RP grace is a red hot coal... the theology of suffering

A few weeks ago, someone related how an RP pastor dealt with the complaint that the RP church lacked 'grace'. His explanation of grace was through the eyes of Isaiah, who, in chapter 6 views the throne room. Grace, in that instance was the red hot coal that was touched to Isaiah's mouth. The image of that is the searing pain which purifies Isaiah's lips.

Interestingly, neither Calvin, nor Henry, in their commentaries feel the necessity to talk about pain - it was not until adulthood that I heard the theory that somehow the coal had seared Isaiah's mouth. Henry says: 

Here is, A comfortable sign given to the prophet of the purging away of his sin. The seraph brought a live coal from the altar, and touched his lips with it, not to hurt them, but to heal them—not to cauterize, but to cleanse them... [emphasis mine]

Calvin says:

And applying it to my mouth. We see how God condescends to meet the weakness of human sense. He puts the tongs into the hand of a seraph, that by means of it he may take a coal from the altar and apply it to the Prophet's mouth. This was, no doubt, done in vision; but by the aid of the outward sign God assisted the Prophet's understanding.

So, why would the RP church want to claim that searing pain is, in fact, gracious?

I believe it has to do with the theology of suffering. For example, Joel Beeke says:

If righteous Jesus had to suffer so much to learn obedience, how much more do we need to suffer in order to purge away our sins and grow in his likeness?

and

Therefore, preach to your people a theology of suffering that places all our trials in the hands and will of a loving Father. Hebrews 12 teaches us to view our sorrows, even the persecutions of wicked men, as part of God’s fatherly discipline

https://www.crossway.org/articles/the-importance-of-preaching-the-theology-of-suffering/

While I do believe that suffering and discipline are important aspects of the Christian walk, I don't believe that they are the single lens through which life should be viewed. For as much as learning comes through suffering and discipline, it also comes through joy and gladness. Yes, God is a stern king and awesome ruler, yet, he is our daddy! He runs to his prodigal son! He wants to protect us from our enemies! He sings over us. He leads us to still waters and gives us rest!

Jesus said that God desires mercy and not sacrifice. It was the Pharisees that expected suffering.

How does this play out?

Evangelism... RPs believe that suffering and discipline are the keys to repentance. The believe is that God can only be found at the end of someone's rope. Therefore, we witness to people by shoving their face in their sin and misery and perhaps, if they don't recognize it, being a demonstration of God's justice. Imagine the surprise when Jesus 'hung out' with the religious outcasts!

Adoption... This is perhaps the least emphasized doctrine - as it places us in God's family and assures us of his ongoing love, favor, mercy, grace and all those other things that RPs are scared will not produce adequate righteousness in light of fear. Grace is that we are siblings and friends of Jesus and rightful children.

Sanctification... This is where RPs point out the suffering and discipline aspects of sanctification and not, for example, the Spirit-led insight. I enjoyed much of school. I enjoyed learning sports. I enjoyed working beside mentors.

It shouldn't be surprising, therefore, when someone walks into an RP worship service and finds a scene that could just as easily be at a funeral.

Joshua Harris on re-evaluating the purity culture, women in leadership and legalism

If you're in conservative/homeschooling circles, you've probably heard about Josh Harris, author of "I Kissed Dating Goodbye". He has recently separated from his wife after many years, and has been slowly backing away from the authoritarian, toxic culture of Sovereign Grace Ministries. Harris was taken under the wing of CJ Mahaney and became the lead pastor of Covenant Life Church, the flagship of SGM.

While I'm deeply saddened by the breakup of their marriage, I think that Josh is starting to see how the authoritarian/patriarchal culture has led to the sort of life-sucking culture that pervaded at CLC.

Here is his perspective on the problem with many churches today:

… I think in our setting, though, the thing that I would say is that we had a very restricted view of the role of women. That's one of the biggest things I regret in my time of being a pastor is the way we taught about women in the church, women in leadership, in the home, and so on. And I think there are massive indications when you don't have a female perspective in in policymaking and decisions related to something like that. Like, I think that we would have made better decisions if there had been women in on those moments. 

But it's not quite as simple as saying that … I think there were also theological problems related to our view of the role of pastors and our view of the role of the faith and ways that were, in our case, unique to our movement: the low view of psychiatry or therapists and those types of things, and the idea that pastors should be able to help you with any kind of life issue that you're facing. 

