Righteous Anger part 2 - a "whole brain" approach

 

Background: Part of the growing understanding of how the brain works is summarized practically in the book The Whole-Brained Child by Daniel Siegel and Tina Payne. I'm trying to simplify what they say and there will be some inaccuracies, so if you have concerns, please consider reading the book.

When babies are born, they are ruled by the need for safety. Their consciousness is ruled by the need for safety, which is entirely dependent on their needs being met. This safety is ruled by what the authors call the downstairs brain - where the brain interfaces with bodily functions. When the baby is hungry, when the baby is thirsty, when the baby is tired or uncomfortable, the downstairs brain creates powerful emotions that translate into crying, screaming or other signals to the parents that the child senses a lack of safety that needs to be met.

As the parents meet the needs of the child, the upstairs brain is developing understanding of the world around. The child develops a sense that his needs will be met without jeopardizing safety. He sees the caregiver disappear and come back. The child's brain starts to be aware of its connection with others in the world, strategies for dealing with those connections, and other emotions like happiness and comfort.

During the first few years, the role of the caregiver is vitally important in developing proper conscious responses to emotions as the right and left brains develop pathways about what is important to bring to conscious attention. We start to understand things that happen in our bodies - hunger, thirst, cold, warmth, pain in various places, touch, loneliness, love - and our consciousness interacts with the world around us to meet needs and now desires.

Behavioralism: In 1913 a psychologist named John Watson created a rationalistic approach to understanding and processing the world around us. Behavioralism ignored emotions and focused on objective, rational observation. The worldview that Behavioralism brought in was that any person could become anything their superiors wanted through a reward and punishment system based solely on observed behavior. Emotions were seen as unimportant towards the end of producing the desired behavior. The desires of the child were secondary or unimportant in the drive for exceptional behavior. The psychologists powerfully demonstrated their theories by training pigeons to plunk out songs on a piano.

Even though Behavioralism has been shown to be flat-out wrong, it still powerfully occupies our understanding of how society ought to be structured, and this is readily apparent in instruction and discipline. We didn't just forget the tools of dealing with emotional development, we piled them up in the back yard and set them on fire!!! 

I remember watching Dead Poet's Society and I simply didn't get the point of it. As I reflect back, it's a statement against Behavioralism. The students are trapped in a dull existence of behavioralist expectation. The parents have paid top dollar for the school to produce perfect specimens. The protagonist arrives and with him, the light of emotion and purpose, which comes in direct conflict with outside behavioral parents. The student who is the most enlightened and freed finds his world crashing down when his behavioral parents will now do everything in their power to put him back on the approved track. This is a common theme - a child whose desires and gifts put him in conflict with parents' and societal expectations. Isn't this the story of the obligatory consecration service, where the (male) youth get to hear God's demands and expectations of sacrificial service to the church.

Reasoning vs. Emotional errors: Consider what happens when a child expresses a reasoning error. My family has a grocery list, when something is low or out, it gets put on the grocery list and the next time we go shopping, the item appears. A child realized this, and the next week, CANDY was scribbled on the grocery list. We didn't spank our child, we didn't even make it a big deal, we just explained that there was a logical error - the list wasn't a guarantee that we would buy something, just a reminder, etc. What happens when a child expresses an emotional error? One child feels jealousy because another child is playing with a toy they feel entitled to. Anger bursts out. How is that emotional error dealt with? Do we redirect? NO!! We somehow must punish all emotional mistakes. What do you think when you're in the store and your kid or someone else's kid throws a temper tantrum? If that parent doesn't spank the kid or take the kid out to the parking lot, they're a parental disgrace! Yet, in a sense, these emotional errors are equivalent to the logical errors we so effectively handle. We think of reasoning errors as perhaps innocent mistakes and emotional errors as sin that must be eradicated.

We have toys that teach logical cause and effect, our educational system is designed to teach reasoning and logic, but societally, the only solution, if you can say that, for emotional intelligence is punishing any sort of emotional outburst.

Lack of Connection: The purpose of our right brain is to develop a sense of connection with those around us. We develop sympathy and empathy to connect ourselves with others in a healthy way. We develop higher order emotions and emotional regulation. We develop trust. Our sense of worth and purpose is developed in our right brain. We can sense emotions in others and we can sense when things are "off" - we call that intuition. It's been studied that people's right brains recognize dangerous people, but because we're trained to suppress our "gut feeling", we put ourselves in harms way. In fact, studies have shown that dogs don't sense dangerous people, instead, they sense our emotions. For most people, their own dogs know more about what their emotions are telling them than they do! When the right brain is underdeveloped (or suppressed), our consciousness gets only half of the input - the rational input, which is very black and white. So, for example, when you have a theological disagreement with someone, your right brain may have shown you ways to be empathetic and gracious to this person, but your left brain is saying, "this person is WRONG, therefore EVIL". Consider this, if your value is what the church decides it is, and that is adherence to a system of doctrine, then what happens when you disagree with someone over doctrine? Your value is at stake. Losing the argument means that you are less valuable. You can't acknowledge the difference and still both be valuable people. I see this clearly in the political process. Societally, we can no longer accept other peoples' passion for issues like social justice and care for the sick and poor, yet at the same time acknowledge our desire for a peaceful and prosperous society. Therefore, we disconnect and demonize others. We use social media to connect only to those who share our opinions, and our Google news feed shows us only what we want to see.

The behavioral emphasis on reason also destroys self-worth. The clear piece is that the standard by which we are judged is someone else's standard. That is, our objective behavior is rewarded or punished based on someone else's desires for us. The pigeon will eventually plunk out the right notes because, regardless of what the pigeon wants to happen, the concerns of the pigeon are secondary to the concerns of the experimenter. So, in the church, we are taught that our [Spirit-inspired] desires are secondary to the direction of the Session. The less clear piece has to do with the brain. Just as we test our reason against our caregiver, we test our connection. As we bring our own desires into the relationship we look for confirmation of the value of those desires. The "terrible twos" is a developmental stage where the child differentiates from the caregiver. In the Reformed church, the will of the 2yo must be squashed. So, what has happened? The right brain seeks connection with the conscious. That connection is rejected. So, the brain must navigate the rejection. The conclusion (with the help of the black and white left brain) is that I must be bad if I'm rejected. From a behavioral point of view, this is good because the will of the child must be broken for the child to obey the adult. But, we are just setting the child up for a lifetime of self-deprecation and abuse.

Emotional Trauma: Because the church minimizes and denies the work of the right brain, the church denies the existence of emotional trauma. Let's say there are two violent acts in the church. The first violent act is a woman who gets brutally attacked during a robbery. Her knee was shattered and through extensive surgeries and physical therapy, she's able to walk, but not without pain and a limp. The church surrounds her and recognizes that the limp is a natural consequence of the physical damage and pain they condemn the robber and vindicate her. Let's say there is another woman in the church. She is violently raped by her boyfriend. Her whole world is shattered. She attempted suicide and ended up spending time in a mental hospital, but even now that she is released, she is seeing a psychologist because she can't stop cutting herself. First of all, the church is reluctant to take sides without fully hearing both the perpetrator and victim? Did her sin contribute to the rape? Then, when they see the obvious scars from the cutting, they condemn it and start mentioning church discipline. They condemn her for seeking "unbiblical counseling". Do we see the difference?

Breaking the Peace - the Assault on Righteous Anger: Since behavioralism specifically ignores emotions and focuses only on observable behaviors, it's obvious that the results of strong emotions are going to be misunderstood and punished. Let's say I'm in middle school, and immaturely, I decide that I should poke the boy in front of me with my pencil during class. The teacher does not like interruptions when he is teaching, so the boy tries to suppress the anger while he waits for an appropriate time. It doesn't work. He explodes in anger. "STOP POKING ME WITH YOUR PENCIL!!!" What do you think happens? It's obvious. BOTH of us are going to the principal. Both the offender and the victim get punished for breaking the peace.

