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:
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:
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.
19 comments:
Your posts are a blessing and continue to be relevant. Thank you!
You are correct that often the difference in authoritarianism and Sacerdotalism in church matters is blurred and can be moot point at times. Both exists and both are evil twin brothers which harm the flock.
That said when one sees the “letter of membership dismissal “ and see the reality of this lived out.....
....”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.”.......
I know not a better theological term than Sacerdotalism. But the reality is indeed both Authoritarianism and Sacerdotalism at work here. Dreadfully so. Although neither would be admitted to. These leaders are masters of taking away with the left hand that which they just gave with the right. On the hand Christ alone and scripture alone are shown respect, but on the other if one is not an official member in their approved institution your very Salvation is on shaky ground. (See dismissal letters) Also as you say it is the Authoritarian ultimate power of the preaching that is extra gnostic in its supremacy, whereas a believers reading of the Word is sub par.
Anyway one slices it, it stinks.
I agree - authoritarianism starts as a simple parent/child model, where there is no moral judgment made, but just a positional authority. The problem is that wolves are not content with simple positional authority. They want to be mini-gods, and with that comes the theological equivocation and manipulation. They need to be obeyed not because they just happen to be in a position, but because they are better humans. We need to obey them, not simply because of position, but because they are morally superior. And... towards sacerdotalism... because they represent God to us in some unique way that we cannot attain by ourselves.
They ultimately deny the work of the Holy Spirit - except through them as mediator. We cannot understand scripture without them, we cannot live lives pleasing to God without them, society will crumble without them. Because the Holy Spirit doesn't work, church discipline can leave no place for the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts - instead, church discipline is a practice in spiritual and emotional abuse.
To give another example from RP sermons and certainly just the RP and NAPARC ethos in general..... without question this is the ethos (whether directly in sermons or not) convey to the flock throughout NAPARC......
“ The orientation of one’s life should be centered around and should revolve around the institutional church.” (Hence defacto the session)
Other than finding small pockets of an exception for an individual NAPARC church, it can in no way shape or form be denied that this is the vast majority/ over arching ethos within North American conservative reformed churches. It’s a fact. Therefore, since that is a fact, the question then becomes...... is is that good, is it proper and is that a path of Truth? Should the orientation of a Christians life be around the institutional bureaucratic church? (Note that for conservative reformed leaders that is the church, whereas when I think of the church I’m thinking of something much more invisible and spiritual)
No! The orientation of our lives as Christians is around our Lord and Savior Christ, not around the bureaucratic institutional church. Or at least this is how it should be. This is why I would go so far as to say that the NAPARC system of theology and of these leaders are actually leading people very astray because at base it has people dedicating their fundamental allegiance to a bureaucratic fallen institution instead of to the Savior Christ. This is wrong and Unbiblical. Anywhere we see the institution high and lifted up above Christ we will always find all manner of abuse and other problems to boot having to do with power trippers and authoritarianism. It will always be a natural byproduct in that kind of environment. It is why despite my agreeing with 90% of reform theology I will not return most likely ever to a NAPARC church. They simply refuse to release their idol of institutional power and I cannot in good conscience remain in such fellowship.
Groups, individuals or even organizations claiming to be a church who primarily uplift institutional identity and institutional fidelity as a chief value for all its members, instead of primarily uplifting Christ, are engaged in Churchianity more than they are Christianity.
I’ll site one more example, we all know how over strident the RP can be about the sabbath. I’ll never forget a conversation I had with a particular elder in which I pointed out that there is no specific biblical mandate for a second or third service on a Sunday. It seemed to me , Based on no biblical mandate, Christian families are free to do other things rather than required to attend evening service. The response I received is very telling and touches on the points we are making here...... it was acknowledged by this elder that I was absolutely correct there is no biblical mandate, however if the elders and Session agreed that the cold meeting was put in place and that overrides things and that the congregants are duty-bound to attend. Do you see what he just did there? Again we see that taking away with the left hand what was given with the right. On the one hand he openly acknowledges that they have no biblical authority, but what overrides all of that is the sessions authority. I could go on with examples like that all day long because over the years I’ve seen dozens and dozens.
Whether they will admit to it or not, the truth is a majority of reformed conservative churches are fundamentally engaged in a clever form of churchianity more than anything.
And... that is the reason why Westminster is flawed. An elder or session domineers the congregation when they require that which the Bible does not require, but Westminster acknowledges no such thing. Jesus said the characteristic of worldly authority is domineering, yet Westminster does not even hint at the idea that elders could usurp authority.