When it comes to something like sex abuse, we just did not have the training. We needed to be calling in other people, we needed to be, obviously, making sure that — and we did report many cases of sexual abuse, but in some cases obviously we made huge mistakes.
So there's sort of a web of problems. But I do think that a very patriarchal, male-centered, low view of women has connections to sexual abuse in different cases.

I think this is a great perspective on the legalism that develops, even around something as wholesome and worthwhile as sexual purity - I think one can argue that this pervades the RPCNA - there may be an underlying desire to defend pure and undefiled religion, but it can easily turn into a legalistic, shaming culture:

Well one thing I would just say is that I think that the problem with my book and the problem with a lot of the churches that I was a part of is that you can have kind of historical Christian sexual ethics and think things about the goodness of marriage, the goodness of fidelity when it comes to sexuality, all those types of things. But if you if you surround that with a culture that places high demand on the execution of that and creates structures of accountability, reward for those that do it well, a sense of shame for those that don't do it well, it's not it's not just a sexual ethic — it's also the sort of environment around it. And those sort of high-demands religious environments ... that has a massive impact on your experience of that sexual ethic — the way that that's enforced, the pressure that's put on you. So I think that is a big problem with my book, the big problem with the church environment it came from: how the ideas are applied and how the shame culture that can be built around it is a big part of its unhealthiness.

I truly hope he gets the space he needs to spend time with God - not the one he was taught and was modeled for him in a legalistic, shame-filled church, but the one whose yoke is easy and burden is light. It is a hard journey.

https://sojo.net/articles/questioning-faith-after-purity-culture-conversation-joshua-harris

Biblical Counseling

"I know many, many, many people who have been through Biblical counseling methodologies. I have yet to find one who has walked away less damaged than they went in... and that's really painful to say." - Rachael Denhollander, Valued Conference 2019



What does Biblical Counseling have to say?(emphasis mine)

On domestic violence:

"Similarly, you should expect to find two sinners embroiled with each other, not an irredeemable monster oppressing an innocent victim who needs no redemption." - Paul Tripp and David Powlison (of CCEF)

On counseling the sexually abused:

"Reframe her story. She is no longer a victim. In Christ she is a victor.
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. Romans 8:37
An essential part of defaming her story has three parts and is based on Ephesians 4:22-24:

• Discarding old patterns of ungodly thinking
• Thought reconstruction
• Adopting new patterns of godly thinking

Very often I show my counselees how to do this through a specific type of journaling.
Reminding your counselee of her identity in Christ, reviewing the gospel, and helping her reframing her story is part of your counselees’ healing, accomplished through Jesus Christ who is her healer." - Lucy Moll, When Counseling the Sexually Violated

This sounds similar to how matters were dealt with at Sovereign Grace Churches - (CEO CJ Mahaney was on the board at CCEF):

Deeply embedded in the SGM mindset are some assumptions:

1. All sins are just as vile in the eyes of God.
2. One of the clearest signs of “rebellion” is when a person sees himself as an injured party, because no injury that can be perpetrated against the person could ever surpass the horror that the person’s own sin is in the eyes of God.
3. The clearest sign of a “repentant” person is eager confession of wrongdoing.

In your SGM pastor’s mind, you’ve got NO RIGHT to see yourself as a victim, of any sort. In order to “bring the Gospel in,” they’re duty-bound to remind you of your own sinfulness, like it’s some sort of tonic for the normal grief that you might feel because of the ramifications of the sin that was perpetrated against you…like somehow, if I as the victim can just focus on my own badness, I’ll forget that someone molested my child. 

So OK. In SGMville, all sins are created equal. 

Now, enter the perp. Perp expresses sorrow and remorse for his sin. He truly IS the “worst sinner that he knows,” so such a mindset comes easily and naturally to him. In the eyes of his SGM pastors, he automatically then becomes the “more righteous” person, since his response is the only “truly biblical” response that they can find acceptable.
It gets worse if the victim stands up for himself/herself in any fashion. SGM pastors immediately see this as unforgiveness, which of course is a sin, which then makes the victim even WORSE than the remorseful (and therefore righteous) perp. - SGMSurvivors.com

RPCNA Clickbait - guilting members into worship attendance, but with a darker underbelly

Ordinarily, I would think this fell into the typical RPCNA practice of approving someone's conclusion without necessarily thinking through how that person justified that stand, but I think there is a deeper, and more sinister agreement here.

