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?

Red hot coals and punitive discipline

I had heard this second-hand, but when I finally listened to the sermon, it seemed worse than I initially thought:

[Sermon on the holiness of God] Now at this point, I know, maybe some aren't happy and maybe the question is, "well, look pastor, where is the grace and all this? I mean, where is the grace? It just feels too rigorous it feels too daunting. Maybe you're saying yes, I don't really want to feel like Peter who pulled up the net." Well, 
I want to say something. The grace is in the hot coal. Isaiah said I'm cut off. I don't think this was his conversion. I don't think this was his original call. What was it? I'm beginning to wonder if it was his prideful mouth. That he came to understand was indeed a prideful mouth, but regardless whatever it was the angel takes from the altar the burning coal. What is that? It's the consuming wrath of God on that altar takes the coal from the altar and touches his lips and says, "you are forgiven." Now what's that all about? Well, let me paint it the way I've been painting it for the conference. You have this indescribable incomprehensible and immeasurable God, and you have man, and there is a great distance between you a chasm between the two. And that coal upon the lips of that prophet was but a taste of what it would cost, in a vision mind you, of what it would cost to bridge that gap. He was invited into the experience in that vision, into the experience of what it was to experience the wrath of God that would bring forgiveness and it seems to be that because at that point we find Isaiah ready to pursue holiness and what Isaiah understands is that he cannot accomplish this atonement in and of himself.

While this scene is very gracious, and indeed, even the coal is gracious. The problem is the description of the experience of the coal. This pastor makes explicit that Isaiah is invited into the "experience of what it was to experience the wrath of God". That is quite scary. Keep in mind that Isaiah is saved at this point. This is not the beginning of his prophetic ministry. Not only that, Isaiah has just confessed his sin and repented, and after that, the coal is taken and touched to his lips.

1) I believe this is sacramental. In the sacraments, we do not "participate" in the sacrament, but we commemorate and recognize, in a tangible way, what is symbolized. That is to say that baptism is not participation in the cleansing of sin, but recognition and commemoration of the cleansing. Communion is not participation in Christ's death, but commemoration of his suffering for our sakes. This is important, in this respect, because we cannot cleanse ourselves, and we cannot atone for ourselves, we can just be reminded of that work which is done on our behalf. So, saying that Isaiah was suffering the wrath of God in a real sense in his spirit in a vision first suggests that somehow man can atone for his own sin.

2) Remember that Isaiah is saved. Isaiah suffering God's wrath after he is saved and has specifically repented suggests a God that is not the one portrayed in the Bible - one ready to forgive and remove our sin far from us. For example, the RPCNA Book of Discipline says, (Ch 3:3) "If the sinner confesses and repents, there must be forgiveness and reconciliation, and the matter shall be closed. You have won your brother. Such closure may include counsel or censure appropriate to the circumstances." So, if God is forgiving Isaiah, why would he insist on burning his lips off first? I think this is part of the justification for overly harsh discipline - both parental and church. The lesson has been learned, but the parent still has to "punish the crime". One of the best things I've read about discipline is that the discipline comes before the message. That is, the purpose of the discipline is to help the child hear and understand the message. That is different than what we hear in RP circles, and this is probably justification for that. Discipline in RP circles is more about letting a child stand before an open window into the wrath of God - exactly what we see here in this interpretation, and probably the idea of the "appropriate censure".

3) The pastor later says, and I agree, that this is a commissioning of Isaiah for ministry. I think it is gracious and sacramental - a comforting sign that the wrath of God has been satisfied, not in burning Isaiah's lips, but already in the sacrifice of Christ, and Isaiah's lips are cleansed, not because they were cauterized in the heat of the coal, but because, again, symbolically, the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing repentance and restoration. It is like simultaneously participating in baptism and communion. He's being comforted, not spanked, after he is instructed and brought to recognize his own sinfulness.

Sacerdotalism in RP sermons

I had to do a bit of research on sacerdotalism after seeing it referred to in multiple comments. My thesis has been authoritarianism, which is slightly different, but along the same track.

Authoritarianism would say that the pastor is NOT a priest in the purist sense, but that we obey the pastor because his office represents Christ in an authoritative way. It can be manipulated into pretty much the same thing as sacerdotalism, but there is a slight difference.

Sacerdotalism would say that the pastor IS a priest - that the OT office never really went away, perhaps.

Thinking about this honestly when it comes to RPCNA sermons, I would say that the debate between the two is somewhat moot. An authoritarian or sacerdotal minister cares not whether he comes by his power by being a priest or by being an unquestionable authority. The point is that he has that power. But, listening to RP pastors preach, it is probably an exercise in futility trying to figure out where that power comes from.

