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/
Wednesday, March 13, 2019
Monday, March 11, 2019
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)