It makes sense, because right and wrong are somewhat superfluous in the quest for perfect behavior. The behavioralist does not care anything about the feelings of the pigeon so long as the expected behavior is met, and likewise, the tendency in the church is to not care what happens in private so long as the public peace is preserved.

That's why we expect sermons like Rut's on Righteous Anger. Imagine if Rut preached a sermon about logical discourse in Bible studies. He says that Bible studies are a great place to ask questions about doctrine. But... you can always keep quiet because "better to be quiet and have others think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt!" [Mark Twain, not the Bible!]. But... lest you fall into the erroneous thinking of Satan, before you ask a question, you should make sure you've done all the proper research and read the right scholars' opinions on the matter, and... before you ask a question, you should make sure that you understand the definition of each word you're going to say, and... before you ask a question, you should search the Bible for every passage that speaks on the topic, because it's easy for our fallible logic to be led astray!

Every pastor I've heard has said that RP doctrine should withstand scrutiny, and that we should be ready and willing to answer questions gently and with wisdom. Why do we so much fear the other side of our humanity, then? If we are not afraid of reason, why are we afraid of emotion? Why are we so deathly afraid of "sinful anger" that it's better to hold our peace when some pastor tells us that God tells us to abuse our children in His name - the same God who sends rain on the just and the unjust commands us to withhold food from our own children?

Righteous Anger part 1 - stream and rocks analogy

 Since Chris brought up the concept of righteous anger, I thought it would be worth talking through some analogies about righteous and sinful anger. First of all, anger is an emotion. We may think that our emotions are fallible and we need our intellect to keep it in check, but in actuality, both our emotions and intellect are fallible. We need our emotions to keep our intellect in check as much as we need our intellect to keep our emotions in check.

For example, we talk about intuition or "gut feelings" - gut feelings are often right, and we somehow assume that it was luck or providence, but evidence shows there is more to it. My plan is to cover that in part 2.

My best description of anger is an energy we feel as a result of a sense of injustice. Our emotion is telling us that something is wrong, and not just that something is wrong, but something needs to be fixed. We feel a surge of adrenaline, our faces turn red, our pulse quickens. Often our emotional sense of the situation precedes our intellectual sense of what happened.

It is at this point that our intellect is racing to catch up. WHY? is the first question to ask. Why am I angry? What injustice has occurred? Because our emotions are fallible, we need the combined strength of intellect and emotion to understand. Is the injustice I'm experiencing true or false injustice. That is, am I angry because I or someone I care about being treated disrespectfully, or is it some perceived entitlement that has been threatened?

To understand psychology, anger can be resolved (processed) or it can be suppressed. If I understand that I'm at fault, I can use the energy of the anger to work towards change in my own heart - to seek forgiveness and restoration. It can be resolved through putting the energy towards constructive conflict - seeking justice personally or systemically. However, it can also be suppressed. Suppressing anger is flatly unhealthy, yet as we see, in religious circles it seems to be the most acceptable and compelling option.

This is an analogy of an abusive relationship that has blown up. The person on the left is experiencing mostly unrighteous (idolatrous or self-righteous) anger. The person on the right is a target of idolatrous abuse, and is angry as a result of being treated disrespectfully or unjustly. Because the anger grows past the "ability to tolerate", the public peace is broken. For the sake of the argument, this has happened in the church context.

What should happen? I would argue that the church needs to deal, first and foremost, justly in this situation. If you read Shepherding a Child's Heart, you would see that Tedd Tripp disagrees. In his mind, we notice that there is red (unrighteous anger) on both sides and we deal solely with the red without recognizing the sheer volume of red on one side. In his description, the child who holds the toy is sinfully greedy instead of sharing, while the child who steals the toy has resorted to violence. The solution, then, is to punish both for disturbing the peace of the house.

So, what happens is what is called all sorts of things - gaslighting, grooming, normalizing, burying one's head in the sand, whatever. This can happen as a result of one's own codependency or external factors. The point is that the anger is not "put away" - it's still there and it's still as big as ever. Yet, the anger is no longer visible in the community. The abuse is still as strong as ever.

This is what is taught in the RP church. Instead of teaching people to deal with anger in a healthy way by choosing to stand up for justice and give strength to victims of abuse, the church chooses a peaceful image. Under the holy and righteous image of the church is unresolved and abusive conflict. What is unfortunate is that it is the opposite of justice.

There's more complexity to it, but as long as the RPCNA chooses to whitewash over conflict in the church through sermons like this, not only will abuse and injustice persist, but anger itself will grow unchecked, hidden under what appears to be a a calm sea of suppression. This is what I mean about choosing image over truth. The anger is still there, the abuse is still there, but it can all be conveniently ignored because everything looks like a calm stream. The church does the opposite of its calling. Instead of shining a light in the darkest places, the church chooses to hide and obscure injustice because it looks good.

Not TRUTH at all costs, but IMAGE at all costs

In working through some struggles as a result of childhood, I was asked the question: "What if you just said to your family, 'well, that was your perspective, but I see things differently?'" This was about what seemed to be a significant disconnect in family stories. My response was, "In my family, truth was more important than any one of us."

That is also what the RPCNA teaches. Our responsibility to God and to truth is a responsibility that even death pales in comparison to. We were told of martyrs throughout history who refused to accommodate the half-truths of the Catholic church, or the half-truths of the state churches imposed on them. They met in private, risking arrest and even death. All because the truth was more important to them than any harm that could be done.

I'm not trying to invite compromise on core Christian principles, but what if the reality was not so rosy?

When I looked back on my family, I realized that there was a standard claimed for being treated as an equal, intellectual, musical and athletic giftedness. That was presented as the family truth. Yet, somehow, I was never able to claim that equality. No matter how much I succeeded intellectually, musically and athletically, there was always some new expectation. Material possessions were added, expertise was added, salaries were added, music was removed and the result was that somehow I always had no claim to sit at the same table. This became especially true as I started questioning our "superior RPCNA upbringing". This has shown itself in action, as well - small but clear reminders of my inferiority and standing.

After talking with my counselor, I started realizing. It wasn't the truth that defined our family, but image. The truth was that I was an equal in every way, but image dictated that others in the family had to be superior. The truth of our upbringing did not support the image that we wanted to present.

I believe this is part of the core problem in the RPCNA. The image of the RPCNA as a superior church, claiming both amazing love and joy among the brethren, amazing care and concern for Biblical truth, and competent, godly and thoroughly vetted leadership is more important than confronting the truth of what the RPCNA is.

When I think through many of those questionable moments, I see this principle clearly:

• Was the trial of Bruce Hemphill primarily driven by a desire to seek and act on truth, or was it primarily driven by a desire to appear unabashedly committed to Biblical truth to fellow NAPARC churches? Before you answer that, ask yourself why the RPCNA overruled breaches of many of the procedural and disciplinary protections that were in place at the time.
• Why is insubordination the primary cause of discipline (as told me by an elder)? Is it because the session seeks truth, or because the session seeks members to uphold the image it has claimed?
• Why would a presbytery commission claim to have rebuked an elder (quest for truth!) and then reject a request from a member that the rebuke of an elder be public as required in scripture instead of behind closed doors?
• Why does the RPCNA constitution give the right of appeal to all members, but only by submitting the appeal through the court whose decision is being appealed, and then, only if said court finds the appeal to be in order? Why are members of the session being appealed given speaking privileges of the floor and have their travel reimbursed, while the appellants, if they travel to presbytery must do so at their own expense, and expect only to be silent observers to the presbytery discussion of their case?
• Why is it the implication that every member who has left the RPCNA has done so because they chose sin or unrighteousness or compromise over truth? Why do we mourn the generations "lost" when many of these generational members left the RPCNA for a different church?
• Why do Reformed churches demand that formal seminary training is a requirement for all pastors, even though there is essentially zero scriptural support to make this a requirement? Is having 100% seminary-trained pastors a Biblical truth or does it convey an image of intellectual superiority?
• When the RPCNA takes great care to make public the causes for excommunication of members, but deals with sins of leadership privately (I know many occasions where this has happened), is this a stand for Biblical truth, or a desire to protect the image of a godly leadership?
• Oh, and the small, but clear reminders of inferiority (hint: how the RPCNA butchers Total Depravity) and standing (hint: how much leaders want the congregation to be removed from the important decisions of the church)

This is also why the OPC is at a crossroads. Their handling of Aimee Byrd is clearly designed to restore the image of their church leadership. Their report makes the actions of their leaders appear innocent and inconsequential, while portraying the actions of Ms. Byrd, the concerned pastors and the "whistleblower" as divisive, scheming and improper. I fear that the OPC will choose image over truth, as it has presumably done in the past. Why would this presbytery committee feel so emboldened to distort justice otherwise?