Here is a quote from a recent RPTS-trained RP pastor:

And again, I think we need to notice that these apostles who were the leaders of the early church who went out as Christ messengers, it is noteworthy that the scripture records all of their failures. And I could tell you that's that's comforting as a gospel minister and I can guarantee that's comforting to your ruling elders. Because Jesus does not call perfect men to serve his church and to be his messengers and I think that's a powerful thing that's often neglected that these are imperfect men who have weak faith just like everyone else and yet Jesus commissioned them to be his messenger. Scholars almost universally agree that behind the New Testament office of Apostle was the well-established Jewish office of Shaliach. We need to remember that. There were some well-established concepts and customs that were known to John's original readers that are a bit foreign to us but I think this is worth just considering for a moment. A Shaliach in that Jewish culture represented his master. Kings, very often had Shaliachs and in the time before modern communication. It's not hard to see why this was so necessary - you needed someone who would go out and carry out your affairs with your authority. A Shaliach that Hebrew word basically means the same thing the Greek word apostle means. A Shaliach was a sent one. An apostle is a sent one. And what the original readers of this gospel would have understood is that you are dealing with the king's Shaliach. That was tantamount to dealing with the king himself.

As you may pick out, the equivocation is already clear - the gospel minister is an apostle. So, if the apostle speaks authoritatively for Christ, so does the minister. The fact that we now have the Bible - the very Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is secondary to the work of the gospel minister.

And these same men who by the power of the Holy Spirit would go out and preach that same word bringing the message of the gospel to all people. Now this is a timely message for the church today, because we are really being taught here how we should receive the gospel ministry. We're being taught here what Christ's program is for building up his church and building up disciples and establishing us firmly in the faith. The common view today in much of American Christianity is that the method of growth is simply me and my Bible. That if I just have a Bible I can go out on my own and I can read it. I can understand it and and I'll grow and that's how God's people will grow. But I think when we look closely at the scriptures we find that that idea is foreign to the Bible. Jesus has established his program he's the king it's his prerogative.

So, again, the Reformers argued for the sufficiency of Scripture, the clarity of Scripture, the Priesthood of all Believers, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but the pastor here waves it all away by saying that "God's model" is that we submit ourselves not to the Holy Spirit indwelling us, primarily, but to the gospel minister.

These men were commissioned by the risen. They went with his authority. Now, there are no more apostles. These apostles had the tasks by the Holy Spirit of writing down what we now have as the New Testament. So there's there's no more apostles and so we might ask what is the continuing relevance of all of this to us. Well, this commission still continues today because, while there are no more apostles, when it comes to gospel ministers when it comes to elders in the church none of them, no true gospel minister, no true elder is ever self-appointed. And the church has acknowledged this principle through the practice of ordination. There's an ordination process where wherein men undergo examination to see are they really sent.

Again, the pastor acknowledges that the apostle is not the gospel minister, but then ignores the concept of office and authority, focusing on the word sent. That is, the minister, the elder, is to be obeyed.

A man named Pierre Marcel puts it this way and strikes a wonderful balance between the necessity of the private reading of the word of God and the necessity of preaching. He says, "the commission of Christ implies that the private reading of the scriptures is not sufficient to lead us to salvation. Scripture is revelation, but the revelation must be proclaimed preach and put in a present day conflict. The private reading of the word must go hand in glove with the preaching of it. The graces obtained by personal reading depend on the grace of the preached word." This commission is carried out in the power of the Holy Spirit the spirit attending to and giving his blessing to the word.

This is pretty scary the balance between private reading and preaching is that private reading is insufficient without preaching. On the other hand, listen to what Ligonier Ministries says about the Sufficiency of Scripture:

Sola Scriptura also leads us to the doctrine of biblical sufficiency. To say that Scripture is sufficient is to say that the Bible contains all that we need for determining what we must believe and how we are to live before God. Scripture must be interpreted if we are to understand what we are to believe and how we are to act, but the sufficiency of Scripture indicates that we need no other source of special revelation for faith and life in addition to the Bible. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/biblical-sufficiency/

So here we have an RPCNA minister speaking against Sola Scriptura. The Bible cannot be both sufficient and insufficient at the same time. Yes, the work of the Holy Spirit is required to bring salvation, but the Holy Spirit does not require the Bible plus the preaching of one sent.

This is where it becomes dangerously close to sacerdotalism, yet retains the constant claim to unique giftedness and authority. If this pastor is claiming that God cannot work, but through the one sent, i.e. the pastor, then the pastor is, by definition, a mediator between God and Man.

Remember, the Bereans were applauded for searching the scriptures, not as an addition to the apostolic message, but to see whether these things were so. (Acts 17:11) The apostles were subject to scripture, not scripture to the apostles. As I mentioned in the article on gaslighting, this pastor is creating an environment where the members cannot be trusted to read their own Bible, and this comes out in an earlier sermon, where Marcel is quoted again:

One of the ways we can prepare ourselves for worship is to be in the word during the week. It sharpens us, it familiarizes us, it exposes us to the word, and then we come in on the Lord's day and we have it pressed upon us in an objective way, and believe me, this happens to preachers as well. When we read our Bibles on our own, so often we can wiggle out from underneath what it's teaching. How often do we read a passage of scripture and we think oh, my wife really needs to hear that or my son or my daughter really needed to hear that? I don't know that it comes naturally to us, we want to let ourselves off the hook, and that's the benefit of preaching. It's that means wherein God objectively presses his word onto his people and conforms us into his image, convicts us of our sin, shows us that there is forgiveness and hope in Christ.

The word 'objective' is significant. It is contrasted to our private reading. The preaching is objective - factual, where our private reading is not. We are conformed to the image of God by preaching, and not by our private reading. The congregation here is being gaslighted and groomed.