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.
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.
18 comments:
I should say that these are the theological rationale for accepting a subservient role. I think along with that, there is a strong emotional game that is played in conditioning someone to accept abuse. The cycle of abuse a honeymoon period and a period of fault finding and punishment. Underneath it all, however, is repointing the worth of the victim to the abuser, and that is the underlying idolatry of authoritarianism. It refocuses the worth of members not on how God sees them, but how the church and especially church leaders see them. By portraying God as judgmental and vindictive, and, honestly, abusive, church leaders can "save" members from inevitable judgment by imposing their own value system. Much is made of "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" - the elders try to claim a sort of divine infallibility from that which they use to punish and reward members who are or aren't treating them with the desired love and respect.
Your site is needed. Your points are valid. While it is true that these abuses and power trips are not unique to the RPCNA or to NAPARC (North American Presbyterian and Reformed Churches) It must be rightly acknowledged that the levels of power tripping and hyper authoritarianism are very high in NAPARC circles. This comment hits the nail on the head...."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." So true!!
I firmly believe there exists what could be called a Protestant Sacerdotalism and an over realized Ecclesiology (to high a view of the institutional church) that in effect creates a systemic good old boy environment within NAPARC. This idol needs to torn down!!
For now I will remain anonymous, but I am a concerned former RPCNA and NAPARC member. Keep up the work at this site.
Also it is outrageous and in the extreme how often Hebrews 13:17 is butchered in matters like this. NAPARC leaders are notorious for this!
The exegesis of Hebrews 13:17 is more often that not appalling and awful in NAPARC leadership circles. This real meaning of Hebrews 13:17 is speaking of nurturing persuasion, not the domineering authoritarianism to often used by NAPARC elders and pastors.
I've written on this before, but we have to understand that the concept of authority has been butchered in Western society. Calvin was somewhat shocking when he said that we had a right to disobey our superiors when they commanded us to sin, but it wasn't until, perhaps Kuyper that we started to understand that there were divine limits on what authorities could command in the first place. For example, an elder couldn't force me to move across the country, like my parent could. A policeman can't excommunicate me. My family can't dictate my religious beliefs.
However, the "high church" evangelicals think that, since the church somehow uniquely represents Christ, they ought, therefore, be able to command obedience in every aspect of our lives. We hear sermons strongly hinting whom we should vote for, we hear pastors matchmaking and interfering with families. For example, the Directory for Worship dictates what should happen at weddings and funerals simply because they include elements of worship. I think that is a complete overstepping of the church's authority.
And... as I've said before, even though JESUS HIMSELF said that the #1 sin of elders and pastors is domineering, I have yet to hear an RP pastor preach about domineering. The WCF is silent on domineering, and likewise the RPCNA Constitution. Not surprisingly, even though I've heard the word thrown about here and there, I have yet to hear of an elder or session being charged with domineering.
If they insist on using Hebrews 13:17 as a tool to prove that their positions as office holders in the Church is the central hinge upon which the Church turns....they would do well to apply a better reading of Hebrews 13:17. One which is more accurate and far less self centered.
Regarding Hebrews 13:17>>
""This verse at first glance, seems to be loaded in favor of those who like to rule over God’s people, which is probably why it is perhaps the most favorite of “church leaders.” What is troubling is that it is often the verse cited in a supposed attempt to bolster "the Church", but even a reading of any English translation Bible shows that this is about authority of Leaders, at least at first glance in terms of how most leaders choose to use it. Poor leaders drive the spotlight right back to themselves. It incorporates all of their 3 favorite words together in one breath- Obey, Rule and Submit. It is not the verse that is wrong it is the misinterpretation and hence manipulation of it.
"Take a look at each word,it will become apparent not only as to what the true meanings are from the primary source scriptures, but also as to the reason behind the translators misguided substitution of an entirely different word to further their hierarchical/institutional agenda.
Here is Hebrews 13:17: Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
First off, notice this. The word “over,” is not in any way, shape, or form in the old manuscripts. This word was inserted in the text of Scripture by the translators. We will therefore dismiss it altogether and all that it implies.
Next, let’s examine the word “Obey” or “Obey them.” Anyone can check this out simply by using a Bible software program. When we go to the Strong's number for the word translated “obey,” we find the Greek word "peitho"- Strong's number 3982. It appears about 60 times. By far the most common translation for this Greek word in the King James Version is “persuade,” “persuaded,” “persuadeth,” etc.