The four quadrants of shame management and church "personhood"

One of the big questions that keeps popping up in religious abuse discussions is whether an organizational culture can take on the characteristics of a personality. Psalm 115 1-8 says:

Not to us, O Lord, not to us, But to Your name give glory
Because of Your lovingkindness, because of Your truth.
Why should the nations say, “Where, now, is their God?”
But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.
Their idols are silver and gold, The work of man’s hands.
They have mouths, but they cannot speak; They have eyes, but they cannot see;
They have ears, but they cannot hear; They have noses, but they cannot smell;
They have hands, but they cannot feel; They have feet, but they cannot walk;
They cannot make a sound with their throat.
Those who make them will become like them, Everyone who trusts in them.

I am not surprised, then, when a theology of internal subjection of wills within the Trinity leads to a church culture of subjection. I'm not surprised that a shame-based, narcissistic and authoritarian view of God leads to a shame-based, narcissistic and authoritarian church. This is a very helpful diagram, proposed by Patricia Gianotti on how we build defense mechanisms against shame: https://www.treatingnarcissism.com/the-four-quadrant-model

This seems very helpful in mapping out personal, familial and even church responses to shame. For example, through stories about Daniel, I was taught that faithful living and natural giftedness would result in being raised to positions of power. So, in quadrant 1, I had a drive to perfection and high standards for my own conduct, which were justified because of quadrant 3, waiting to be acknowledged and rewarded. But, years passed and I often experienced the opposite. That led to a sense of despair and brokenness and some lack of care for myself - quadrant two. Emotional and spiritual abuse also led to the quadrant 4 fantasies of revenge, violence and even the typical RP persecution complex.

I see the same sorts of things when it comes to the church response. Ultimately, the RP "distinctives" fall into quadrants 1 and 2 - we hold high standards of self-imposed righteousness, with the belief that personally, and as a church, we will be lifted up and recognized, if not now, then at the judgment as being free from shame. But, when dealing with chronic shame and unworthiness (a tragic misunderstanding of God and the gospel among those in the RP church) - the church suffers from the right quadrant issues. For example, quadrant 2, I would suggest is the continual joyless existence common among RPs, who cannot let their real selves out for fear of shame. Quadrant 4 tends to be the RP story, though, in the interpersonal church relations, and especially within the church leadership.

Being raised on the conservative side of the RP church, I heard the conversations about certain liberals that threatened the church order. Talk of what sort of church discipline would be most appropriate - public rebuke, excommunication, humiliation, silence, whatever. I see the church testing God - putting preaching stations and missions, pastors and missionaries out in the world with nearly non-existent support, and then, when God does not send immediate growth, sabotaging the work. I continually see the leaders of the church refusing to accept blame. For example, I heard elders talk of all the "ministry opportunities" that were provided for the members to step into, but the members did not volunteer. I see self-sabotage also in the quest for numerical growth. Growth in the RP church provokes bitter animosity and jealousy. On the one hand, numerical growth is celebrated because the overall church feels rewarded and validated, but that growth occurs somewhere. So, when my church is dwindling and another church is growing, despite the fact that I'm faithful and loyally waiting, I want to put the blame elsewhere - that pastor is straying from some RP principle to win people over, or he is cow-towing to some radical fringe group like the Steelites.

Sometimes we are astounded at the level of revenge evident in the RP church. Bruce Hemphill comes to mind. Elders and Pastors from every corner fell over themselves to exact their revenge - and it falls very well within this narrative - a desire for the church to appear "pure", a desire to be recognized as "zealous for the truth", but then critical and consistent process failures and the overall hatred and revenge shown in the process.

I still struggle to read much of the Biblical narrative through my de-facto RP lens. The Old Testament God does seem narcissistic, and the RP obsession with the OT seems to foment the sort of narcissism and shame evident. However, the OT prophets and especially the NT shed a more gracious and productive light on those actions. For example, a juxtaposed narrative of the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah as against gross sexual sin, but also about hospitality and justice to the disadvantaged. The more I look through the lens of Jesus's life, though, I see the possibility of forgiveness and restoration of personal sin, and I see the rejection of those who refuse justice for the disadvantaged.

There is much more to explore in the RP church's embodiment of their narcissistic god, but I'll leave this model as a helpful way to see our experiences within the church as a refusal to accept and process thoughts of shame among the leaders and members.

Recovering from Spiritual Abuse - Part 3: Anger & Bargaining

The two most transformational books I read while recovering from spiritual abuse had extensive discussions of anger.

The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse - said that understanding the abuse we have experienced would inevitably lead to anger, sometimes strong anger. Their recommendation was not to repress the anger, but be very careful about what actions the anger might lead to - especially any sort of antagonism in the church that would lead back into a cycle of abuse.

Boundaries - also said that anger was a natural consequence of the understanding of our boundaries, understanding that our boundaries had been trampled on, and reacting to continued boundary violations. Again, once we recognize the violence against our boundaries, there will be an angry response that leads us to action.

Unlike what the RPCNA leadership wants to claim, anger is a God-given emotion. The Father and Jesus both model purely righteous anger - not for leaders only, but for all. Jesus was not a boundaryless pushover. Anger is not pretty - Jesus angrily overturned the tables and created quite a chaotic scene!

In addition to those powerful books, the best advice I've heard about anger, and even all human emotions, is that we should able to invite God into that emotion. If I'm angry because I did something stupid and got caught, would God agree with my anger? If, on the other hand, I'm angry because a trusted friend broke confidence and shared my pain and anguish with others, I think God wants to be there with me as I experience it. God wants to be near at all times, it's just a question of whether God would say my anger is directed appropriately.

I believe anger is the emotion God gave us to save us from abuse! It was my anger at false teaching (ironically, about anger), and then supported by RPCNA leaders who also falsely taught that anger was inherently evil, that gave me the energy to walk away from the abuse.

But, that's not really the anger I think this chart is talking about. I would say that, for the first six months after I left, I was pretty numbed to what I felt about the situation. Anger pushed me to leave the abuse, but I really didn't understand the depth or breadth of that abuse. After that point, it began to dawn on me just how severe the abuse had been [and I know that many RPs suffer much more personal and traumatic abuse than I did!] The RP church preached to the unsaved - sin, guilt, condemnation, legal requirements, judgment, and the anger of God against all unrighteousness, of which we cannot go a day without displeasing him. My new church preached to the saved - comfort, friendship, blessing, grace, the love of God for all who are his, the Spirit poured out on all, if we would just listen and walk in what we now know is the right path. At first, this was a comforting and warming message, but then I began to realize this was not what I experienced in the RP church. It was not what I experienced in my RP family. I felt like I had been in jail my whole life, imprisoned by those who should know better. At first, I was angry at my captors and myself, but at some point that anger turned to God - first actively - why, sovereign God, did you actively choose for me to be taught an evil caricature of YOU! Why did you bring me up in these chains that still hold me down. In a sense, the bargaining was a question of what my life would have looked like without the chains and abuse. There were significant decision points in my life - Why did I choose to attend Geneva? Why did I stay in the RP church when I felt mistreated at Geneva by RPs? Why did I stay in the RP church after I graduated? What would my life have looked like if I had chosen differently?

