that were seen as pushing a liberal agenda, I started realizing had been respectful and caring.
Before I recognized that I was abused, however, I became increasingly dissolutioned with the RP theology. Everything seemed so logical and rock-solid growing up. Expository preaching straight from the Bible. But, when I started reading through the Bible, I found these passages that sounded completely different than what I heard from the pulpit. They seemed to completely contradict the RP version of truth. It was then I discovered that RP theology was rock-solid and logical only because they carefully avoided preaching passages that might lead someone to any other conclusion.
For example, I read in Joel, "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."
It doesn't seem to be a curse that women prophesy. In fact, this seems like a great blessing - the pouring out of the Spirit upon all without regard to gender or status or even nationality. Yet for some reason, this is ignored and Deborah is a judgment upon Israel, not a foretaste of future blessing, and the Holy Spirit poured out upon men and women in Acts 2 (Peter quotes that very passage) somehow finds himself locked back up to only bless a certain subset of men. Men and women who feel they have something of significance to contribute to the church are told their contributions are unworthy unless they fill some need that the church has already identified.
I don't doubt that there are people that have been mistreated by various members of leadership within the RPCNA at various times, and for that I am sorry. Unfortunately that's not a unique problem to just the RPCNA, but a problem that has plagued the larger church since its inception, and sadly will continue until Christ returns. I don't believe it to be a widespread issue in the RPCNA as you do, but our perspectives are shaped by the experiences that we and our friends/loved ones have had, and clearly we have had different experiences in that regard, both in our families, and in our churches.
I'm glad to see the tone of your newest post. I understand that you have experienced hard things through your time in the RPCNA, and that invariably brings raw emotions. I don't dismiss those. But I can say that as one who doesn't know who you are and stumbled across your blog and read several of your posts, the thing that caught me the most was the anger and bitterness that was behind so much of what you said, and that anger and bitterness often overshadowed and drowned out any truth that you were trying to convey.
I'm not a psychologist, or a licensed counselor, so I don't know how much my opinion really means (probably little, actually!), but I've always heard and been told that when one who has been abused holds onto that anger, that resentment, that bitterness from the abuse, the person that is most damaged by it is that person who has been abused.
Again, I don't dismiss those emotions as irrelevant, but only encourage you in the midst of your journey to speak out in love, even if that same respect and care was not done to you. I know that is not an easy thing to do, but I think the message is more easily heard through your struggles and wrestlings.
When I first came across this blog a couple of weeks ago, there hadn't been a new post in several months, so I didn't even know if it was still active. I didn't expect to actually get a response to my comment, and here we are 25+ comments in. And now there have been two new posts since our discussion started. It's interesting how things weave together sometimes.
So I won't belabor this discussion further. My point was never to get into a lengthy discussion about various issues under debate/discussion in the RPCNA right now. You sound more knowledgeable about the specifics than me on many of them anyway. My point was simply to reach out to a clearly hurting person that had once been part of the RPCNA family, even in anonymity on your part.
Blessings again to you, and I hope you continue find healing and hope wherever God has you placed now.
Chris
Yes, holding on to that anger and bitterness is harmful, and that was what I learned in the RP church, that I could "intellect" my way through emotions.
Since I've left and sought counseling (another RP no-no unless it's "Biblical" counseling) I've learned that anger and bitterness come out whether we like it or not, and it is better to deal with them in a healthy manner. Interestingly enough, one such healthy manner is through journaling, and that is mostly what this blog is - a journal of what has made me angry, although I'm starting to realize that trying to make it general, obscure and anonymous didn't really help me process.
Again, when you say "speak out in love" you really don't understand what you're saying. You're saying take those raw emotions from many years of anger and then shove them back in the bottle so then I can sugar coat it to make it sound Christian. Is that what you read in scripture? Does God invalidate the raw emotions of his prophets and tell them to have "JOY" instead? Or does he meet them where they are?
One thing that really hit me after I left was how we prided ourself in knowing and singing the Psalms. The Psalms don't sugar-coat harsh emotions. So, we proudly sing imprecatory Psalms, we proudly sing songs where the writer is at the end of himself, ready to turn away from God, but then when someone shows those emotions, we lame them angry and bitter and unhealthy so that we can turn our backs on them.
It is those kinds of statements that make me think that, yes, you had a different experience than I did, perhaps not as abusive, but you still are unaware that you're in the midst of an abusive church. I would say Alleghenies is more characteristically cold and neglectful than outright abusive, but I think the influx of the GLG mindset (authoritarian and abusive) has changed that in the last 5-10 years. You may think that everyone around you is truly happy and godly, but is it true, or is it because they've been taught that "lacking joy" is a result of deep personal sin, so they slap on their Sunday happy mask and speak in Christian cliches so that they don't feel cold judgment.
It's amazing how freeing it is to be allowed to have a REAL relationship with God. Six months ago a woman came forward. Her husband had multiple brain tumors and multiple extremely risky surgeries. She talked about how she was angry with God for letting this happen to her wonderful husband, and how she told God she would walk away from him if he let her husband die. Amazingly, the pastor didn't jump in to sugar coat her raw emotions. She then told of how he came through surgery cancer-free. Again, the pastor didn't feel like he had to correct her theology and remind us that we really need to be joyful in the midst of whatever providence we get from God.
You are assuming some things about me that aren't true, but I guess that's the difficult thing about a forum such as this. Regardless, I appreciate your perspective and have enjoyed this discussion.
Blessings,
Chris
Maybe, but I know when I was taught to "speak out in love" it was a codeword for repressing anger. Did Jesus "speak out in love" when he called the Pharisees hypocrites and vipers?
If God is unchanging, his anger existed as part of his character before the fall. We are created in his image with the ability to feel and express anger. His son showed us how to express it perfectly, not how to repress it. Yet, somehow as his disciples being made to conform more and more to his image - the pattern of his behavior, we're told that anger has no place. Who's wrong?
I was told to my face by an RP pastor and elder that anger is sin. Well, Jesus could be angry because it was 'righteous anger', but because we can't be angry without sinning we should never be angry. I think most pastors and elders are much more deceptive, but the message is still there, and it comes out as "speaking the truth in love."
I think the Psalms, as you rightly point out, are a wonderful example of how to deal with all kinds of emotions. If someone is struggling with a particular emotion, anger, despair, sadness, etc, the first action should always to bring that matter to God and allow him to deal with you. That's certainly the model of the Psalms.
But what do the Scriptures teach us about anger? Certainly God executes righteous anger in particular moments, but can you find verses that imply that anger is a good thing for his children? Can you find anything that says anything other than in James where it says "human anger does not produce the righteousness of God?"
What I've tried to say repeatedly is that I'm not dismissing your emotions. God made us as emotional beings, and the Scriptures are filled with people dealing with all matters of emotions. Bring that to Christ. But if sustained anger and resentment is not a good thing (and Scripture makes it clear that it is not), is it wrong to encourage a brother or sister in Christ out of it?