In an authoritarian church, the pastor and church leaders turn our desire to revere and serve Christ into reverence and service for Christ's appointed officers. A reverence and service that, at best, borders on idolatry.

This is why Tim Challies's paper deserves a deeper look. On the surface, it is the typical shock-and-awe Evangelical situation-flipping to break through our natural defense mechanisms. (You were told that skipping church hurts you, but... wait for it... you're really hurting others instead)

Despite Synod's later protests with respect to the Directory for Worship revision, two modern Reformed concepts are enshrined in RPCNA doctrine:

Worship as Covenant Renewal: 

The fundamental issue concerning the public worship of God, then, is the nature of the assembly of the saints before God, for what reason it comes together, and what is required of it. The assembled congregation of the New Testament Church, like the assembled congregation of Israel, is God’s people met together in His presence at an appointed time to review and renew their part in God’s covenant with them, and to celebrate His gracious benefits toward them. In its worship the assembly of the saints expresses its faith and its loyalty to the God of the Covenant. (Worship of the Church, Adopted as a position paper by the 2003 Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, pp.16-17)

Worship as a Dialogue between man and God (Dialogical Principle):

According to the Westminster Confession, the Church comes together “more solemnly, in the public assemblies” (21.6), especially on the Lord’s Day, to engage in a covenant dialogue with God through the “means of grace”: prayer, Bible reading, preaching, singing psalms, and the sacraments. (ibid, pp.17-18)

The intriguing problem with these being the basis of worship is that they are vertical and based on the Old Covenant. That is, that there is no mutual edification in either Covenant Renewal or Covenant Dialogue. In fact the focus on Old Testament worship ignores the consequence of the Priesthood of all Believers, and puts a man back in the priestly position of confessing congregational sin before God, and then, on behalf of God, proclaiming forgiveness:

As subjects appearing before our Lord, we must seek pardon for past sins. Under the Old Covenant, the saints brought animals for sacrifice, laid their hands on them, and confessed their sins (Lev. 4:15; 16:21). Under the New Covenant, the saints by faith lay hold of the sacrifice of Christ, confessing their sins to God (Heb. 9:14; 1 John 1:7, 9). In the solemn assemblies of the Church, the saints properly respond to God’s call to meet with a confession of sin and hear God’s assurance of forgiveness for Christ’s sake. (ibid, p.20)

Note that the role of the priest in the Old Covenant sacrifice is conveniently ignored, and, seemingly the work of Christ as a once-and-for-all sacrifice are ignored. Instead, there are strong hints of the authoritarianism:

In the reading and preaching of the Word, the saints hear God Himself speak to them. (ibid, p.20)

While these two principles stand loud and proud, there is some vague reference to a horizontal relationship - note, however, that this precedes the talk about what worship itself is, and is never fleshed out any further:

Chapter 26 of the Confession teaches that, because Christians are united to Christ, they are united to one another and have holy obligations to God and to one another. There is a continuing duty of love that binds the saints together in church and out. This holy communion of the saints is visibly expressed when they gather for worship: 

Saints by profession are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification. (Confession, 26.2) 

Joining in public worship is the central means by which Christians encourage and edify one another. (ibid, p. 9) 

Not surprisingly, the paper on worship so elevates worship that the "central means" of mutual edification and mutual encouragement for the saint is 1-2 hours on Sunday morning.

However, there is a deeper darkness looming. If the central means of mutual edification is during worship, who is being edified? Is it our fellow saints, or is it the pastor basking in the glory of authoritarian worship? If good RPCNA members are being told that during the sermon, "the saints hear God Himself speak to them." then who is the pastor, but God Himself?

This is where Tim Challies's paper and the seeming RPCNA endorsement become revelations of the central idolatry.

And, of course, our commitment to the local church is far more than a commitment to Sunday morning services. It is a commitment to other people through all of life. It is a commitment to worship with them once or twice a week, then to fellowship with them, to serve them, and to pray for them all throughout the week. It is to bind ourselves together in a covenant in which we promise to do good to them, to make them the special object of our attention and encouragement. It is to promise that we will identify and deploy our spiritual gifts for their benefit so we can serve them, strengthen them, and bless them. (The Worst Consequence of Skipping Church, Tim Challies)

Whether or not Challies, who is also authoritarian, would have understood this through the same sort of worship-centric lens as the RPCNA, it is deeply concerning that the sole message the RPCNA gleans from this is seemingly don't skip church. Not surprisingly pastors here and there re-shared the message as a helpful reminder to attend Sunday worship. This, however, leads to a dark conclusion. If worship is our central means of edification, and seemingly the pastor is the only one who receives this edification, then aren't all these "mutual" promises simply about edifying the pastor?