I still feel anger when I read the Bible. It is hard not to feel the chains when passages I read lead to the legalistic and abusive RP argumentation. I feel, to some respect, that the very words of the translations have been poisoned with legalism and judgment.

It is honestly still hard to work through the anger. The RPCNA and especially my family did not allow negative emotions. Anger and fear were altogether considered inappropriate. Sadness was "okay" - but led to emotional distance which was reinterpreted as rejection. So, I was never taught how to recognize and work through those emotions. Instead, strong emotions were meant to be suppressed. To point this out more visually, look around at others singing Psalms - the Bible's textbook on emotion. How much emotional repression does it take to sing "HALLELUJAH!" with no visible emotion. Or "Oh how long, Lord, forget me"? Or, pick pretty much any section of the 150 Psalms - all with loud, precise 4-part harmony, but absent any sort of emotional understanding. It's not just the RPCNA, but many, many evangelical churches in our emotionally repressive culture! Not only do we see strong emotions in the Psalms, but we see different tools as the Psalmist works through these emotions in a holy way. We see how God wants to be pulled in as a trusted friend in our happiest and most tragic times - not to reject our negative emotions - but to be our help and support. I remember the poem Footprints where a man sees two sets of footprints in his life when times are good, but when times were difficult and he felt abandoned, there was only one. His conclusion was that God left him in those times to deal alone with the trauma, but instead, when he asks, God says, the time when there was only one set of footprints was when I carried you.

I'm still angry that in the times of my life when I felt most angry, most rejected, most abandoned, instead of being understood, supported, prayed for, by the church, I was given a trite Bible verse, told to suck it up, told that others had it worse, told that I was suffering because of my sin, distracted, deflected, whatever so that the church could be full of seemingly emotionless zombies singing Psalms with "fervor" to the Lord.

Recovering from spiritual abuse, part 2 - pain and guilt

I think many will experience this differently. I experienced pain and guilt more while I was figuring out how to deal with the abusive situation than when I finally left. My RPCNA journey reached a pinnacle of sorts soon after I graduated college, and a steady decline.

The guilt I had was in seeing abusive leadership and not trying to stand up against it and protect the abused*. There was some pain in being one of "those people" who, if the leaders were asked, left the RP church because they couldn't stand the strict righteousness required and held some area of sin too closely. Yet, in the process of leaving, I was reprimanded for bringing up my "many grievances". So, I guess the little I did speak up was already too much for the leaders to bear.

I did have a great fear that I would try to escape the pain of church. The first Sunday post-RPCNA, I drove to a church that I had researched online. The sermons didn't have the self-doubt and authoritarian lingo I heard from NAPARC churches. When I turned off the car, a thought washed over me. No one would know if I started my car again and drove away. I had some regrets when I had to walk through the welcoming committee and got pulled aside to get my "Hey everyone! I'm a first time visitor!! bag". But, those regrets soon vanished when the service started and I saw people worshiping in their own individual way. Some sat, some stood, some raised their arms and some swayed. It wasn't like people singing "Oh praise the Lord!" loudly in four-part harmony, but with absolutely no hint of joy on their faces. I heard a pastor preach that it was okay to take our anger, our pain, our negative emotions in prayer before God. That God wanted us to draw near, not like a beggar addressing a king, but like a loving father.

In the next few weeks, I would meet with a few of the RPCNA leaders who tried to find the appropriate way to apply the right amount of guilt to me. What right did I have to take the elders' valuable time and energy when they were so busy dealing with other peoples' issues? If I had just disagreed in the "appropriate" way, I would be listened to. Come back and be a part of the solution (if they didn't listen to me in the past...why would they listen to me now?)

In a sense, the "excruciating" pain came from a mutual process of disconnection. Since invitations happened in the church, I simply didn't get invited. When friendships were centered around church, there was nothing else in common to hold us together. Even going to a church-related family event post-exit was awkward. At that point, there was a pain of being unable to participate in significant events. Marriages, funerals, graduation parties - they were all centered around the church.

Note(*) - While I saw the abuse of the church, I was mostly blind to the impact it had on me. I was mostly concerned about protecting those around me. When I had disconnected from the RP church for maybe six months, my eyes started to be opened to how pervasive the abuse was and how crippling it was. Much of it was hidden in hypocritical/contradictory behavior. For example, we are praised for being this pinnacle of righteousness, yet at the same time berated week after week for our filthy rags and unworthiness. Because I felt worth (pride/self-righteouness) along with unworthiness (not measuring up), it was hard for me to really know how worthless I really felt in the abusive environment.

Recovering from spiritual abuse, part 1 - shock & denial

Since I'm not any sort of expert on recovering from grief, I thought I would share parts of my journey. One thing to keep in mind is that this is not linear by any stretch of the imagination. Sometimes I feel like I'm on an upward trend, then I step into more commitments and fall back into depression and loneliness or anger or pain or whatever.

I think working through a long-term loss is much different than losing a loved one, but the process seems similar, at least from what I've experienced so far.

Shock

I remember the moment I put a name to what I experienced in the RP church. A guest minister was preaching for a high school conference about the need for commitment to the church (an RPCNA-approved message, to say the least). It was about the church as our mother - Mother Kirk - and how our mother may or may not be wonderful or nice all the time, but we still need her and she still is our mother.

I asked myself... but what if that mother is abusive? Should we still cling to an abusive mother? Then I pondered more deeply. What would abused children in the church look like? I thought about abused dogs. They would probably cower in the corner to avoid confrontation, but when confrontation was avoidable, they would probably lash out in odd and unexpected ways. They would probably be emotionally draining. The more I thought about it, the more I saw myself as abused by my church.

As a "blue-blood" RP, my world pretty much shattered at that point and soon after. I was raised in the best denomination - one that loved God so much that it would not stray from what he explicitly approved. I was raised by godly RP parents who others praised and sought advice from on their methods. That single word: ABUSE pierced through my heart and suddenly everything was broken. My upbringing wasn't superior. At the same time I was taught to live by an unimpeachable moral code, everything I did was minimized and picked apart. Nothing was ever good enough. The grades I earned, the honors and awards I earned were the work of an unfaithful servant just doing what was required. My churching wasn't superior. I was taught of a distant and judgmental god, for whom nothing was ever good enough. My service to him was just the work of an unfaithful servant just doing what was required, and at every misstep, he was there to make sure I knew I was doing wrong.

Disbelief

At the same time I couldn't understand... I had a good education, a good job a stable life. I wasn't engaging in destructive behavior. Is it really possible that someone who was abused could turn out "okay"? I sought answers within and without the RP church. The RP church, person after person, would say things like: "I don't think that's wrong. You must have done something to deserve that sort of treatment" "I need to hear both sides - what's the other side of the story?" My family members said, "Well, it wasn't the best, definitely, but I wouldn't call it abusive" Those outside of the church had a completely different opinion. "That's really bad. I'm sorry that happened to you and I hope you can heal." or "Normally, I would recommend that people stay at their churches and try to resolve disagreements, but I don't think you want to go back there."

I think along the same lines of what my family said - just because our story isn't as bad as the bad stories out there doesn't mean it wasn't abusive. Abuse is inherently an attempt to manipulate and control others through the use of force - be it emotional, financial or even physical. I suffered less force because I was more compliant. The environment was still abusive.

To exacerbate this, my affiliations pretty much flipped upside down. I saw the people I was taught to respect in a different light - they were cold and harsh - while those people I was taught to avoid and disdain seemed warm and approachable. Those were reinforced by things I heard and read by and about them.

Aimee Byrd, OPC and NAPARC - the patriarchal veil is lifted

I have the utmost respect for highly capable women who are finding their way within the bounds of complementarian/patriarchal churches.

• Beth Moore is a member in the SBC and has repeatedly affirmed the SBC complementarian stance and reminded detractors that her mission is specifically to Christian women. Yet, the comp/patriarchal leadership in her denomination and elsewhere continues to undermine her platform and message.