That's not saying, "your emotions don't matter. Get over it and be happy." Rather it's, "I know you are angry. Bring that emotion before the Lord and allow him to deal with it, yet strive for the fruits of the spirit in the midst of that emotion."
We all go through seasons of life where we experience different emotions. I'd never say to someone who lost a loved one, "well, you can't be sad. Remember, you always have to be joyful." Of course not! Even Christ wept at the depth of emotions and brokenness of this life. I'd tell them the same thing I just said. Bring those deep emotions to the cross, and let God meet you where you are at.
But in all things, shouldn't we strive for Godliness? If I was in deep despair, should I not want the Lord to bring me out of that despair? Can a case be made from the Scriptures that anger, resentment, and bitterness are characteristics of Godliness? They are certainly legitimate emotions that we may all struggle with at times, but are those things things the Scriptures say characterize his people?
If you've been abused by leaders in the church, I completely understand your emotions. They are real. Bring those to God, and let him produce the righteousness of "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control."
Blessings,
Chris
So, you despise the prosperity gospel, but aren't you just preaching the emotional prosperity gospel?
If a woman comes into the church struggling with depression, how long is it before it becomes a discipline issue? There are Christian blogs of people who struggle with cancer? Is it okay to have a Christian blog about struggling with depression? How about struggling with the scars of abuse? Is that okay?
If you actually opening your eyes to what you're saying, you're saying that God wants me to be happy and (emotionally) rich. All I have to do is pray really hard and make sure I don't act out of my emotional poverty in the church! We only want people who have the fruit of the Spirit plastered across their faces. Real fruit, fake fruit, doesn't really matter as long as the church LOOKS good.
Whoa, back up for just a second now. I just want to know this: where in the Scriptures do you feel it states that anger can be a good thing for God's people to hold? What verses can you point to that support that position? I am honestly and genuinely curious.
Blessings,
Chris
Where in the Scriptures does it say that a broken bone is a good thing for God's people?
The point is that you don't judge a person who walks as a limp as being someone small in the kingdom of God. You don't say to the person who has a limp that if they pour out their limp before God that God will heal them.
But, you DO say that someone who has endured abuse, has been a good RP and shoved all that anger and resentment in a box and now is trying to truly heal from that that all they need to do is bring that before God and it'll all just go away. You're saying that I can "intellectually accept" that my anger and resentment is not good and that God will just make it all disappear.
But it DOESN'T WORK. God gave us tools to deal with anger and resentment, but it's not instantaneous and it's not "pray it away". I can agree with you 100% that anger, bitterness and resentment are not good to hold, but I can also agree that broken bones are not good when they're not healed.
Just like God often chooses not to miraculously heal broken bones, God may also not choose to miraculously heal bitterness and resentment. But, neither does God shove his peoples' bitterness and resentment in a box.
God does not heal Hannah of her bitterness by telling her not to be bitter. She is bitter and he gives her a child.
God does not heal Naomi of her bitterness by telling her to shove it in a box. He gives her a son-in-law and a grandson and a godly daughter.
God does not heal Elijah of his bitterness. He says, just hold on and do a few more things and you'll be done.
The only time I remember God saying anything like that, it is when he strikes down Nadab and Abihu and tells Aaron to hold his peace.
Not every psalm turns from bitterness and resentment to victory.
I think it is you trying to prove an argument from a few prooftexts and silence.
Where does it say that God will fix our anger and bitterness if we bring it to him? Maybe the Prayer of Jabez?
But you didn't quote any verses. You've posted about how people weren't always given immediate relief from their anger. People aren't always made fully whole in this life. That's the unfortunate reality of living in a sinful world? Paul battled his thorn in the flesh his whole life, and by all accounts never received freedom from it until meeting God face to face. But where does it state anywhere about anger that it is an emotion that that should characterize God's people?
I'm really not trying to be snide here. I just want to understand the Biblical basis for the position that Christians are commanded to have anything to do with anger.
Blessings,
Chris
I'm not sure what you want. You said:
Rather it's, "I know you are angry. Bring that emotion before the Lord and allow him to deal with it, yet strive for the fruits of the spirit in the midst of that emotion."
Where does the Bible say that? Where does the Bible say that God will "deal with it"? It's one thing to say "pour out your emotion before the Lord" That is abundantly clear in scripture, but nowhere does the Bible promise that God will heal that emotion this side of Heaven. It's even abundantly clear that we should live out the fruits of the Spirit.
Psalmists write about being angry and resentful. You say I shouldn't write about being angry and resentful.
The Bible talks about people being bitter without God confronting them on that bitterness. You feel it's okay to call out my bitterness as if it were a besetting sin.
What I'm saying is that you are out of tune with scripture. Out of tune in a way that is common among RPs and evangelicals. You don't respond to bitterness and anger in the way I see God do in scripture. God confronts Jonah in his anger, but it is only because Jonah is angry that God is going to bring the Ninevites to repentance.
You say I didn't quote verses. Do you need me to quote 1 Samuel or Jonah for you or do you know how to find it?
If all Biblical truth is contained in one verse sound bytes, how would you argue the "Regulative Principle"?
I apologize if my word choice of deal was confusing there. I didn't say heal because I didn't mean heal. By deal I meant he will handle that according to his will and purposes. Sometimes that means healing. Sometimes that means giving the person the grace to continue on in the midst of that struggle while not fully healing that until heaven.
Clearly no where in the Scripture does it say that God heals everything in this life. I agree with you there.
Earlier when I tried to encourage you to turn from anger, to put on the fruit of the spirit, to speak in love, I was simply trying to encourage you to turn from things that Scripture make clear should not be a regular part of believer's life, as you have acknowledged. It just seemed you became pretty defensive about your right to be angry, and even a little upset that I had tried to offer that encouragement.
If bitterness and anger are not part of what God calls a Christian to (Ephesians 4:31-32 "Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you."), why is it so upsetting to you when I try to encourage you to do what the Scripture tells us to do?
Blessings,
Chris
I think you are closing your eyes to what the Bible says because you've been taught only one side of the argument.
"When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also." (Rev 6:9-11)
Now, remember, this is a picture of the martyred saints in Heaven, before the very throne of God. Not only is the sanctification of these saints complete (they are sinless), but surely God would harbor no hint of sin in his presence.
Yet... These saints "cry out with a loud voice" to God. I don't think it is a stretch to say that they are angry and bitter, angry and bitter towards God, no less! They are bitter because God has promised to bring justice and vengeance, yet it has not happened. Now, when they bring this before God, does God annihilate them in their sin? No, it seems the opposite, God assures them that there will be justice and asks them to be patient.