Cindy Burrell on a godly response to spousal abuse

I've copied this article with permission, as I feel it is very applicable to the RPCNA study of whether divorce is permitted in abusive marriages. The original article is here: http://www.hurtbylove.com/love-a-redemptive-force-or-an-enabling-one/

Why aren't leaders taught to "suffer for the cause of righteousness"?

As I've reported before, RPCNA leaders get to wear two hats. The first is the ordinary church member, like you and me, but the second is the hat of God's ordained servant. The leaders of the church are to set a godly example for all members, and non-members for that matter, to follow. What I find interesting is that the inferiors are taught to suffer for the sake of Christ. They are pointed to examples where Christ was humiliated, mocked and rejected and did not seek retribution as being the pattern for all to follow.

Yet, somehow, when someone becomes a leader in the church, there is a different pattern to follow, and honestly, that one is not so Christ-like. In the authoritarian church, what is more important than humility and suffering is maintaining an authority structure. That's why the only humility you will see from RP elders and pastors is the humility that they claim as they are calling you to the carpet for your sin. I'm sure it is akin to the fact that people now say "I am humbled" when they used to say "I am honored" or "I am proud", because it seems the highest attainment of an RP elder is to root out this or that sin in the congregation. That pride is because that is the RP view of the church order - the leaders are higher than the members, and thus, it is natural that the leaders are going to be aware of the failings of the members than they are aware of themselves.

But, what happens when things get reversed? When a member has a legitimate complaint of mistreatment by a leader or by leaders, isn't the response for the member to submit and suffer injustice? If, on the other hand, the leader is mistreated by a mere member, does the leader submit and suffer injustice? May it never be! Such injustice inverts the authority structure of the church, and letting the injustice stand is sure to cause some sort of peasant uprising to destroy the very fabric of the church.

I've seen this before. An elder teaches some incorrect doctrine, which a member points out. If the elder doesn't immediately dig in his heels, there is usually sort of call for grace. If the elder does stick to his guns, the other elders seem to jump on the bandwagon, unless it's something blatantly wrong. This is what happened to me in a Session meeting. One elder said something outlandish - all children in the congregation should obey all adults. I said that was unscriptural and set the stage for child abuse and molestation. He dug in, and the other elders remained silent. Later, I asked the other elders whether they agreed with him, and they said, we didn't agree with either of you. Great, but they didn't speak up. By refusing to correct his doctrine, it seemingly had the weight of the church. On the other hand, if a member tries to bring up something erroneous, the congregation waits for one or the other elder to immediately point out the error.

So, whose pattern are the following? Are they following Christ who had all authority, but laid it down to suffer alongside his followers, who said the greatest must be the servant of all? Or are they following the world's model where, whether literally (e.g. Caesar) or figuratively (e.g. Kim Jong-un) the leaders claim godhood? Does "servant-leadership" really mean beating the sheep to keep them in line?

As a somewhat-aside, there was an intriguing paper that got lost amid the Synod circus of late. Professor Scipione of RPTS taught that spousal abuse was grounds for divorce as a form of physical desertion. This upset Bill and John Edgar of the Atlantic Presbytery who wrote a paper which was trying to force him to teach that only "actual physical desertion" was grounds for divorce. This last Synod, apparently, their paper was mostly upheld. So, if you are a wife in the RP church, or considering being a wife in the RP church, beware. They did say that a wife having to flee for safety was a form of physical desertion caused by the husband, in keeping with church history, but other than that, any form of physical, emotional, or spiritual violence perpetrated by a husband on his wife is not considered a violation of the marriage vows. This is not surprising, and follows the point of this article... Wives are commanded to suffer for the cause of Christ, and the RP church means that both figuratively and, in this case, literally. So, women in the RP church have fewer rights than Israelite sex slaves: "If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth."(Ex. 21:26-27) I wonder if the RP church would require a husband to suffer a vicious wife without allowing divorce... probably not.

Great post on safe churches...