• Rachael Denhollander is also a member of a complementarian denomination. She has publicly stated that pastors and church leaders are cordial to her face, but backbiting behind closed doors.

• Aimee Byrd is a member of the OPC. She has the full support of her pastor and elders. Yet, again, behind closed doors in a private Facebook group, OPC and NAPARC pastors, elders and members are engaged in disrespectful and inappropriate behavior.

This fits in with the authoritarian/superiority theme. First off, these men are not arguing "roles" - they are simply pushing a framework of male superiority. They are pushing unwritten rules for how women fit into the family and church. These vile men are now trying to damage control since their comments have been made public. Keep in mind that the administrators of the group, including Shane Anderson (Ruling Elder, OPC) can delete any comments they find offensive! Although Anderson is probably one of the worst offenders.

Aimee Byrd's callout: https://aimeebyrd.com/2020/06/19/genevan-commons-and-the-qualifications-for-church-office/

Christianity Today writeup: https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2020/june/complementarians-closed-rooms-aimee-byrd-beth-moore.html

Commentary on the announcement of her new book:

- seriously, this is just vile


- PCA Pastor


Inappropriate lampooning of another book by Ms. Byrd




















^ OPC church planter










[Doesn't he seem to be acknowledging that this is inappropriate?] - Ruling Elder, OPC


Commentary on the actual cover photo:

- Associate Pastor PCA

 
more vileness


Comments about her press photo:


Conspiring to drum up official church trouble:

Kevin Medcalf, Jim Stevenson - OPC Pastors

More vile slurs (This is about Rachel Green Miller):

Steven Carr - Pastor RCUS


Note that the real fear seems to creep in "honored pastors" - the concern here is that Aimee's critique of misogynistic and patriarchal preaching in conservative denominations will somehow free women of their patriarchal manipulation and control. More comments about her look. More smears against women (sandwich + eisegesis).


Now the hard questions... The CRC was kicked out of NAPARC because of their egalitarian views. I think we should be pretty confident that the OPC and PCA will not act against these pastors and elders. What does it say for the sister denominations in NAPARC to hold full fellowship with a denomination whose leaders display such vile behavior.

Remember, Byrd is complementarian. What these pastors are saying is far beyond complementarianism and is much more akin to patriarchy and subjugation. These themes come out:

• Byrd's husband should be shutting her up
• Her session should be shutting her up
• She should go back to being a housewife and "sandwich maker"
• [Not imaged, but in the blog] Women should not be educated
• It's not okay to call these men's teaching into question

I hope this comes up front and center in church searches. Someone who wants to know the character of the OPC or PCA should find these comments - and know what to expect.

It would be something else if these were ordinary members in the OPC/PCA, but these are men who are seminary-trained, examined by their churches and denominations and found to be exemplary, and chosen by their congregations. These men TRULY REPRESENT the OPC and PCA denominations, and that is scary!

An article about Christian nationalism sheds light on RPCNA practices...

I'm not generally a big fan of Al Jazeera, which seems to be a pro-Islam media site, but this article really resonated with my RPCNA experience.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/power-worshippers-american-religious-200422144158404.html

It is, in fact, modern in its methods and doctrines, which "notwithstanding their purported origins in ancient texts have been carefully shaped to serve the emotional needs of its adherents, the organisational needs of its clerical leaders, and the political needs and ambitions of its funders".

Translation, there is a triangle of power inherent in Christian fundamentalism. The adherents give money to support politicians and church leaders in exchange for the feeling of moral superiority and being part of a righteous movement. The church leaders get money, power and prestige in exchange for preaching political talking points and delivering members as a voting bloc to politicians. The politicians get votes, money and power in exchange for championing moral legislation and appearing onstage with religious leaders.

Al Jazeera: What are some of the ways in which the emotional needs of adherents are exploited by movement leaders? 

Stewart: Among the emotional needs of some adherents is a desire for a certain empowerment as members of a special or uniquely virtuous group of people. So religious nationalism goes overboard in insisting on the unique virtues of the religion and culture with which its followers identify.
   An additional emotional need of some adherents, exploited by leaders of the movement, is to validate feelings of grievance and resentment, and to focus them on some imagined impure "other," a scapegoat.
   Christian nationalism, like other forms of religious nationalism around the world and throughout history, delivers a set of persecution narratives that represent the "good" religious people as under threat and as victims of an evil "other".

So, religious nationalist organizations, like the RPCNA, encourage their adherents by creating a cultural narrative that is equated with righteousness. In the RPCNA, it is "National Reform" - that is, a focus on theocracy (a national covenant), and a political focus on specific moral issues, especially abortion.

Al Jazeera: How have the doctrines been shaped to meet the needs of the movement's clerical leaders?  

Stewart: Fundamentally the doctrines of religious nationalism reinforce authority - of scripture, of course, but also the authority of religious and political leaders.
  This is what religious nationalism does around the world. Their doctrines make an absolute virtue out of obedience to a literalist or strict interpretation of their religion.

Wow, she pretty much nails the RPCNA here. Under the guise of faithful obedience to God, the church promotes a narrow interpretation (WCF and RPCNA Constitution), especially as it relates to the authority of, and unquestioned obedience to, the church and her leadership.

Al Jazeera: Who funds the movement, and how have the doctrines been shaped to meet their needs?

Stewart: The movement has multiple sources of funding, including small-dollar donors, various types of public subsidy and funding, and affluent donors.
  Many of those affluent donors belong to super-wealthy hyperextended families. So it is not surprising that many of the doctrines the movement favours are about money. They say the Bible and God oppose progressive income taxes, capital gains taxes and minimum wage laws. That the Bible favours low taxes for the rich and minimal rights for the workforce. They argue that environmental regulation, regulation of businesses, and public funding of the social safety net are "unbiblical" or "against the biblical model".
  In this way, I think, Christian nationalists have betrayed what might have been their strongest suit. Christianity, as most people understand it, has something to do with loving our neighbours. But leaders of this movement have thrown in their lot with a bunch of selfish economic reactionaries who tell us we don't owe anybody anything.

I've always wondered this... why does the RPCNA argue against welfare, when the OT provided welfare - and it wasn't about reforming welfare, but eliminating it altogether.

The article goes on to trace the origins of the Christian nationalistic movement, and it is deeply troubling. The RPCNA, which held deep convictions against slavery and racial injustice, with churches serving as stops on the Underground Railroad, got duped into supporting pro-segregation southern theologians like Jerry Falwell and Bob Jones, who were looking for another source of tax-sheltered funding, because "segregation" lost as a worthy cause of support.

Despite the fact that most evangelicals were initially in favor of abortion laws, Falwell and Jones were able to galvanize support under a "pro-life" stance, which delivered the power proposition to conservative denominations and political leaders.
---

This article really put things neatly together. For example, I've had minor skirmishes with a few RP pastors over the teaching of the Bible, the WCF and the Constitution. Practically, what I found was that their authority trumped all of the above. When I backed them into a corner, that was the argument ender - not the Bible, not the church standards, but their claim to superiority.

I also had a rude awakening to the whole scheme when the local Right-To-Life chapter refused to endorse an obviously pro-life candidate. They had a FAQ on their website that explained that "electability" was one of their criteria in endorsement. So, their goal was not to endorse all issue-qualifying candidates, but to deliver a bloc of voters to the candidate of their choice. In fact, that was a lie, too. The next election was a pro-life incumbent Democrat vs. a pro-life Republican. They endorsed the Republican, despite the electability. Hmmm.

Since then, I realized that pro-life is such a galvanizing issue among Republican politicians that they dare not do anything to change the status quo. This is done under the guise of virtue signaling - that is, they cannot allow the state to give out free condoms that are proven to reduce the abortion rate, because they must take the moral high ground. Of course, they compromise on welfare laws, they compromise on healthcare, they compromise on educational funding and homeschooling laws, they compromise on protection of rights, but for some reason, abortion is all-or-nothing, or at least abortion can only be dealt with by making it harder to get, not by making it unnecessary in the first place, through better sex education, better consent laws and better reproductive services.