Jesus did not mince words. When the spiritual leaders of the day put an unbiblical requirement on the church - that threshing grain in one's hand was forbidden on the Sabbath - Jesus tells them they do not understand the Sabbath.
I think Jesus would have the same words for those elders. "But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent."
Amen and amen. The Westminster Confession of Faith is flawed. While Reformed Presbyterian leaders with a wink acknowledge this fact (claiming Scripture reigns) in practice they manipulate WCF and the Bible to make both effectively mere road signs for the Christian life, ultimately to that blessed Supreme institution which ultimately all roads lead to, The Session. (They would say “Church”, but again “church” for them is all things bureaucratically controlled by them the technocrats of which they are supreme. Whereas there are those of us who view the church as a spiritual entity primarily, made up essentially of those who place their trust in the living God through Christ)
Hence, we feel scattered and estranged (perhaps by their duped drink the cool aid status maybe we are), but make no mistake, it is not we whom uplift our empires and bureaucracies above Christ. No sir! It is they. On the contrary, we have a very good shepherd and we need no other for Christ is our all in all.
....and what these Sessions seem not to grasp (although they slander us with such) is that we seek not to separate Christ from His church, but by God we do want to distinguish Christ from the church. As well as not accept Sacerdotalism, authoritarianism and over realized Ecclesiology that insists on holding an institution on to high a pedestal.
Nor are we angry, rebellious of all authority or bitter. Rather reasonably seeking truth, peace (safety) and justice. Christian- what a concept! When one looks at how unencumbered by bureaucracy and power trips (though never was it perfect) the early church was compared to what has morphed over many centuries, it is hard not to desire a more simple, NON authoritarian Church. New Testament would more indicate such.
How is this Sacerdotalism accomplished? In large part it is accomplished through the manipulation of community. Fellowship is very important. Christians need it. However, at the same time I have been disturbed by the “idol of community” that is more often a bigger problem in Christian circles than the “Lone Ranger Christian.” Much of this “Idol of Community” is corporate psychological authoritarian manipulation enforced by church leaders rather than real Godly spirituality. It is constantly beat into the Christian’s brain that “we are made for community, made to be connected” over and over again. But it is a both/ and, not an either or. Yes we have designs inside each of us that need connection and relationship with other people, but we also have created designs within us of individuality and the need to be alone. Just as troubling to us as the person who is isolated as a hermit should be the person who can never be alone. Just as much as we need community, at times the old adage “fences make good neighbors” is just as true and just as much a part of how we were created by God Almighty. To prove the point of how much this “idol of Community” has been elevated within Christian circles, what’s the reaction by most Community devotees that would read this? Well, if they’re like most Christians who are active in their institutional church they have been heavily influenced by that sector of corporate psychological manipulation and therefore their reaction to this will not be an open minded one. Their reading of this would be a knee-jerk reaction .....this is virtually heretical. It’s unthinkable, unacceptable. Yet the article below makes a very valid point, we have to look at the text of Scripture. Does the text of Scripture elevate to a high pedestal “corporate community programs” or is it not true that in large part that has been elevated to that high status by the institutional church and its leaders as a control authority tool. And where we do see a vibrant community relationship example from scripture is it not true that it’s very organic rather than corporately authoritarian controlled? To that end the below article is spot on.
Chip Brogden
http://theschoolofchrist.org/articles/no-fellowship-no-problem.html
You will never truly appreciate or benefit from fellowship until you have learned how to live without it.
There already is a fellowship of saints. It is a spiritual fellowship, and it is based on Christ having the preeminence – not the fellowship having preeminence. All this yearning for fellowship and being with others is the result of being hung-over from the religious system. You’re trying to fill a void that religion used to fill.
The purpose of solitude in the spiritual desert is to get you to see that Jesus is Enough. You’re not going to die from lack of fellowship, but if you don’t learn that Jesus is Enough then spiritually speaking you’re dead already. He’s the One you need to be focused on – not starting a fellowship, not finding a home group, not making something happen with other people.
And already I can hear the “yeah buts”. “Yeah, but God made us to be social beings. Yeah, but God knows we need encouragement from other believers. Yeah, but the Bible says forsake not the assembling of yourselves together as the manner of some is. Yeah, but we’re all supposed to be part of the Body of Christ. Yeah, but there’s just something about gathering together with like-minded believers. Yeah, but you just don’t understand what it’s like.” Yeah, but I do understand – I’ve been through that part of the desert before, and what I’m trying to tell you is God wishes to know if you love Him or if you love fellowship with others. God wishes to know if you are in love with Him or if you are in love with things about Him. God wishes to know if you seek Him or seek a meeting about Him.