I think this raises two interesting questions. First, is all anger and bitterness condemned, or is there a differentiation between that which is just and that which is unjust. That is, when Balaam became angry at his donkey, was that just anger or unjust anger, and what was the proper response. In the same way, when Jesus became angry at the profiteers in the temple, was that unjust anger or just anger? Were the martyred saints in Heaven unjustly angry or justly angry? I think the Bible differentiates between just and unjust anger.
Now, given that there is anger that is properly expressed, how do you think we ought to "put away" anger. How will God put away the anger of the martyrs? He will judge and avenge those who wronged them! So, if a church is to put away anger, that is done not by re-victimizing those who have already been victimized by telling them to shove their anger in a box. Instead, the church puts away anger by bringing justice and consequences.
But, the church is not perfect. There will be people who will be unjustly wronged, and when they seek justice from the church will find injustice and rejection. I think when those people die, they will join those under the altar, angry that God has not yet judged those wrongs. If holding just anger is okay in Heaven, why do you claim it is forbidden on Earth?
I see this as a significant misunderstanding of this Scripture. The martyred saints are eager for justice to prevail, but they are not angry and bitter. I see this as much more similar to how my children react when I promise them something that they want, and they are eagerly waiting for it. "How much longer Dad before we can get what you promised us?!" It often comes out in a loud crying out to me for the thing that they want. They aren't angry and bitter, they are eager and impatient to receive the thing that they have been promised. So I would dispute your understanding that your interpretation is not a stretch. I'd actually strongly argue it is not a correct application of how this relates to anger and bitterness, and in fact is a very poor and dangerous interpretation, one that states believers in their fully sanctified states will ever be angry and bitter towards God. That's an interpretation that is not supported anywhere else in Scripture.
So again, I'm looking for clear Biblical teaching, specific verses, that instruct us that it is a good thing for believers to carry around anger and bitterness. I see nowhere in Scripture, in the NT or the OT where we can find council to hold onto just anger, if that is even possible for sinful humans to have. I can quote you many verses in both the OT and NT that condemn anger. I can't find a single one that supports it.
Is there such a thing as just anger? Certainly the Lord in his perfect holiness and righteousness can have it. Are there any examples in the Scriptures where people are commended for having just anger, or even that sinful humans can have just anger? You've mentioned incidents of anger with Balaam, Hannah, Naomi, but I don't see anywhere where the Scriptures indicate those reactions were pleasing to God. God may have still dealt with them in love, but that's because God graciously deals with his children in love despite our own sinful condition. But what I see throughout Scripture is continual admonitions to rid ourselves of bitterness and anger.
And why is that? I think Paul lays it out. Because anger and bitterness are contrary to the gospel. They prevent us, as God's people, from being willing to forgive others, which is opposite to the message of the gospel. The beauty of the gospel is that God did not hold his absolutely just and righteous anger and wrath against sinful man, though we were completely deserving of it, but instead showed us love and mercy by sending his perfect Son to die for our sins.
(1/2)
(2/2)
Why does Peter tell women who have husbands who are unbelieving, who are not obeying the Word, who are treating them poorly, to still deal with them in love, purity, and respect? Shouldn't those women have every right to be justly angry and bitter towards their husbands? Doesn't Peter encourage those women to respond not with just anger, but with respect and kindness, so that through that respect and kindness, their unbelieving husbands might see Christ through their actions?
Again, I see your position as lacking any Biblical support that sinful humans are capable of holding onto just anger in the same way that a perfectly holy and righteous God/Jesus can, and that his children are to be characterized by just anger. On the contrary, the plain teaching of the Scripture is that all anger should be put away from believers lives, because the clear implication is that anger in human sinful people leads quickly to sin, and it leads to an inability to show the gospel of Christ by being unwilling to forgive people, just as God in Christ forgave us.
I'm not saying that this is easy. It's not. For those that have been harmed, the natural human reaction is anger and bitterness. Truly I believe only through the work of the Spirit in someone's life can they respond with love and respect towards someone that has mistreated them. It's why those types of stories in the news are so stunning to people. The stories of the father or mother whose son is murdered, and as he/she stands in the courtroom against their son's murderer, instead of bringing down just anger and bitterness towards the murderer, instead responds in love and kindness in forgiving that person's actions. Please are shocked because they know that is not a normal human reaction. There is something different about that reaction, and that difference points people to Christ.
Blessings,
Chris
"Because anger and bitterness are contrary to the gospel."
I think this is the root of your RP-induced problem. You are taught and you assume this to be true, and then you interpret all of scripture through that lens. We all interpret scripture through our pre-defined lens, but we need to allow scripture to correct that lens.
If anger is contrary to the gospel, then how can Jesus and God be angry? You're already wrong. But it goes deeper.
Should Christians sing:
Psalm 31:6, "I hate those who regard vain idols, But I trust in the Lord."
or
Psalm 69:22-28, "May their table before them become a snare; And when they are in peace, may it become a trap. May their eyes grow dim so that they cannot see,
And make their loins shake continually. Pour out Your indignation on them, And may Your burning anger overtake them. May their camp be desolate; May none dwell in their tents. For they have persecuted him whom You Yourself have smitten, And they tell of the pain of those whom You have wounded. Add iniquity to their iniquity, And may they not come into Your righteousness. May they be blotted out of the book of life And may they not be recorded with the righteous."
or
Psalm 101:5, "Whoever secretly slanders his neighbor, him I will destroy; No one who has a haughty look and an arrogant heart will I endure."
or
Psalm 139:21, "Do I not hate those who hate You, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?"
Are Psalms dinosaurs of the Old Testament "hateful" God, or do you believe, with other RPs that these are valid Christian emotions that embody the fruit of the Spirit. Again, if so, which specific fruit of the Spirit would you say hatred embodies?
Whatever your position is, you need to reconcile it with all of scripture, not just a few prooftexts that you've picked out to prop up your position.
Regarding Hannah et. al. God clearly calls out Balaam's unjust anger. On the other hand, God greatly blesses Hannah (by answering her prayer in the midst of her bitterness), and greatly blesses Naomi (by providing a godly and loving kinsman-redeemer for her family and placing her in the line of Jesus). God brings these women out of their bitterness not by telling them to "put it away", but, in fact, by putting it away by bringing them justice! Maybe that is informative for how the church ought to deal with righteous anger.
"Why does Peter tell women who have husbands who are unbelieving, who are not obeying the Word, who are treating them poorly, to still deal with them in love, purity, and respect? Shouldn't those women have every right to be justly angry and bitter towards their husbands?"
You also need to be careful, because you are equivocating certain actions with anger. Psalm 4:4 says, "Be angry, and do not sin." You are saying that anger is the opposite of "love, purity, and respect". This, again, causes an untenable argument that someone Jesus's anger was sinful.
Yes, we need to be discerning how we process anger...
1) Does our anger arise out of a heart attuned to God, or does it arise from raising ourselves or others to a position that only God should hold?