NAPARC elders for the most part do a very poor job of persuading with sound exegesis even when at first glance they are using a verse which seems to bolster their own office. As in how they use/abuse Hebrews 13:17. This is immense in the RPCNA. It is is pure Sacersotalism and the idol needs tearing down.
Sorry for the misspell that is meant to say> "Sacerdotalism". Simply put they believe it is their office (elder) that is the door to God. Oh to be sure they will rarely admit to this, but actions prove it.
The warp and woof which holds the Christian life together is the authority of church officers, in their minds. Authority is their favorite topic. One could be talking about breakfast cereal and these men would bring it back around to "authority".
One wonders where the Protestant and Biblical concept of the "Priesthood of all believers" is at all in their misguided concept of what the center piece of the Christian life is all about. For these arrogant leaders it is all about their office, but in reality we know it is all about the Lord Jesus Christ. One need only observe them for a short while to clearly see that it is the functions of their office that are held in highest regard for them. From Church committees, activities, procedures, politics and the like,etc.. It is these which are high and lifted up for these leaders.
Sacerdotalism, hyper authoritarianism and an over realized ecclesiology....These are deep seated problems in all of NAPARC and there is little to NO acknowledgment that there is a problem. This is why the likelihood of real change is slim to none.
It is also why 50 years from now the RPCNA will be where it is today....after 300 years in North America, about 6000 members and 70% of those related to one another.
Not attempting a snarky tone here, just a reality check. Its one thing to be ultra pragmatic church growth sell outs, however in the case of so many of these NAPARC denominations it is not so much that they are the most faithful & pure (which they try to convince themselves of) that they are so small. On the contrary, it is because they are the most caustic and toxic that they remain so tiny.
""Matthew 27:20 "But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus."
The chief priests and elders had no authority to command the people to ask for Barabbas or to destroy Jesus. But they were able to persuade the multitude to "ask" Pilate to do so. And so it is in Hebrews 13:17.
From Vine’s Expository Dictionary: “Peitho: to persuade, to win over; to be persuaded, to listen to, as in Acts 5:40 (passive voice). The obedience suggested is not by submission to authority, but resulting from persuasion."
From Thayer’s and Smith’s Greek Lexicon: “Peitho: To persuade; to induce one by words to believe; to make friends of, to win one's favor, gain one's good will, or to seek to win one, strive to please one. To be persuaded, to suffer one's self to be persuaded; to be induced to believe: to have faith in a thing; to believe."
There is a Greek word for “obey.” It is “hupakouo.” “Hupakouo” appears 21 times in the New Testament and is properly translated either as “obey,” “obedience,” or “obeyed.” Here is the first time this word appears in the New Testament:
Matthew 8:27 "And the men marveled saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!"
Also, Ephesians 6:1 "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right."
1st Peter 3:6 "Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement."
The winds and the sea obeyed Christ; children are admonished to obey their parents; and Sarah obeyed Abraham calling him lord. But nowhere in Scripture are we ever told that a “pastor” or any “church leader” has the right to rule over the people as Christ rules the wind and sea; as parents rule their children; or as wives ought to obey their husbands!
The Greek word “hupakouo” is never used in that way. Rather the Greek word“peitho” meaning “persuaded” is used instead.
Let’s look at some more verses with the word “peitho.”
“Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded (peitho) them to continue in the grace of God.” Acts 13:43
“And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for the space of three months, disputing (dialegomai: discuss, to reason) and persuading (peitho) the things concerning the kingdom of God.” Acts 19:8
Here the apostle is “reasoning,” he’s having a discussion with the people in the synagogue. He is not commanding them; he is not beckoning them to look at his credentials and thereby render obedience. No. He reasoned with them, and they were persuaded. (peitho)
The apostle was not there to “magnify his office.” He was not there to build his church. He was not there to make a name for himself. He was there for one purpose only, and that was to hold up Christ to the people.
Do you want to see a picture of true leadership? Why was Paul so “persuasive?” Because Paul himself was absolutely and thoroughly persuaded. He knew altogether of what he spoke.""
Here are some more Scriptures with the Greek word “peitho” meaning persuade or persuaded. Remember, we are still discussing Hebrews 13:17 where the word “obey” was substituted for the Greek word “peitho.”
“Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade (peitho) men…" 2 Corinthians 5:11
“For do I now persuade (peitho) men, or God; or do I seek to please men?” Galatians 1:10
“When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded (peitho) that in thee also.” 2 Timothy 1:5
“…For I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded (peitho) that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.” 2 Timothy 1:12
“These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded (peitho) of them, and embraced them.” Hebrews 11:13
If a church leader, be he a pastor or an elder, is living and walking by the Spirit and is continually looking to Christ as his example, he will never be desirous or demanding obedience to his so-called office or authority. The point to be observed is that mindless obedience is not what is pictured in Hebrews 13:17.
Look at the Apostle Peter. In Acts 10, God caused Peter to fall into a trance and receive a vision through which he was later sent to Cornelius’ house to bring the good news of the gospel to the Gentiles. In Acts 11, we read, “Now the apostles and the brethren that were in Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, You went in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.” 11:1-3
What was Peter’s response? Did he show them his badge, reminding them that he was an Apostle? Did he quote to them the verse of Scripture, “Touch not thou the Lord’s Anointed?” Did he suggest that he ought not be questioned? Did he remind them of his ministerial dignity and awesome duties? Did he lash back at them in “holy anger?” No. There was absolutely nothing of this kind of grandstanding spectacle whatsoever.
Peter calmly rehearsed for them the entire incident from the beginning, right up until…“as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit….. And when they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life.”
He persuaded them, so much so that they were silent and glorified God. Peter did not demand obedience or uniformity. Peter’s handling of the situation with wisdom and grace caused God to be glorified. It showed how Peter carried himself and what his attitude was toward his brethren. He did not view himself as above questioning and criticism.
Do you see the example of Peter demanding submission, obedience, and respect to his sacred appointment or office? Do you detect an aura of pastoral dignity? Do you see a man standing in an "office appointed by Christ and enclothed with the authority of Christ?” Nope!!
"""Now, we will look at the word “rule” or "rule over.” “Obey them that have the rule over you…” Hebrews 13:17
As with the word “o-b-e-y,” it is clear that the translator’s choice of the English word“rule” or “rule over them” was deliberately designed to not only benefit, but also to bolster the already embedded practice of institutional church control. (And yet again, the word “over” is no where present in the original text, and should be dismissed.)
When we check what the Greek word translated “rule” is in this verse and verses like it, we find that this is not a translation but a redefinition of one Greek word. The Greek word translated "rule over you" in Hebrews 13:7 and 17 and 24 is “hegeomai,” Strong's #2233 and it is normally translated “count,” “esteem,” “to lead” or “to go before.” “…Them that have the rule over…” is a substitution by the translators. There is no connotation whatsoever of “ruling over.” True leadership is nothing more than going on ahead.
Here are some verses where this word is properly translated.
“Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” Philippians 2:3
“Yea verily, and I count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but refuse, that I may gain Christ.” Philippians 3:8
“And to esteem them very highly in love…” 1 Thessalonians 5:13
Hebrews 13:17 should read “Be persuaded of those you highly esteem," NOT "Obey them that have the rule over you." No church leader has "dominion over your faith."
2 Corinthians 1:24 “Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.”
Look again at Matthew Chapter 20. “But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Not so shall it be among you: but whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister; and whosoever would be first among you shall be your servant; even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”
"It is NOT so among" church elders! True leaders in God’s ecclesia use His word to "persuade" those in the assembly to humble themselves and be servants one of another. They never "exercise dominion" over anyone in their care. They are rather "helpers of their joy."
The dictionary’s use of the word “rule” or “rule over” fits very nicely in today’s local institutional church:
Control, dominion: 'under the rule of a dictator,' dominating power, authority, superior, preeminent, predominate, 'rule the roost,' command, regnancy, ascendancy, mastery. Indeed the "Session controlled communion". Etc. etc.
Is this what we see in the Scriptures concerning leaders in the assembly, or is this what we see in today’s religious institutions? The English definition of the word “rule” or “rule over”is totally devoid of the true meaning of the text which is outlining a servant leadership with nurturing persuasion.""
I think you bring up valid points, and I can't really respond to every last one of them, but will try to highlight some...
Biblical translation. I believe we fall victim to millennia of patriarchal and authoritarian interpreters. Part of a book I read traced how the misogynistic Talmudic tradition had entered the interpretation of the Bible and how that led to mistranslation of certain passages.