More calls to fast...

Racial injustice has come to the forefront with the murder of George Floyd at the hands of the police. Organizations everywhere are looking outward and inward to see how they have overlooked or ignored institutional racism.

Not surprisingly, in the tradition of Reformed introspection, Geneva College has called for a fast. President Calvin Troup has made the following statement:

Here are some categories for prayer:

• Our Own Hearts: Pray that the LORD might root out sin in our own hearts, particularly cleansing us of prejudice and every form of pride. That we might turn toward our brothers and sisters to serve one another with grace and outdo one another in showing honor—thinking of others as more significant than ourselves, looking to the interests of others rather than our own interests, and seeking the good of our neighbor.

• Geneva College: Pray that that the LORD will make Geneva College a home of healing and hospitality and refuge against racial injustice, where we can experience the wholeness of Christ’s body, learning what is good—to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God…together.

• Beaver Falls: Pray that the LORD will lead us through the City-College Alliance to dismantle racial injustice and to cultivate peace in our local community through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

• Government: Pray that the LORD might establish justice in practice through governing officials that identify and replace unjust laws, enforcement practices, and policies; replacing them with laws that reflect biblical principles of justice and righteousness.

So, note that in every category, there is the implied presence of culpability and sin. Our hearts house prejudice. Beaver Falls has racial injustice to dismantle. Our Government needs to replace unjust laws... But Geneva... yeah, Geneva has no need to repent or consider introspection of her sins contributing to racial injustice.

I think this reflects perfectly the Reformed response to cultural sin. The problem is not the RPCNA church or its leadership. The problem lies in individual, non-ordained members, or outside.

I believe racial injustice is simply a reflection of the tribalism and xenophobia present in our culture, in sinful combination with the authoritarian bent. It is not just racial injustice. Authoritarian police brutality knows no limits.

The two common tenants of this institutionalized injustice...
1) Might makes right - whether this is "spiritual authority", "parental authority", "governmental authority" or simply financial or physical superiority, our culture assumes that the lesser should defer to the greater.
2)  Generalization, categorization and confirmation bias - it is hard to be fully informed about all these issues, so we tend to accept the opinions of others and then are tuned to experiences that confirm our generalizations. As an example, we hear talk about "liberal Christians", and despite the fact that many of them love Jesus just as we do, we associate all these stories of their theological struggles as evidence that they are simply desiring to justify their sin.

My experience with Geneva. They hired off-duty, WHITE, police officers from the Beaver Falls police department as security guards. They allowed the police unfettered access to harass and threaten students in the presence of the Student Development department, including the Dean and Assistant Dean of Students, without so much as a raised eyebrow or a request to tone it down, or even reminding students of their Constitutional rights.

In exchange for this access to students, the Beaver Falls Police Department allowed the college to internally investigate and punish crimes without any sort of public disclosure that might damage the college's reputation. This isn't limited to Geneva, many colleges and universities either have their own police department, which does damage control, or has close relations with a local police department. For example, BYU had a relationship with the local police department. The police department illegally forwarded reports by rape victims who were students at BYU, and then BYU would expel the women for "morality code violations" they found in the reports. These sorts of scandals have been exposed at The Master's University, Bob Jones University and even public universities like MSU where Larry Nassar had unquestioned access to molest his patients.

Helpful post on how churches protect evil

This came out today on a blog I follow:

https://graceformyheart.wordpress.com/2020/03/30/why-do-they-protect-evil/

Some insightful tidbits:

While these churches would be very careful to deny any hope of salvation by works, they still teach that our relationship with God depends on good performance. Good performance, by this teaching, can be measured and compared. Thus, some people are more spiritual than others, some are closer to God than others, and some are more assured of Heaven than others—even within the church.

What’s the primary fear of those involved in the performance system? No, it’s not sin. It’s exposure. The greatest fear for many who consider themselves Christians is that others will find out the truth of their compromises. The draw toward sin is just part of the daily battle, but exposure of sin is shameful and humiliating. The risk of others learning the truth is the risk of weakness and failure. To be seen as weak is to become unworthy, even to be rejected. To be rejected is to lose honor, privilege, and power.

First, exposure of the individual’s sin is exposure of the system’s weakness. The truth is that performance spirituality, the attempt to find acceptance with God through the law or works, does not change the heart. The compromises of the flesh continue to reign in the hearts of those who follow the system. Sin is hidden, but not overcome.

So, when the abuser is found out, the failure of the system is exposed. If the sin of the abuser can be covered however, the failure of the system can also be covered.

But there is another part of the answer, one that reveals even more of the evil of the performance system. The flesh admires strength. Which person appears stronger, the victim or the abuser? A man who has abused women and has been able to cover his sin for a long time will be regarded as both strong and smart by those who look through the flesh. Victims, on the other hand, are considered weak and gullible by the flesh.

Now, I happen to think that restoration of pastors and church leaders who abuse is the wrong goal. Losing a ministry, being out of a job, suffering humiliation from others: these things are small losses under grace. We know that selling insurance or managing a fast food restaurant is not less spiritual than being a church leader. The right goal is repentance, subjection of the flesh, and walking with Jesus. If that means a person can no longer be in ministry, that’s okay.

Please go and read it for yourself. There is much more wisdom there, but this is what I found especially applicable to the RPCNA system.

First off, we see how legalism is wrapped up in the gospel - although the RP church would claim that we are all saved by grace and that our works have no merit, they fall into the trap of measuring people by their performance and alternatively praising those who measure up and condemn those who don't. Or, stated a different way, praise those who cover up and lie about their inadequacies and condemn those who are sincerely trying to conquer sin and grow.

Second, we see how much performance is wrapped up in the image of the church. That is why much of church discipline, especially discipline of pastors and elders, is hidden behind closed doors. The most legalistic of sessions are those who are continually pushing against the requirements for open meetings.

Third, we see how domineering and abusive ministers and members are lifted up in front of the people, rather than condemned. They are powerful vs. the weak victims, and exposing them would expose the church as no better than other "lesser" denominations.

RPC Scotland issues declaration to fast...

https://www.rpcscotland.org/2020/03/24/a-call-to-a-solemn-fast/

The Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland calls its members to observe Saturday 28th March as a day of solemn fasting so that we might humble ourselves before the Lord and plead for Him to lift this recent judgement from our land. It is evident that Covid-19 is a pestilence sent from God and we must heed His voice.

Not surprisingly, the RP view of God is one of an omnipotent and omniscient abusive father. Why is it when good things happen in the world, it's a result of God's patience and grace (not his blessing, mind you), but when bad things happen God must be personally displeased? We should not ascribe to God what belongs to the enemy!

The Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man fearing God and turning away from evil. And he still holds fast his integrity, although you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause.” (Job 2:3)

 We only know the reason for some plagues in the Bible when the Biblical authors pulled the veil and let us see into the mind of God. When Joseph saved Egypt from seven years of famine, there is no mention of the source of the famine. We know that Satan caused the evil to happen in Job's life, despite Job's righteousness. We don't know why Naomi's husband and sons died - nothing is mentioned.

So, it is presumptive to believe that COVID-19 is meant to be a judgment, it is even more presumptuous to put words in God's mouth and claim to speak for him!

We call on our nation to repent of breaking its historical covenants (National Covenant 1638 and Solemn League and Covenant 1643) which began our apostasy from God and from the achievements of the Reformation; to repent of its disregard for the Law of God to pass heinous laws; to repent of the desecration of the Sabbath Day; of its lack of compassion for the weak and vulnerable, particularly in slaughtering the unborn in the womb; for its abuse of the Biblical institution of marriage; and numerous other grievous sins. Our nation has become a hater of God and an inventor of evil things (Romans 1:30).