2) Is our anger quenched or does it persist and prevent us from forgiving those who desire reconciliation?
3) When we act out of anger are we acting in "love, purity and respect", or are we trying to take vengeance upon others in a sinful way?
4) Is our anger something that draws us closer to God, or is our anger something we want to hide from him?
But... I think there is a place for a Christian to be angry at a church culture that shows a pattern of injustice, where evil is called good and good evil. Where sheep are driven away and where wolves are drawn in. I think there is a place for Christians to speak out against the abuse and the abusers who persist this culture.
Unfortunately you are conflating God's righteous anger and the anger that we as sinful humans experience. The irony I suppose is that the very thing you are feel I am doing is what it seems you are doing. Your misunderstanding of the difference between the two is causing you to overlook the clear teaching of Scripture regarding anger as it relates to the sinful human condition, which is found throughout the Scriptures.
The imprecatory Psalms need to be rightly understood. The imprecatory Psalms are not a matter of personal revenge against someone, personal anger and bitterness against someone. They are not David saying, "Lord, King Saul is being wicked towards me. I'm justly angry. Kill him now!" And clearly, David had every right to be angry with Saul. If someone ever had a reason to be justly angry with someone else, it would have been David with Saul, and yet David continually put away any anger and bitterness over Saul's treatment of him, and David treated him with respect and honor, recognizing God's sovereignty over the situation.
The imprecatory Psalms are always done through the lens of God's righteous anger, not the psalmist's/human's. It is calling on God to execute his righteous wrath against the ungodly and wicked. That's an important distinction to make, and one that if not understood correctly leads to dangerous theology. They do not give God's children license to be angry with who we want to. We bring our anger and bitterness to God, and allow him to execute his righteous wrath on the wicked and ungodly of this earth.
I think the problem here is it seems your belief that we as sinful humans can righteously and justly hold anger in the same way that our perfect and holy God can do so. Scripture is clear we do not. Our anger leads to sin. God's does not, which is why it's important to note that the imprecatory psalms always funnel their prays through God's perfect anger, not ours, as we are called to do. We are called to put away all anger and bitterness, so that we might forgive others.
And the "gospel" is not relating to God's character, but what he did for us. The gospel in it's simplest form is the good news. And the good news of the Scripture is that God sent his Son to die for our sins, while we were still sinners. He did not hold his righteous anger against us and instead chose to save us. And us holding anger and bitterness towards others is clearly contrary to the gospel, as Paul reminds us in Ephesians.
This is a good discussion. I'm enjoying it, so thanks for your willingness to engage in it.
Blessings,
Chris
And your last post is more nuanced, and I think we can find some common ground there. I agree that it's OK to experience anger at the wickedness in the world. I'm angered by the evil sin of abortion in our country. But I'm angry ultimately not because it is a sin against me, but against God.
But that anger doesn't lead me to hold on to anger and bitterness. It hopefully motivates me to action. What it makes me is saddened for the children that were murdered, and for the women that are scared and hurting and afraid and don't know where else to turn, often times being lied to and preyed upon because of their vulnerable condition. And my prayer first is that those doctors who perform abortions might be converted, and if they are not converted, then God would execute his righteous anger against them, not for my sake, but for his.
So yes, when we see injustice, especially in the body, I understand that provokes anger. But then how does Scripture tell us to deal with that anger? Are we to hold it in, becoming bitter, and looking for justice ourselves, or do we give that over God, instead speaking the truth in love, because that's how God dealt with us?
I don't think you're getting it. The Psalms have a "perfect fulfillment" in Christ, yet they are also true for the Psalmist in a similar sense. King David was betrayed by a friend, just as Jesus was, and David, in the Spirit was calling God to do just as Jesus called against Judas. Many of these Psalms talk about hatred being part of our unity with God. "Don't I hate those you hate?" I think as we become more sanctified through the Spirit, we can more perfectly say those words. I can say, "I hate spiritual abuse" because God hates spiritual abuse. Perhaps if I'm as sanctified and in the Spirit as David, God would reveal to me specific people, but that is not the case. I still believe that there are those who spiritually abuse, yet God will ultimately forgive.
Throughout the scriptures, we are shown the character of God and Christ and throughout the scriptures, we are told that we through a process of sanctification will be conformed to that image. It seems contrary to scripture to say that we are "conformed to the image of God, except for his righteous anger. That's OFF LIMITS!"
David WAS angry with Ahithophel, and David prayed against him. It is quite likely that Psalm 55 had a fulfillment in Ahithophel, and a perfect fulfillment in Judas.
"They do not give God's children license to be angry with who we want to." No, but they do give God's children license to be angry with HIS enemies. Paul talks about the Judaizers in Galatians. Paul says, "And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!" (Gal 5:11-12) Just a hint "cut off" literally means that Paul wishes that their penises were cut off or mutilated. So, the same Paul who said to cast off anger and malice, in the same Spirit, in righteous anger, calls for God to emasculate those who preach a false gospel. Then, Paul has the audacity to say, "Imitate me, as I also imitate Christ" (1 Cor 11:1).
"Scripture is clear we do not."
Scripture demonstrates that our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. We know that our worship is flawed, yet we worship. We know that we are flawed parents, yet we choose to have and raise children. We can't become monks in a monastery unable to interact with other humans simply because we understand that our actions are tainted with sin. We marry even though we know that, through our own sin, we will be unloving, disrespectful and vow-breaking husbands! In the same way, we strive to have a perfect anger, even knowing that it will be tainted with sin. We can err on both sides. We can be angry when we shouldn't, but we can also choose inaction when we should act. Jesus acted to deliver the sheep from the wolves of his day. If we are his children, then we should also act in the same way. We should be angry with the Pharisees just as he was. We should be angry with injustice. Was it not righteous anger that led to the end of slavery in the United States? Was it not righteous anger that led members of the Selma RP church, both white and black to march against racial injustice?
(2/2)
I want to take a step back and talk about grooming. Grooming is a process by which abusers identify and prepare their victims to be abused. Abusers also groom potential observers. As an RP, I was groomed to believe that the Session was always acting out of love and care, and I was groomed to believe that anger was always inappropriate. That set me up as an enabler. I assumed that someone who got angry was sinning and I shut my ears, especially if they were angry with an authority - their husband or elders. I added to their abuse by closing my ears and telling them to repent and submit. When I started listening, I found that many of these people came to the session for justice and instead found injustice. They were angry because the sessions re-victimized them. I know of a few particular cases in different churches where the sessions chose the abuser over the victims. When the victims acted out in anger, the sessions then brought them under discipline, while their abusers were unscathed. These victims knew better than to bring their stories to fellow members, lest they suffer more abuse. I have e-mails of conversations like this where even the injustice was acknowledged, but the advice was give up the fight against injustice and submit.