Hi all, I was pointed to a great blog post about safe churches and responses to various forms of abuse. I'll leave it to you to read the article, but I will comment on some very crucial arguments made in the paper. It is a guest post on Jimmy Hinton's blog: https://jimmyhinton.org/a-safe-place-guest-post-by-pastor-gricel-medina-ryan-ashton/

Listening to so many survivors tell their stories of the horrible ways they were treated by the Church leaves no doubt that churches have become some of the most unsafe places on the planet to be a survivor of abuse. Faith communities too often hide a toxic culture where abusers thrive and victims are shunned and silenced. The dismissiveness of those in authority, the isolation of the vulnerable, the imbalance of power, and the expectation to stay silent and “forgive” are realities we all must acknowledge.

I think this really sets the tone for understanding why people are leaving institutional churches and why people who have been harmed by Christians - parents, church leaders, friends or others within the church environment - find it so difficult to return to that environment.

However, some survivors taking a break from attending church becomes a problem for many Christians. For many survivors, taking a break from church meetings is the only alternative they have if they cannot find people they can trust.

This really rings true, and not only that, but survivors of significant spiritual abuse are often chastised for leaving the VERY CHURCH where that abuse took place, and where the abuser continues to hold power. I left a church because of significant spiritual abuse. On my way out, I talked with a leader who said that the church was "aware of the issue" and was "taking positive steps" to handle it, yet that abuser continued to remain in power and further abuse. The church bemoaned the people who left without telling them what was wrong, tried to guilt them into staying, etc. All while the leadership continued to ignore and condone the abuse in their midst.

One of the worst things to say to a survivor is “there is no such thing as a perfect church.” This confusing of definitions belittle survivors. “Safe” is very different than “perfect.” People will always disappoint and hurt us in a fallen world, but enduring abuse is never an option we must settle for. Abuse or predatory behavior is never acceptable under any circumstance.

I heard many variations of this - it's an internet meme. The point here is spot on. Victims are NOT looking for a perfect church. They are looking for a church that is not going to heap on abuse after being abused. They are looking for a church that is not going to rally around the abuser, while shunning the victim. I'm not RP because the RPCNA is not a SAFE church, not because it isn't a PERFECT church. I would be happy to work alongside other sinners, but I'm not happy to submit myself to being spiritually abused week after week.

A safe church is one that does not tolerate any mistreatment of any member, whether it’s from a casual attendee to the highly-respected and gifted celebrity pastor. No one is above accountability in a safe church (cf. Matthew 18; 1 Timothy 5:19). Safe churches take every allegation seriously, report crimes immediately, do not silence or shame victims, and support victims with tangible resources. Most pastors are not equipped to counsel trauma victims and safe churches refer victims to professional therapy for their trauma. Safe churches recognize sadness and lament are appropriate responses to hurt and that anger is a correct response to injustice (cf. Psalm 82). Safe churches give space for victims to fully grieve their loss and betrayal and grieve with victims as a community (cf. Romans 12:15). Safe churches do not force people to conform to a false positivity (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:26). Safe places do not just hear what a victim is saying, but truly listen with empathetic hearts that are willing to learn. Walking with survivors is a long-term process and overcoming trauma is a lifelong journey.

AMEN and AMEN! Does this sound even remotely like the RPCNA? When I reported mistreatment, I was told to be the bigger person and let it go. When I asked uncomfortable questions, I was abused. When I read Presbytery reports, I saw how abused congregants throughout the church were told to submit to and obey their elders despite the elders having no scriptural grounds to command obedience. I was called a complainer. I was called a hypocrite. I was told that whatever abuse I suffered was my own fault.

Christian institutions can become a culture of deceit because genuine spirituality is hard to measure. Image-conscious communities tend to reward the flashy, put-together people instead of standing with those who are broken. In contrast, a safe church is one where survivors are not isolated from everyone else and kept at an arm’s length, but are valued and included. We all come to Christ with baggage, and we even acquire hurts after believing in Him. Safe places understand and value the imperfections of human beings and are careful to discern the difference between someone’s involuntary trauma responses and “sin.” Safe churches do not confuse Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, hurt, or grief with sin, but have compassion. There are no accusations of “bitterness” or “unforgiveness” in a loving community. Too often, victims suffer more from their faith community’s ignorance, lack of empathy, and the rush to quickly fix things, leaving deep and lasting wounds to someone already hurting.

I think this is a big reason why the RPCNA continues to struggle with abuse. The abusers and wolves are skilled at looking righteous and together. The victims look broken. So, who is the church going to side with? The calm, collected husband in the suit, or the wife who is angry and in tears from years of physical and emotional abuse? Or... the presbytery-endorsed pastor or the bitter, complaining congregant? (To Chris - see why calling someone "bitter" is a conversation ender rather than an offer of help?)

