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?