"So yes, when we see injustice, especially in the body, I understand that provokes anger. But then how does Scripture tell us to deal with that anger? Are we to hold it in, becoming bitter, and looking for justice ourselves, or do we give that over God, instead speaking the truth in love, because that's how God dealt with us?"
I think this is an excuse to inaction. Yes, we pick our battles, but sometimes our battles pick us. I left an RP church because I increasingly saw the damage of an abusive elder. When I talked with another elder about it, his response was, "we know and we're dealing with it." Six years later, the damage continues. Maybe I chose the chicken's way out by walking away, but I had a family to protect from abuse, and I had already see instances of it. I knew the leaders had done nothing, except that they tried to shame and guilt people into staying when they said they would leave.
We follow Psalm 58:6 and pray "O God, shatter their teeth in their mouth;
Break out the fangs of the young lions, O Lord." Yet we also need to follow Isaiah 58 and act, "Is this not the fast which I choose, To loosen the bonds of wickedness, To undo the bands of the yoke, And to let the oppressed go free And break every yoke?".
So, I think the process is that we first recognize oppression as an affront to God. We become angry at image bearers of God being disrespected and abused. That anger leads us first to cry out in prayer to God that he would bring his justice and vengeance (isn't that the Revelation passage?), but then to take positive action to bring awareness to the oppression and to act to deliver the oppressed. This is true whether "others" are oppressed or whether "we" are oppressed. The Psalms teach us that we can cry out to God for our own deliverance.
The more we talk about this, the more common ground I think we might have than we might initially believe. I agree with you that to say that all anger felt is a sin is not accurate. There's may be a good theological discussion to be had there, but I'll leave that for someone else, as I would agree with your position there.
My point is that saying because Jesus was angry, that means we can be angry, is a poor foundation to stand on, for all the reasons I have already mentioned above and won't rehash.
I guess the biggest difference here is what we then do with that initial anger we feel towards wickedness and evil. I see a clear teaching all over Scripture that we are called as God's children to do away with anger and bitterness, because not doing so will lead to sin. That's the clear message of both the OT and NT. There's the verse above from Ephesians that again links anger with an unwillingness to forgive.
Psalm 37:8--Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret--it leads only to evil.
James 1:19-20--My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.
Just to list a couple among many.
So yes, I agree and would even come along side you in your anger against evil institutions in our country and around the world, institutions that bring about wickedness and evil. But I see a clear teaching in Scripture that we should funnel that anger through God, as the psalmists did, allowing him to execute his perfect wrath against those evil institutions, while we as children of God turn away from anger and bitterness as we deal with the people around us.
I think RPs, by and large, are groomed to blindly obey their pastors, elders and sessions, and to never question the statements or decisions they make. When those decisions are questioned or opposed, the leaders bite back first, then unleash the congregation to browbeat the "wayward" member into submission. I experienced this firsthand. I was the one who questioned the session or their appointed spokesmen only to see that session over months and years turn the congregation against me. I left that church only to experience the very same thing in the next RP church. I grew up with intellectual freedom and at least in the church I grew up in, those intellectual questions were treated with respect. I was completely unprepared for abusive RP churches where the intellectual gospel was preached, yet where the leaders abused and turned the flock against those who questioned the logic or Biblical principles behind those beliefs. But... I see that more and more. Consider the response against Bruce Hemphill. The Presbytery refused to answer his Biblical questioning, yet then used their power to abuse him and turn the flock against him.
Turning over our anger to God is not an excuse/opportunity for inaction. It's an acknowledgement that God is the only righteous judge. He executes anger and wrath that we are incapable of doing. We in turn respond in love. Love doesn't mean some sort of happy go lucky sentiment. It may not look like that at all. It may result in clear and strong rebukes. It's a clear desire to speak the truth because you genuinely care for your brethren, not wanting to see them continue to be led (or lead) in ungodly way, one that might ultimately lead to them perishing. I'd actually see the angry response as the one that was one of inaction. I'd assert the angry response says, "You've harmed me?! Forget you! Get out of my life and may God's wrath burn against you!"
Regarding Bruce, without knowing the full extent of what went on over the course of his paper/discipline, I'm uncomfortable maintaining any absolute position on it. Again, being relatively close to Ron and Kathy, having grown up under/with them, and having great respect for them as siblings in Christ, this women's issue has always been one I've tried to follow, even being familiar with Kathy's writings back in the 90s when she first started studying the issue.
So I don't know what kind of specific dialogue/actions went on between the POA and Bruce. A couple of things, though, that do concern me, is the fact they disciplined him without a public response paper to his paper. I understand that the presbytery and the synod cannot respond with a public paper to every paper that is brought their way. We simply don't have the manpower as a denomination to do that. But when it comes from a longtime minister of the gospel who has been in good standing for decades, I believe he deserved that respect.
I think it's also telling that the committee at Synod, even though apparently they weren't supposed to, brought for their recommendation that the POA acted wrongly in the matter. Not that they're saying Bruce's paper wasn't still in error, only that they did not act fairly. But I'm also cautious when I hear pastors and elders that I don't know to be abusive say that when they first saw the actions from the peripheral (which is all I can see too), they were like me in being concerned about the POAs actions, but after seeing more of the facts, they were less unsure if the POA was in error or not, and wanted to see all the information.
But I also understand why all members of Synod would not want to make such a ruling without knowing the facts that the committee did. This has become a very sad event for so many, including the denomination as a whole, and I believe it deserves the very careful consideration and vote of all members of Synod, which can only be done when all have all the facts to consider.
That's not say that I'm in agreement with his paper, or Kathy's book, though I acknowledge they are well written, as I have read Kathy's book and skimmed Bruce's paper, which I consider having essentially the same content and arguments in them. Nor do I necessarily disagree with an ultimate decision, if the Synod publicly responds with a paper and finds Bruce's paper to be in error, to remove him from a position of authority in the church. Clearly not all exceptions are created equal, and I can understand why Synod may not consider this one to allow.
But as I told Kathy in an email to her a couple months back, her book has definitely made me to think through the topic more carefully again, reconsidering the Scriptures. Not being trained in Greek, there are some arguments she makes that I can't fully agree with or disagree with completely without knowing the Greek. It's where I have to rely on others, and so I am very desirous to see the denomination respond with a paper, which I am hopeful and optimistic that they will, to see if after reading it, I still feel the same way. And considering how public this has gotten, I do think it's become a bad look for the denomination not to have an official response paper, again, considering who the paper has come from, a very well respected and long tenured minister of the gospel in the denomination.
"I think it's also telling that the committee at Synod, even though apparently they weren't supposed to, brought for their recommendation that the POA acted wrongly in the matter."
Yeah, I heard about this. I re-read the section of the 2013 Constitution, which says nothing of the kind, and then I went to Roberts Rules of Order, which states: "When committees are appointed to investigate, or to report upon, certain matters, the report should close with, or be accompanied by, formal resolutions covering all recommendations, so that when their report is made no motion is necessary except to adopt the resolutions."