In some circles, the pastor has arrogantly replaced the Holy Spirit, and our expected obeisance often approaches idolatry.

Sound familiar?

Part of the sickness of spiritual abuse is that it demands an unhealthy dependence on a person, or organization, rather than on God. Taking a break from organized religion is a good way to prove to yourself that you can survive with God alone. Well-meaning believers will tell you that you must be in a fellowship of faith. It’s dangerous to isolate yourself from the Body of Christ. All kinds of problems will result if you aren’t a part of a community of believers. Nonsense. That’s like telling someone who just came out of an abusive marriage to get married right away. In both scenarios, a person needs time to reflect on what just happened. Their soul needs to be repaired before re-engaging.

Form 2B
Certificate of Dismissal for a Member Requesting to Be Removed

This is to certify that you, ______ [name of the member]_________, having been a member of the _____ [name and location of the congregation]_______ Reformed Presbyterian Church, are hereby removed from the membership at your own request. We are deeply saddened that you have thereby separated yourself from the visible church, outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. 

It's somewhat fascinating that the RP church here seems to deny "Unconditional Election" and "Perseverance of the Saints" in an effort to shame abused members on the way out of the fold. Especially since there is no Biblical ground for membership in a local congregation, and no grounds to say that separation from a specific local congregation is separation "from the visible church". 

Selling authoritarianism to ordinary people

One of the common accusations against the victims of abuse is... why didn't you walk away? Testing and preparing someone to submit to abuse is a long, thoughtful and involved process. It involves, not surprisingly, twisting the truth and, as I have said elsewhere, gas lighting - denying the reality of what is happening. I think there are four main points of attack in turning normal people into codependent victims.

Point 1: The one they should submit to is superior physically, intellectually and spiritually

Although RP pastors may claim when asked point blank that "superior" and "inferior" in the Westminster standards are simply positional and not a value judgment, the culture created through sermons and procedures suggests otherwise. There are a number of sermons on SermonAudio that hint that pastors, elders and deacons are somehow divinely gifted not to make mistakes when wearing their "office hat". That is underscored by a typical sessional unwillingness to override the action of an elder. That is underscored by the typical presbyterial unwillingness to override the action of a session, and so on.

When an elder is caught in sin, the typical RP response is to ignore the sin, or, if the sin is deemed significant enough, quietly usher the elder out of the position without suggesting anything amiss. It is only elders who belligerently hold to their error whose charges ever see the light of day. This is the opposite of what scripture commands, and the clear indication is that the RP church is afraid that exposing sinning elders will undermine their authority (i.e. the authority that comes from their presumed infallibility)

Much is made of the process of choosing elders, no matter how much individual sessions choose to subvert and manipulate the process by, for example, making "session nominations" for elders and refusing to allow the congregation to discuss candidates. Once the candidate is "blessed" by the session or presbytery, they are deemed worthy of our obedience and submission. Note that session and presbytery pre-approvals subvert the will of the congregation by using their authority imbalance to undermine the concept that the "sheep hear the voice of their shepherds". Hard to hear that still, small voice when the powers that be are using megaphones!

Accusations against superiors and concerns tend to be dismissed out of hand. This has happened to me many times. We were taught not to question our superiors logic or reason because, to the point, their logic and reason must be superior to our own. When we thought something was amiss, we were told to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Point 2: They are inferior physically, intellectually and spiritually to the one they should submit to.

If there is a doctrine of the church that has been repeatedly hammered home, it's TOTAL DEPRAVITY. Yet, somehow, I've never heard a sermon in all my RP years about the effect of Total Depravity on the leaders of the church. Somehow, once someone has been ordained, Total Depravity is sent far away and now these men are at a new level.

However, much is made of OUR depravity. For example, I'm familiar with a church that ended small group Bible studies. The reason (again, SermonAudio!) was that our individual interpretation of scripture was flawed. That's why we needed an elder (implication is that their interpretation is not flawed?) to lead Bible studies. Because there were not enough elders willing to support all the small groups needed, small groups were cancelled.

In fact, there is NO GRACE. We are told EVEN AS BORN-AGAIN CHRISTIANS how worthless, how sinful, how disgraceful we are and how God must hold his nose to even deal with us. Week after week in an auditorium where every person is a member of the church, the pastors continue to remind us of how inferior we are. Who is not inferior? The shepherds who watch over us!