Sacerdotalism. I find the modern term "means of grace church" pretty much encompasses this. The idea is that the means of grace (baptism, communion and the word) are the domain of the pastor, and as such, the pastor becomes the central figure in the ministry of the gospel.
Small & pure. It is interesting that Jesus could not even enter towns because there were such huge crowds following him. Yet, the NAPARC churches seem to take significant stock in the fact that they are small... "The few, the proud, the Reformed!" There is much good in how they desire purity, but, unfortunately, the flip side is that they seemingly look for excuses to judge, exclude and demean anyone who does not hold to their denominational distinctives.
It has taken me years, and will take years more to re-understand God, not as a judgmental jerk who demands perfection and continually smacks his children for every minor infraction, but as a loving God who deeply loves us and chooses grace and hugs rather than hard lessons. I heard (2nd hand) an RP pastor claim that grace, in the case of Isaiah, was the fiery coal used to burn his mouth. I think that says a lot about the RP's view of God, and why the typically heavy-handed discipline is seen as gracious.
Paul says: "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor. 6:11) One of the things that struck me was how backwards the preaching was in the RP church. There was a sanctuary filled of the uber-righteous - those who passed the ongoing scrutiny of the watchful session. Yet, the sermons were continually about sin and depravity, our worthlessness before God and our fallen state. There was nearly nothing about how we are sons and daughters of the king, siblings of Christ, adopted into the royal family, priests.
So, when we are taught how to act, it is not that sin is beneath us as redeemed members of the royal family (as the NT proclaims), but instead as slaves who are continually fearful of the powerful whip of judgment. Our so-called leaders in the faith are doing just what the Judaizers and Pharisees were doing.
"However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?" (Gal 4:8-9)
This is why I think the RPCNA proclaims a different God. Paul tells us the law was like being whipped by a taskmaster to bring us to a knowledge of Christ, but now that we know Christ, we shouldn't be obeying the law out of a fear of being whipped. That time has past. Yet, the church wants to proclaim and be that taskmaster and they want instant, unquestioned obedience from members more out of fear of punishment than mutual love and love for God.
That's why, it seems, a recurring theme in Reformed parenting books is this concept of exemplifying God in the form of harsh discipline. We are to model, again, the OT taskmaster of rigid laws and rigid punishments, rather than the NT model of adoption, love and obedience because such things do not become us.
Keep up the good work and keep working through all this. Be encouraged. God is good, despite leaders in His Church being less than exceptional (sometimes down right awful), and Salvation belongs to the Lord. This is a key truth folks from your background have to remember, as the power trippers in the institutional church will attempt to primarily fix people's hearts and minds toward the session, the traditions, the procedures, toward men, etc. This is why I specifically use the term Sacerdotalism, it is just as bad as Rome ever was, in NAPARC it just has Protestant window dressing.
Salvation belongs to the Lord. It is He who holds us, not the institutional church. Now I know the cry from the power trippers is .... "Your anti church and you can't do that, it is the bride of Christ, etc.".
Yes, but it (the institutional church and its power) should never become an idol and there lay the fork in the road. Plus what is the Church? Is it primarily spiritual or is it primarily the bureaucratic man-made traditions and mumbo-jumbo that the power trippers have made it out to be? I challenge anyone to really read through all the scripture prof texts attached to Westminster confession chapter 25 on "the church " and tell me that by far and away those verses are not primarily speaking about the spirituality of what it means to be a part of Christ's Church. But to hear the religious leaders of our day speak of it, one would think the entire linchpin of not only the Church but of Christianity itself was the session, the Presbytary and the bureaucratic institution.
Which camp would Christ and His disciples be considered in by today's NAPARC leaders? These men today are just as much teaching as if doctrine that which is the traditions of men!
In that sense, yes they are flat out teaching a different Gospel and uplifting a different God all together. This idol must be torn down!
I know there are many out there in the valley with matters like this........
Brothers and sisters,
Keep the faith, Christ holds you, be encouraged.
Hi, Thank you for putting this up. Is anyone familiar with the 2020 published discussion papers about Biblical grounds for Christian divorce in response to Professor Scipione? I experienced intense domestic abuse under an RPCNA pastor, but other church members, elders, and pastors helped me escape and in the words of my friends who escaped similar legalism under Bill Gothard, "recover grace". I think that some leaders in the RPCNA understand and Biblically care about this, but not all. I need to know what freedom or constraint the church leaders operate under.