Since, in the limits of what I heard, the Judicial Committee has always made recommendations, then one might expect that, de facto, the Committee's purpose includes making recommendations. If it does not, then it appears Synod is duty-bound to revisit every judicial case that has gone through the Judicial Committee.
But, remember the "ends justify the means" in the RP church. The ends of throwing out the committees work justified the means of rewriting Roberts Rules of Orders.
"It may result in clear and strong rebukes."
Yet, you are judging what I consider to be clear and strong rebukes as sinful bitterness, just because you are judging my heart and motives, no?
"a very well respected and long tenured minister of the gospel in the denomination."
I think very well respected among certain members. There are also those who have been long looking for a tail, by which to grab certain cats. It appears that the POA finally believes it found that tail. With these emotional issues, Synod tends to forget that things should be done properly and in order and instead tries to take the most expedient path to the predetermined destination.
I once argued with a member of the POA committee that Synod should decide issues from a basic structural viewpoint before appointing a committee to write an opinion. I got an earful about how wasteful and inefficient it would be if Synod had to debate anything more than committee recommendations. I'm guessing this same person was breathing a sigh of relief that the committee's recommendations (which opposed his viewpoint) were set aside so that Synod could discuss it on the floor.
"Not being trained in Greek, there are some arguments she makes that I can't fully agree with or disagree with completely without knowing the Greek."
I think you do yourself a disservice. The Reformers argued for Bibles in the common tongue so that everyone could study scripture. We are not like the Muslims who believe the Koran can only be truly understood in its original language.
"Yet, you are judging what I consider to be clear and strong rebukes as sinful bitterness, just because you are judging my heart and motives, no?"
I'm only making comments on what I thought you have already acknowledged, that you have anger, bitterness, and resentment towards the RPCNA as a whole, and many brothers in Christ whom you feel have mistreated you, and then directing you to the many verses in Scripture that instruct us to rid ourselves of anger, bitterness, and resentment because it produces sin and does not lead to the righteous behavior that God desires.
Did I misunderstand? Are you not angry, bitter, and resentful towards the RPCNA and a vast number of elders and pastors within the denomination? If so, then I ask for your forgiveness in the matter. Or is your position that your anger, bitterness, and resentment are fully just and righteous?
"We are not like the Muslims who believe the Koran can only be truly understood in its original language."
Absolutely. The Bible, the gospel, and the character of God can all clearly be understood in my native language. But to do deep theological study and exegisis, it helps to know the original Greek.
I'm no expert on the BoD of the RPCNA, but here's what one parlimentarian had to say regarding the Synod's committee. I guess you can take him at his word, or determine he is mistaken about the matter, or possibly has ill-intent.
Synod did not commission the ‘judicial’ committee to produce a report with opinions respecting Mr. Hemphill’s appeal. It was a “procedural” committee assigned a task respecting a judicial case. Their task was simply to (a) process the appeal and (b) make recommendations respecting its disposition.
To “process the appeal” means to finish or complete the appeal according to procedure (this language being in the BoD itself). This means for example, they were to gather all the documents and make sure that they were transmitted to all the members of synod at least 30 days before the meeting etc. (see page E17-18).
To “bring recommendation for the deposition of the appeal” means to recommend how the testimony is to be heard at synod. IOW, any recommendations were to be about the deposition of the appeal itself (according to the rules on page E-18). For example, if you read E 18, you will see that the records, papers, appeal etc. are to be read by all. Had the committee (e.g.) ensured that everyone had received the documents in time to read them all, they could have recommended that the verbal reading be waved etc. This would have been a recommendation concerning the “deposition” of the testimony (i.e. the records, papers etc.).
You see, the judicial committee was only tasked to make procedural recommendations respecting how to ensure that all of the documents had been read (or heard) by the entire court. All of this is clearly expressed in last year’s recommendation and it is clearly laid out in the book of discipline. I do not think the committee did anything intentionally wrong. They were simply mistakenly wrong. They incorrectly interpreted the word “process” to mean “work through the documents and give us your opinions and judgments”.
I think "fully just and righteous" is moving the goalposts. I'm sure that that there is sin and self-righteousness in my accusations that God has not made me aware of yet, but other than that, I think it is righteous to bring to light flawed thinking in the RP church, and more specifically how that flawed thinking has caused emotional and spiritual damage to me and other sheep.
In "abuse" contexts, there is a lot of talk about "silencing techniques". These are used to convince the victim not to speak out, or to justify refusing to help them. Accusing a Christian of "bitterness" is an Evangelical silencing technique.
Different forms of abuse are actually quite similar in terms of how the victim processes them, and they are also similar in how victims are dismissed because of how they "act out". We expect abused dogs to have deep emotional scars. We expect abused children to have deep emotional scars. We expect domestic violence victims to have deep emotional scars. Yet somehow when we see these deep emotional scars, we turn the blame back on the victim.
What you seem to be saying is that you can dismiss and ignore what I say about the RP church, whether it is true or not, because I don't have what you consider to be a Christian "tone". Do you find that in scripture, or is that what you've learned from the wolves?
Chris, I think you're a great guy, but you're deceived. You're deceived just like I was. I saw people hurting and I ignored them because they were "messy". They were angry and bitter. God took me on a long hard road of being abused by the kinds of shepherds I wanted to become, theologically sophisticated, but men-pleasing and authoritarian. It was all I knew. When God finally opened my eyes and ears to what was happening, I heard lots of heartbreaking stories. I saw my own story for what it really was.
You are making a connection repeatedly, though, that I've never made. I've never said that because you are angry, bitter, and resentful, you may not speak. On the contrary, as I've said, you are more than within your rights, and you should, speak out when you see ungodly behavior and leadership. I've only encouraged you to do so without anger, bitterness and resentment, as the Bible instructs us to do.
Can you please go back through my many posts and highlight where I've ever stated you had to be quiet, that you should be dismissed and ignored? If that is my position, why would I even be engaging you? I would have dismissed and ignored this blog long ago?
Man, I am really scratching my head on this one. I came across this blog and saw someone that was clearly hurting, someone that had been part of a family that I am, someone that I don't have any idea who it is but still felt a need to reach out to, a brother or sister in Christ, and I've spent the better part of two weeks engaging you on a host of topics, trying to encourage you in Godliness in the midst of your struggles, and see where we can find common ground in the Scriptures.
And your conclusion is that I want you silenced, dismissed, ignored, and basically put away in a box where no one would ever see or hear from you.
Hmm, puzzling indeed.
If the parliamentarian is correct, then Synod is obligated to repent of depriving all of the previous judicial cases, including 16-2, of their due process rights under the Constitution.