Just with point 1 and point 2, members are set up to withstand extraordinary abuse. They are, by default, conditioned to distrust their own emotions, thoughts and opinions about what is happening, and also those of their fellow members. Conversely, they are conditioned to trust the opinions, emotions and thoughts of their leaders. If Joe left the church because the session said he was insubordinate, there was no question that he was insubordinate. If Joe told me that he was abused by the session, I would probably doubt his account of the situation. I might even close my ears to listen to his story, or listen only for ways that I could point out his mistakes. Maybe he misjudged or his emotions got out of control.

Point 3: God will bless them for staying and submitting to the authoritarian culture

Even if the church theoretically admits that some church authorities throughout history have overstepped their bounds, much is made of the blessing of staying and submitting. Members are told that they are insubordinate vow breakers if they leave without "exhausting all avenues of reform". But, if they attempt to reform, they are subjected to intense persecution and abuse. (e.g. Bruce Hemphill).

Of course, this interacts with Point 1 and Point 2. Not surprisingly, an ordinary member can rarely, if ever, effect change in the church, yet she is expected to stay and submit in a church that continues to ignore and abuse her. This is similar to the advice for wives - somehow they can transform their unbelieving and abusive husband through godly submission. This is the definition of codependency - we are blaming the lack of reformation and transformation in the church on the lack of submission of her members. This teaching also flips the relationship - somehow, the assumed inferior member is told and expected to be spiritually superior to their leadership in reforming the church. Yet because the church denies that a member could be spiritually superior, this will never happen! This then just becomes an excuse for members to submit to deep and ongoing abuse.

Point 4: God will curse them for disobeying or leaving the authoritarian culture

As a counterpoint to the third point, much is made of the decline of church members who leave. It's like a country song - their wife leaves, their truck breaks down and their dog dies. Again, this is simply another hurdle placed in the path of those who would otherwise escape abuse.

This is perhaps the most Satanic of all. It creates a caricature of a capricious and judgmental god, whom I believe is the RP god, whose desire is to slap us whenever we desire to improve our lot. A god who can only grow his children through pain and suffering and never through Exodus to the promised land. Were the Israelites cursed for wanting to leave Egypt? NO!! In fact, they were cursed for wanting to return.

It becomes and excuse to blame and shame victims for taking a stand against their abusers. A wife who claims domestic abuse is told to return and submit. So, God blesses her for her abuse, and curses  her for not desiring abuse? Is that how God's kingdom comes on Earth? When the church becomes the agent of forcing submission to abuse? Or is the church told to free the abused? Does the church feed on the sheep, or does the church deliver the sheep, bandage them and help them heal? Again, does God curse the sheep for wanting to be delivered from the mouth of the wolves, wanting to be bandaged and healed, or does God bless the sheep for struggling to free themselves from the jaws of the wolves?

Isn't that what we are societally and culturally conditioned to do? "Someone stole my car..." "Did you leave it unlocked?" "My brother hit me" "Well, what we YOU doing at the time?" - as if the wrong done to them can be excused by some mistake on their part. "I was raped..." "What were you wearing?" We don't think in terms of evil people, wolves, abusers doing what naturally comes to their minds. Instead we think of a vindictive god who waits for us to make mistakes so that he can send adversity. Yet, that's precisely what Jesus says - the actions come out of the heart. Evil people do evil things and good people do good things. When our "good" elder does evil things, we are more right in questioning whether that elder is evil, then questioning whether his victim was being punished for a mistake.

I was reminded about the warning given to members who request to be removed from RP membership. "We are deeply saddened that you have thereby separated yourself from the visible church, outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." This is so deeply flawed, is taken completely out of context, and primarily serves as a form of extortion to keep abused sheep from leaving. This highlights the fact that the RP church is essentially pronouncing a curse on those who dare to walk away from abuse. I don't think it is in vain that Jesus says, "where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them", and I don't think it's correct (as the RP church would like to suggest) that those two are three are church leaders disciplining members.

Conclusion:

It shouldn't be surprising that the sort of intellectual and rational people that the RP church can succumb to abusive and authoritarian theology. It shouldn't be surprising that abusive elders are tolerated and supported, while abused members are told they are insubordinate when they finally take a stand. It shouldn't be surprising that members are silenced when they question the elders or try to share their stories of abuse.