So, now we know! COVID-19 is God's punishment on the world because Scotland forsook the National Covenant, and thus the rightful state Church of Scotland, the RP church!

How would a good RP then pray? As with the RPCNA, the call to public confession tends to be one of sanctimony. The RPCNA called a day of fasting in June 2015:

The Heritage Reformed Congregations (HRC), member of NAPARC and with whom we are developing a relationship, have invited the other member churches of NAPARC to consider joining them in a day of solemn fasting and prayer before the Lord. The reasons motivating this desire are the U.S. Supreme Court’s upcoming decision regarding marriage, and the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision allowing euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide. (Minutes of Synod, 2015)

At least RPC Scotland calls its members to confess personal sins. The RPCNA is all about fasting and prayer as a show of public condemnation, which is a divergence from their own doctrine, which I think is pretty good.

Religious fasting is an ordinance of God in which the believer voluntarily abstains from food for a season for the purpose of seeking the will of God, strength for service or deeper spirituality. It should be accompanied by meditation, self-examination, humiliation before God, confession of sin, repentance and renewed dedication to a life of obedience. (RP Testimony 21:7)

So, fasting is something I, personally, do to strengthen my personal relationship with God, or to seek his will, or to ask for strength to overcome sin. I don't read anywhere in scripture that fasting is some sort of public hunger strike to try and cajole or manipulate God into action. It is not a bunch of Pharisees organizing a rally and abstaining from food so that the obviously unrighteous tax-collectors can get their acts together. Read carefully! It's not a bunch of leaders telling their subordinates to fast. That's why it is so noteworthy when, for example in Nehemiah, so many get together fasting and mourning their own personal sin after the law is read.

It shouldn't be surprising that by 2010, the time of the approval of the new RPCNA Directory of Public Worship, the idea of fasting being an authoritarian top-down decision is permanently cemented and the idea of personal fasting for personal reasons is a mere footnote.

Special days of fasting, humiliation and prayer are particularly appropriate when God’s judgments are evident in the land, or when corporate sin in church or nation provokes the Lord and invites His judgments. It is appropriate that such days be observed in connection with services preparatory to the Lord’s Supper or on days designated by Sessions, Presbyteries, and Synods for this purpose (DPW 4:2)

How sanctimonious of the RPCNA/RPC to declare a public fast so that OTHERS can repent. Seriously.

RPCNA response to COVID-19

This is mainly to allow a distinct discussion of how the posters of Gentle Reformation have engaged in vigorous navel-gazing with respect to the current Coronavirus outbreak. The issue hits at the heart of where the RPCNA has positioned itself in the pantheon of Christian religions.

Authoritarianism (aka churchianity) - RPCNA leaders believe themselves to be the vicars of Christ within their local institutional body. When they put on their "office hats", they speak authoritatively to the Christian. The pastor says "thus saith the Lord" from the pulpit. The elder says "The Holy Spirit has made me aware of this sin in your life". That authority is at its climax in the public assembly, where the pastor, enlightened by the Holy Spirit preaches to a congregation assembled in public worship.

That is why, for example, the membership vows include:

 To the end that you may grow in the Christian life, do you promise that you will diligently read the Bible, engage in private prayer, keep the Lord’s Day, regularly attend the worship services, observe the appointed sacraments, and give to the Lord’s work as He shall prosper you? (Covenant of Church Membership #5)

and the first disciplinary form for members is the Certificate of Dismissal for an Indifferent Member: 

The session certifies that you, _______ [name of the member]_________, have not participated in the worship and fellowship of the ____ [name and location of the congregation]__________ Reformed Presbyterian Church for an extended period of time. We are deeply saddened that we must remove you from the church because of your neglect of the ordinances as of this date: ________________________. We remind you that, outside the visible church, there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. (2B)

So, it is intriguing that some RP congregations have maintained smaller gatherings so as not to exceed the CDC recommendations, some have resorted to audio or video livestreaming, and some have cancelled services and pointed members to SermonAudio recordings.

I'm sure that there will be a lot of "grace" applied for RP pastors who have had to cancel by those who assert that gathering is necessary, but this is simply keeping up appearances.

Means of Grace - A theme that has swept through authoritarian denominations is the concept of "means of grace" - meaning that God confers grace (I think what they mean by this is essentially spiritual growth) through means, which the Westminster Confession attributes primarily to what is done by the pastor in public worship. For example, the new Directory for Public Worship says:

 The main purpose of worship is to bring glory to the triune God, particularly for His work of redemption through Jesus Christ. However, God, in His benevolence, also invites and commands His people to draw near to Him to experience all the benefits of their redemption, to declare their dependence on Him, to enjoy His appointed means of grace, to encourage one another, to celebrate their union with Jesus Christ and to be transformed, more and more, into His image. (ch 1 #2 - emphasis added)

or the WLC #154:

Q. 154. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation? 

A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation, are all his ordinances; especially the Word, Sacraments, and prayer: all which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation. 

With such elevation of the minister and the public worship assembly, it is understandably hard for the RP pastor to have any sort of allowance for forsaking the assembly, so we see such claims as:

Yet, at this time of crisis, with mortality at a peak, the last thing we should consider is giving up our Church. Let me give you a number of reasons for summoning self and dragging others to God's House. (https://gentlereformation.com/2020/03/13/the-church-and-corona/)

but then we see the same pastor (Andrew Kerr) suddenly backpedal so as not to condemn himself and his authoritarian friends. I'm sure we just took his earlier post out of context (SMH):

What I think I am saying is this: Hebrews 10:24-25 should not be applied to this circumstance as implying we should meet when pestilence is about! I hope if you are troubled about worshipping on-line that this will ease your mind that you are not letting your Lord down. At this time of crisis Christians should be seen to be sane. It would be a great pity to reduce a great Gospel opportunity to distaste or disdain, in some well-meaning insistence that we must meet boldly and bravely in the midst of plague in order to honour our Lord - this is what I am sure is what all my brothers intend, even if we disagree!(https://gentlereformation.com/2020/03/19/do-not-forsake-the-assembly/) 

It's not surprising that there have been a flood of articles on Gentle Reformation trying to thread the needle on churchianity + authoritarianism + means of grace, happily condemning the rest of the Christian pantheon for their lack of conviction, yet finding justification for RP pastors with the same practices.

Personally, I am thankful for a gracious God who tells me the Sabbath was made for me, not me for the Sabbath. While I mourn the loss of physical Christian fellowship, I'm thankful for the various technologies now available by which I can fellowship virtually with real people. One thing my pastor said that I don't think I would hear from an RP pulpit. "This is the work of the enemy. When we deny the work of the enemy, then we accuse God of terrible things and this is exactly what we're seeing coming out of the church." It would not surprise me to see Gentle Reformation articles suggesting that the COVID-19 outbreak is God's judgment against [insert public sin here].

RP conversion stories and hidden mental illnesses

In researching some of the "Masterson group" of mental illnesses, I found a very interesting summary in Wikipedia:

In line with stressing the importance of maternal availability, Masterson argued that the personality disorders crucially involve the conflict between a person's two "selves": the false self, which the very young child constructs to please the mother, and the real self. The psychotherapy of personality disorders is an attempt to put people back in touch with their real selves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_F._Masterson 

This reminded me of many conference campgrounds where we heard testimonies and conversion experiences from RPs who had gone before. The stories would go something like this:

When I was in high school, I had two lives - at home and church I was obedient and godly, but at school and elsewhere, I swore, I hung out with the wrong crowd, I was mean to other students, I cheated on my homework [etc]. I finally came to the point where I needed to decide which me was me, and thanks to Jesus, I was able to decide to be obedient and godly.

Now, we were taught that this was a wonderful conversion experience. Someone had turned from their "[RP] messed up life" and had embraced Jesus and the gospel and had repented and turned back to the righteousness they were taught.