On E-18, #15 says "The decision of the higher court must be based solely on the records of the lower court." If the parliamentarian is correct, that means that, for example, the Judicial Commission for communication 16-2 was complicit with the Synod of depriving both the Pacific Coast Presbytery and the appellant of their rights under the Constitution. The statement says that Synod CANNOT appoint a judicial committee, EXCEPT for the purpose of making sure all the documents are in order. However, I am unaware of any judicial committee (including Hemphill's!) that has ever simply collected documents and not made a recommendation.
When the parliamentarian says "clearly laid out in the book of discipline", I would suggest that it is not so clear if this is the first time anyone has ever noticed it. In fact, isn't it intriguing that the first time Synod ever seems to have discovered this "clearly laid out" tidbit is when the committee reported significant procedural issues with the POA disposition?
I will say that "clearly laid out" is pretty fluid, because Synod can choose to interpret the Constitution any way it sees fit.
"I've only encouraged you to do so without anger, bitterness and resentment, as the Bible instructs us to do."
I don't think we're getting anywhere with that. You're claiming the saints in Heaven who are crying out for God to avenge them are like kids impatiently waiting for an ice cream cone. Does David/Jesus sound like a kid excitedly waiting for an ice cream cone when he cries out to God to avenge him, or does he sound like someone angry and bitter?
I'll just post all of Psalm 55. Maybe somehow you can see Jesus impatiently waiting for his ice cream cone, but I see a cry of bitterness, anger and anguish.
1 Give ear to my prayer, O God;
And do not hide Yourself from my supplication.
2 Give heed to me and answer me;
I am restless in my complaint and am surely distracted,
3 Because of the voice of the enemy,
Because of the pressure of the wicked;
For they bring down trouble upon me
And in anger they bear a grudge against me.
4 My heart is in anguish within me,
And the terrors of death have fallen upon me.
5 Fear and trembling come upon me,
And horror has overwhelmed me.
6 I said, “Oh, that I had wings like a dove!
I would fly away and be at rest.
7 “Behold, I would wander far away,
I would lodge in the wilderness. Selah.
8 “I would hasten to my place of refuge
From the stormy wind and tempest.”
9 Confuse, O Lord, divide their tongues,
For I have seen violence and strife in the city.
10 Day and night they go around her upon her walls,
And iniquity and mischief are in her midst.
11 Destruction is in her midst;
Oppression and deceit do not depart from her [h]streets.
12 For it is not an enemy who reproaches me,
Then I could bear it;
Nor is it one who hates me who has exalted himself against me,
Then I could hide myself from him.
13 But it is you, a man my equal,
My companion and my familiar friend;
14 We who had sweet fellowship together
Walked in the house of God in the throng.
15 Let death come deceitfully upon them;
Let them go down alive to Sheol,
For evil is in their dwelling, in their midst.
16 As for me, I shall call upon God,
And the Lord will save me.
17 Evening and morning and at noon, I will complain and murmur,
And He will hear my voice.
18 He will redeem my soul in peace from the battle which is against me,
For they are many who strive with me.
19 God will hear and answer them—
Even the one who sits enthroned from of old— Selah.
With whom there is no change,
And who do not fear God.
20 He has put forth his hands against those who were at peace with him;
He has violated his covenant.
21 His speech was smoother than butter,
But his heart was war;
His words were softer than oil,
Yet they were drawn swords.
22 Cast your burden upon the Lord and He will sustain you;
He will never allow the righteous to be shaken.
23 But You, O God, will bring them down to the pit of destruction;
Men of bloodshed and deceit will not live out half their days.
But I will trust in You.
I'm not sure how much you understand argumentation... You seem single-mindedly focused on bitterness. Now, that's okay if the argument somehow hinges on bitterness. If the argument doesn't hinge on bitterness it seems to be a red herring. A red herring is a point that is brought up to distract from the core of the argument.
The core of my argument is that the RP church has an authoritarian and abusive culture. The core of your argument is that I am bitter.
I continue to struggle with why my anger/resentment/bitterness has anything to do with whether the RP church is an authoritarian and abusive culture, yet you continue to harp on my bitterness. I just don't get it.
"If that is my position, why would I even be engaging you?" I'm guessing you've bought the "Biblical Counseling" mantra. Now that you've identified my besetting sin, you are going to challenge me on it for the obligatory six weeks. If six weeks have passed and the Holy Spirit hasn't flipped the switch on my bitterness, you can write me off and move on. If the Holy Spirit has, then you can pat yourself on the back. (I'm being snide about BC). But, until this happens, you need to remove all distractions, like blah blah blah about RP injustice and get me back on the bitterness path.
I think there are savage wolves in the RP church. More than that, I think that the RP church has created a culture where the sheep are bred to lie down and close their eyes while the wolves devour. I think that culture is so pervasive that otherwise godly elders, men who trust in Jesus, are more afraid of disturbing the peace than suffering persecution for protecting the flock. I think the godly elders are shown the gauntlet they must face when they go to presbytery and synod meetings. Maybe someone will stick their neck to defend Bruce Hemphill, but who would do it for some non-blue blood congregant? I've heard pastors and elders talk about "political capital" and not being one of "those guys" (the guys who are always whining and complaining).
If you want to fix my hurting, bring justice and mercy to the RP church!
Understood. Thanks for your time. May the Lord bless you in your future as you seek truth and justice. You know who I am, so if you ever want to continue further discussion, send me an email at ckmathews at outlook com. But at the moment, we just seem to be talking past each other, which is not a particularly productive use of time. So until/if we meet again, blessings to you.
In Christ,
Chris
I was present at the International Conference and heard Joel Beeke's remark about family worship. It bothered me so much that I did not attend the rest of sessions where he was speaking.
I was more upset that nothing was done about it. I know someone who was upset about the remark and also went to the panel discussion, and that person said there were some hints that people disagreed with the remark, but no one was willing to call it out.
I think that is partly where the RP church is - even if the majority disagrees with Beeke, that majority refuses to take a stand, and the conferees are left with the assumption that Beeke is speaking the RPCNA position. Judging from the laughter I heard, there are quite a few that aren't repulsed by his statement.
I believe there is a substantial number of older RPs who have spotted this authoritarian tendency in the newcomers but are uncertain about the best way to confront it. The Bruce Hemphill situation has brought it out into the open. I wonder what will become of it.
Bruce Hemphill's situation is pretty troubling, yes, but even with the harsh treatment, he still has friends and allies trying to tone down the message. It's difficult to use that as a litmus test because there is a long-held viewpoint that J.G. Vos single-handedly saved the RPCNA from liberalism by his opposition of women elders, and that voting for women elders is what would send the church over the brink.