Thanks for the comment. The complaint against Scipione came from the Atlantic Presbytery. There was a study committee created and their findings were that adultery and physical desertion (abandonment and abuse severe enough that the wife must separate for her physical safety) were the only grounds for divorce. This was overturned, and I believe the goal was for the leadership of the church to be able to define desertion in a pastoral sense.
If the minutes become available, they would be posted here: https://rparchives.org/synod.html - but I rely on reports at RP Witness, Facebook, and sometimes Aquila report.
I agree that some RPCNA pastors understand abuse dynamics, but that is within a culture of Authoritarianism (pastor as idol) and Complementarianism (husband / marriage as idol), so it is going to be quite rare that an RPCNA leader is going to do anything that undermines the authority structure.
Scipione just had to suggest that abuse was grounds for divorce to get a significant minority (and a study committee) to try to force the RPCNA to take a stand against victims of abuse.
As it happens, the Synod ruled on the matter this summer, based on a final version of the paper from the Atlantic Presbytery, but only after amending one of the presbytery's recommendations.
I'll quote from the draft minutes (with added paragraph breaks for clarity):
After introductory comments, questions were raised on the paper as a whole. The recommendations were taken up. Recommendation 1 (we recommend that the Synod clarify that the only biblical causes for divorce are sexual immorality, as given in Matthew 19, and desertion, as given in 1 Corinthians 7); this carried.
Recommendation 2 (we recommend that the Synod clarify that desertion, as described in 1 Corinthians 7, is a willful, irremediable, physical departure of one spouse from the domicile in accord with WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH 24.6).
Moved and seconded to amend this recommendation, substituting in “physical separation by one spouse from the other” for “physical departure of one spouse from the domicile.” This was discussed.
Friendly amendment, “by one spouse from the other” in place of “of one spouse from the domicile.” The amendment passed, so new language being discussed: "We recommend that the Synod clarify that desertion, as described in 1 Cor. 7, is a willful, irremediable, physical departure by one spouse from the other in accord with WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH 24.6."
Moved & seconded, to add: “or irremediably caused by one spouse or the other.” This passed, by standing vote, 72 to 29. So new language being discussed: "We recommend that the Synod clarify that desertion, as described in 1 Corinthians 7, is a willful, irremediable, physical departure by one spouse from the other or irremediably caused by one spouse or the other in accord with WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH 24.6." Carried.
To my mind, two things stood out as significant in Synod's decision. The first is the final addition to Recommendation 2, that separation can be "irremediably caused by one spouse or the other." I would have VERY strong reservations about the presbytery's initial recommendation. But with the change, the final version adopted by the synod is one that I would have been comfortable voting for. It gives sessions the power to read abuse (and any other sin that makes it untenable for both spouses to remain physically together) as a category of desertion. It would require a session to be sensible in order to come to this conclusion, of course, but the fact that the amendment was offered in the first place (and passed easily) suggests to me that sense is not wholly gone from the eldership of the RPCNA. The full proof will be, I suppose, whether this provision is acted on in practice. But the fact that it's there encourages me.
The second noteworthy point is that someone requested a standing vote for this instead of letting it pass by voice vote -- and then it wasn't even close. I don't know whether the request was driven by someone who didn't like the amendment and wanted to put a roadblock in the way (and then spectacularly failed), or by someone who recognized the strength of support and wanted the numbers on the record to showcase this. Personally, I, cynical I, suspect the former.
Thank you! I do have an issue with leaving it up to the sessions, because we have found that sessions and pastors are not typically trauma informed. If someone as qualified as Paul Tripp can say that the husband hitting the wife is still not clear cut abuse and what you can expect to see is two sinners each with their own responsibility. The wife emotionally abuses and the husband physically abuses. So, Paul is always going to throw the wife under the bus, as he did in the case of Tullian Tchividjian.
I've seen two instances of desertion, one by porn addiction and one by sitting on the couch doing nothing while the wife earns the money, keeps the house and raises the kids. In both of these cases, the session did not approve of the divorce, and in both of these cases, the session was using their so-called authority to manipulate the wife into staying.
I do agree that the passed recommendations provide significant room for the session to see abuse as cause, but since the WCF does not even hint at domineering or abuse it may be a philosophically losing battle.
Post a Comment