Unfortunately, I think this is more a story of pervasive mental illness. For those who grew up in the RP church, righteousness was about maintaining a perfect image. It was about keeping the outside of the cup clean. While we were taught that the image represented what was in our hearts, people were not concerned about what was in the heart; instead, external righteousness was all that mattered.

I've heard it described as "the wall" - RPs like to portray an impenetrable wall of exterior righteousness, while inside the wall is a person longing to be respected and loved. RP teaching rarely gets at the heart, except to say that whatever is inside "the wall" must be denied and hated so that the wall can be preserved. That is, a child is told that obedience must be "instant, unquestioned, and heartfelt." An RP adult is told the same thing about God and his ordained representatives - pastors and elders. Heartfelt meaning that a person's "real self" emotions are secondary to the authority's "false self" expectations of emotions. Thus, members in the RP church learn quickly that the church is not a safe place for their real self, leading to these behavioral disorders.

Let's look at this another way. As our children grow up, we can either focus on the internal or the external. If we focus on the internal, we are less concerned with the meltdowns and the blow-ups and the external behavior, because we are training tools to deal with the powerful emotions inside. We accept the positive and negative emotions and we help them understand and express those emotions through more and more positive means. If we focus on the external, we are more concerned with the meltdowns and blow-ups and the socially unacceptable behavior, but we are basically telling the children to "bottle up" their powerful emotions. We are telling them it is not okay to be angry, or sad or upset because those lead to unacceptable behaviors.

This can lead to certain behavioral disorders. Masterson studied disorders like Schizoid and Narcissist, which all have to do with the dichotomy between the "real" and "false" self, and I think, both of these types end up being attracted to or developed by the RP church

The Narcissist has a fragile real self, but a strong desire for validation, and seeks it by portraying perfection in the false self. The overt Narcissist does everything for recognition, cannot lose and cannot accept anything but 100% affirmation. The real self, however, is perpetually on the defensive from criticism. The covert Narcissist still wants perfection, but does so by being associated with the right people. They're on a first name basis (real or imagined) with all the top pastors in the denomination and are constantly bending over backwards to ingratiate themselves with those people. Narcissists, especially male Narcissists are going to find a solid home in the RP church. They can rise to church leadership by demonstrating their perfection, and then they receive the affirmation and support they crave by being part of the elite RPs. Especially since the RP church is small, there is more recognition and affirmation than being part of a large denomination or church. The size also helps covert narcissists because it is easier to be known and recognized by an RP celebrity pastor.

The Schizoid has a strong real self and a desire for connection, but finds connection dangerous and exhausting. The Schizoid has buried his emotions because emotions were never acceptable. Like the Narcissist, the Schizoid portrays a perfect false self, but not to get attention. Instead, the Schizoid wants an image of self-reliance. The RP church can encourage Schizoid behaviors by its reliance on rationalism and discouragement of emotions - as they seem more "Charismatic". Schizoids can be attracted to the RP church for the same reasons - the doctrine eschews emotions, the services are plain and dry, the preaching is cerebral.

In this sense, the "dual self" conversion stories represent people who believe they have jettisoned their unrighteous self in the name of Jesus, but have instead repressed that self. We pray that God works on that repressed self to remove the trauma and allow full self-expression, but I think we fear that the "real self" cannot be repressed so easily, and that becomes a significant danger to these people if the self is turned inwards (Schizoid), and to the church if the self is turned outwards (Narcissist).

Fight against women has left RPCNA full of spiritual abuse and toxic masculinity

A Vox article I read today talked about how boys are being given conflicting messages regarding masculinity - the public message is about caring and leading, but the private one is, essentially, toxic. I've wondered the same thing about the RPCNA - being more rational/cerebral, I picked up more of the public message, but I see how those promoted to leadership are more reminiscent of the private message.

Hope Reese - Feminism has opened up possibilities for what it means to be a woman. What’s new about what it means to be a man? 

Peggy Orenstein - There is a lot that has changed for young men. Obviously, they’re engaging in the conversation about consent. Obviously, they see women and girls as deserving of their place in the classroom, or in leadership, or on the playing field of professional and educational opportunities. Nobody is going to say, “Girls don’t belong in college,” or something like that, anymore. 

At the same time, when I asked them about the ideal guy, it was like they were channeling 1955. The conventional values like dominance, aggression, wealth, athleticism, sexual conquest — and, particularly, emotional suppression — came roaring back to the fore. 

In some ways, those have actually grown more entrenched. I actually saw a similar dynamic when I was first writing about girls: We were telling them, on one hand, to stand up, speak out, claim your power, all these things. This was in the early ’90s, yet we hadn’t really stopped telling them in a kind of deeper cultural way, in a more entrenched way, that they should see themselves as about their appearance and that they should be more deferential. The contradictions between the new and the old were creating such tension and conflict within them.

So, when the church laments the "feminization" of boys and men, they are reinforcing a cultural stereotype of men as domineering, aggressive, athletic and emotionless. They are reinforcing the stereotype that the only valid male emotions are happiness and anger. When these men take charge in the church, they create a toxically masculine church culture where "negative" emotions are dismissed, whether by men or women.

Hope Reese - When boys are vulnerable, it’s often with women — their girlfriends, mothers, sisters — but you argue that it’s a problem that they aren’t being vulnerable with other guys or with their fathers. 

Peggy Orenstein - For mothers, it can feel really sweet and really good seeing your boy express vulnerability. But if we’re not careful about helping boys process their own emotions, rather than processing their feeling for them, and feeling for them, we reinforce the idea that women are there to do male emotional labor. That can feel really good when you’re talking to your son, your little boy, or your teenage boy. But I think most women can attest that it feels a lot less good when you’re in an adult relationship. Why aren’t they being vulnerable with guys? Because men learn not to be vulnerable with one another. 

Basically, as boys grow up, the only emotion that is validated for them is happiness or anger. The whole bucket of emotions that involves sadness or betrayal or despair gets funneled into anger. One of the things that we can do with little boys is to actually label their feelings and say, “It seems like you’re really sad,” or “That must be very frustrating,” to give them a broader emotional range. 

Hope Reese - Boys learn early on to dismiss girls’ feelings. How does that happen? And do they dismiss their own feelings, too? 

Peggy Orenstein - Part of how American boys learn to define masculinity is as adversarial toward femininity. They learn from the kind of incessant bombardment of images from the media and from their own friends about male sexual entitlement and female sexual availability.

It's not hard to see what effect this is having on the RPCNA.

When "dominance" is praised and praiseworthy men are selected for office, it should be no surprise that churches are quickly becoming more domineering.

When "rationalism" is praised and leaders who can only be happy or angry are selected for office, it's obvious that anyone who is hurt by the church will see rejection. "Hurt" is not a valid emotion. Even "anger" isn't a valid emotion if it comes from a place of hurt. We see the church ignore spiritual and emotional abuse - if people are supposed to be rational and emotionless, then calling someone "worthless" is not a problem. Emotional manipulation to create a culture of fear and fear-based control is not a problem.

It is also intriguing that the church then has to deny God's female personifications. Jesus likened himself to a mother hen who sought to hold Jerusalem under his wing. He said, "Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds" (Matt 11:9) - a reference to Proverbs where God portrays himself as wisdom, a woman calling out in the streets for people to engage and learn. "El shaddai" - a name for God introduced in Genesis 17:1 when Abraham is being blessed with fruitfulness and abundance, is considered by many to mean "God of breasts". Seems a closer match than "God of violence/destruction" in my opinion.

So, it seems that fighting off the "emasculated male" concept has left the church mired in toxic masculinity, mired in domineering leadership, and ripe for spiritual and emotional abuse for which members and leaders are completely unequipped to deal with.

[P.S. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that bringing my own history of emotional and spiritual abuse to the attention of RPCNA leaders resulted in, essentially, a call to suck it up and be a man.]
Also worth noting the character of more and more pastors - how many are primarily thoughtful academics and how many are primarily, for lack of a better word, jocks?