Let me suggest a different litmus test for authoritarianism. There was a paper from the Pacific Coast Presbytery involving a family at Las Vegas who, by conscience, could not take communion because they served alcoholic wine. Now, this same issue came up in Kokomo, and my understanding is that Synod at least urged Kokomo to split the cup (which they did). However, the law of the church appears to be that the Session can decide on the content of the cup, even though they cannot "teach" one content is scripturally mandated. Of course, this is an untenable situation, because a session can teach by example (as is the case in Las Vegas) that scripture requires fermented alcoholic wine by refusing to accommodate those who refuse to drink alcohol.
If you read the paper, though, Synod has approved the worst sort of authoritarianism. Not only was this family told that they could not come to Christ's table unless they overrode their consciences, they were told that their consciences were subject to their vows to submit to their elders. The paper completely ignores the implication of this and focuses on some hazy wording that the members were not forced to ignore their consciences.
This is wrong on so many levels, and the reason no one cares is that it's just one little family in Las Vegas, not a well-respected, long-term pastor like Bruce Hemphill.
I agree. But rallying around Bruce is important because his relative prominence in the church calls attention to the problem. It's like putting a yellow highlighter on it. I heard one synod delegate say on the floor of synod that watching what has happened to Bruce causes them to decide never to submit a paper when they have a question. There was nervous laughter at that, but I was told later by someone that it really sobered them up to realize that what was happening to Bruce might eventually happen to them.
Whether pastors agree or not with Bruce's paper, even strongly, this kind of bullying has no place in the church. The ends do not justify the means, and the means, so far, have been really bad.
My takeaway is that next Synod may perhaps be the last stand of the non-authoritarian, non-patriarchal elders and pastors. I think GLG went authoritarian first, flooded the Seminary with authoritarian pastors, who then returned to become authoritarian professors.
Honestly, having spent a long time in GLG, and having rubbed elbows with these guys at conferences my take is that the battle for authoritarianism was lost years ago. I didn't have a name for it back then but felt just as oppressive.
To circle back around to Beeke, there are a number of GLG-trained pastors for whom, I can only assume, RPTS was not conservative enough. So, they went to Beeke's PRTS (Puritan Reformed). I think Westminster West is also in the same vein from my experience with their graduates.
Just thought I'd say hello. You came to mind over the weekend. I trust I haven't missed an email from you, but I did appreciate our discussions a few months back. Hope you are well and have a good holidays.
Thanks,
Chris
Hi Chris, sorry for it being so long for a reply. Apparently Chrome doesn't allow me to comment on my own blog, so I switched back to my other browser and it seems I can do it.
Hoping you read my response about emotions. I read a couple of the Synod papers from this year and it seems that we, as Christians, are supposed to intellectualize our way past emotions. I think this is a sort of grooming technique, because often, our emotions understand that something is not right, but our minds don't sense the danger. So, if the church can get people to ignore or deny their emotions, then they can be mistreated within an apparently logical theological system.
I had a similar experience to others who left the RP church. First of all, when I read scripture, my eyes were open to passages that seemed to contradict what I was taught the Bible clearly said, then I started questioning my own understanding. Did I believe this because it was what the Bible taught, or did I believe it because it was truth. Emotions were actually a very powerful tool, because some of my formerly strongly held beliefs didn't sit well. When I searched the scripture to resolve my conflict, I found more context and more passages that contradicted what the RP church taught.
Hope you had a good Christmas as well. Again, I'm slowly recovering. I grew up believing that Christmas was idolatry and a decidedly non-Christian holiday. Of course in a very Pharisaical way, we still exchanged gifts and had family time. A few years ago, my wife and I decided to buy a Christmas Tree, and each year thereafter have grown in our apostasy. There still is a broken connection between wanting to feel the joy and excitement and actually feeling it - perhaps that will never be there, but I don't want that to be broken for my children.
We've always enjoyed Christmas and have never been taught it is idolatry, though I know there are a few within the church that don't participate in it. I respect their right to observe, or not observe the day as they see best for their family, I just don't agree with their view on it. I've always felt it was a very blessed time of the year.
As far as your post, I think we already hashed through that above. We'll just have to agree to disagree on some of these things. Clearly my experience, both in my immediate family upbringing, but also my experience across several RP church families over 40 years, has been markedly different than yours. We see some things similarly, but others not so much.
Glad to hear you are experiencing healing. Blessings to you.
Chris
I am a sufferer of the RPCNA too. The physical and emotional abuse I was blind to for so long, until I opened my eyes. I haven't had a normal life for even 2 months yet, and haven't been happy for a while. I was sad and depressed and thrown around like a puppet. The fact that I would be threatened if I didnt do my laundry or I went to the bathroom without asking, is just pure insane. I had to ask permission for fruit, if I could get up from the table, and my dad was a complete kind in his household. I had no freedom period.
My dad was a complete King*
Correction
Hi NewLeaf, I'm so sorry I missed your comment. That is not the Christian model for a godly father. It is a horrible perversion of the gospel for our earthly Christian father to expect to be served and worshiped rather than to serve us.
I hope you are finding your way back to understanding who our heavenly father is - it's a huge struggle for me to see God through new eyes rather than what I heard week by week in church and what I saw modeled. It has been a hard journey, and it's far from over, but I do know that my children will be raised in an environment where they are respected and not treated like slaves, and I hope they can take that and further improve on it in the next generation.
Just a bystander reading this discussion from a distance- wow, you are so Holy in your response to your anger about abortion! So, I can be sad at pictures of murdered babies, I am permitted to have pity for the women who assisted in their murder, I can be concerned that the murdering doctors probably need changed hearts, and I can feel bad for God in all of this. I realize what my problem is! I need to examine the responses of RP leaders better, and be just like them. Thanks for clarifying who your example is. I need never be passionate about anything ever again! How comfortable I can be! (Sarcasm aside- Battered Sheep IS speaking the truth in love- you just don't like what he is saying.)
Many years of this kind of training for parents, this attitude toward kids, has left me owing my young adult children an explanation for some things that, now that we are out of this and more into seeing things from a mental health angle, are not really justifiable. By God's grace, I have a decent relationship with them. But I can only offer having been deceived/ manipulated into this way of thinking as an explanation. We were young and had pretty much no guidance from parents when we were growing up. We came from highly dysfunctional homes, and there was absolutely no interest from leadership in talking about that or even acknowledging that it was real. Authoritarian parenting seemed Biblical and like the right way to us, as we wanted so much to have a Godly, peaceful home. But the pressures for an external righteousness with an ever moving goalpost were simply overwhelming. I am not saying we had no sin in this, but we were so vulnerable to the manipulations of leaders who wanted to look good to other leaders.
It's not a lack of grace. It's a lack of love. The wonderful complete understanding and study of scripture is not actually complete, because the second great commandment is not studied with any depth. Love for neighbor is reduced to loving the approved people (the denomination, especially the leaders). There is not curiosity or desire to know the regular guy in front of them. And, Lord Jesus, help the women, because all they are offered is "wisdom"from the bought-in Pastor's wives who are touted as far more helpful than they actually are.
Post a Comment