There are times and seasons where He calls you to be alone and apart with Him. I’m not saying it will always be like that, but what if it is? What if He calls you to walk alone with Him for the rest of your life? Is Jesus enough for you?
I asked that question of a group of Christians once: Is Jesus enough for you? Because most Christians do not believe this. They want Jesus, but they also want fellowship with others. Really, do you know what Christians want? Not fellowship with others. That sounds so spiritual. Really what they want is acceptance from other Christians. You go deep down and that’s what they want. They want to feel accepted by other Christians. Well, all I can tell you is that you’re setting yourself up for a huge disappointment. Eventually there will come a time when you will have to decide between the truth that God has revealed to you and the acceptance of other Christians. Now it hurts when you are not accepted by other Christians. It hurts when other Christians misunderstand you and speak all manner of evil against you falsely when you have spoken the truth to them in love.
But the bottom line is your spiritual life and walk with God does not depend upon the acceptance of other Christians. You might think it does, and it sure makes things easier, but it is not a condition of following Christ – making sure other Christians understand and accept you. The deeper you go into God the more unacceptable you will be to other Christians. Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ is Himself, “Despised and rejected, a Man of Sorrows, and acquainted with grief.” Jesus would not be, and is not, accepted by most Christians, and do you know that does not change Him and His relationship with His Father? He is Lord whether you accept Him or not, my friend. And if you are His disciple then He accepts you whether the rest of the Christian population accepts you or not.
What I have found is that whenever I ignore the season God has me in, and I try to create fellowship, or seek fellowship, outside of the time and place appointed by My Father, it always ends in disaster. It creates problems, it becomes a disappointment, or it turns into a distraction from what He wants for my life.
Article continued....And that is never more true than the period of time when you are fresh out of the religious system. You’ve been under a religious spirit for so many years, and don’t think you can just wake up one day, stop going to church, and be set free from that religious mindset. You think you need fellowship, you think you need meetings, you think you need other people in your life, you think you need all these things, and you are in error. That’s the religious habit talking. It’s just like a drug.
“Oh brother Chip, I’m so lonely, I’ve been going to church every Sunday for twenty years and now we just sit home on Sunday and we feel so empty inside!” Well praise God, if that’s where God has you right now then thank God for it. Stop looking for other people to fill a void that only Christ can fill. You’ve been covering up that void with a lot of religious junk and He’s stripping all that away. He’s trying to build something in you, so let Him do it according to the times and seasons that He has appointed. Don’t rush through that process. Get comfortable with just you and God. My goodness, you don’t even know what it’s like to walk with God and just be hidden in Him because your whole life you’ve been following Him in a crowd, worshipping Him in a crowd, praying to Him in a crowd, learning about Him in a crowd.
Enoch walked with God, and he didn’t have anyone else to fellowship with.
Noah walked with God and he didn’t have anyone but his family.
Abraham walked with God and he didn’t have a house church to go to.
Moses spent forty years in the desert and it didn’t hurt him a bit, he came out better than he went in.
Jesus walked with God and every single one of His friends and disciples denied Him and fled when He needed them the most.
You give people too much credit for your spiritual well-being and don’t give God enough credit. I’d rather be alone with God than have a crowd of people without Him.
Now that doesn’t diminish anything the Bible says about the Body of Christ. But you’ve got to learn how to get connected to the Head before you try to get connected to the Body. Body Life is only as good as the Body’s relationship to the Head. The Body has no life in itself apart from the Head. If you read what the Bible says about the Body of Christ, you notice it doesn’t say that we are supposed to seek out our place in the Body or try to insert ourselves into place. It says He sets us in the Body of Christ according to His will. His will, not ours. You try to set yourself in place and you’ll get it wrong.
The Bible does not say “hold fast to the Body” or “hold fast to the members of the Body”, it says “hold fast to the Head.” The Bible does not say, “Seek ye first the fellowship of others”, but “seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness, and all these things – including fellowship – will be added to you.” You learn to do that and the rest will take care of itself, in the time and manner that God sees fit.
Take your hands off that whole issue of fellowship and cast that concern onto the Lord. Go to Him and say, “Lord, here I am in a desert place, it’s dry, and it’s lonely, and it looks like there’s no fellowship. But You are My Rock, My Fortress, My Hiding Place, You lead me and direct my steps. You be My Fellowship. If you see fit to bring me into relationship and fellowship with others, fine; but if not, then I trust that You are more than Enough to meet my spiritual, emotional, and social needs. I can live without fellowship Lord, but I cannot live without You!”
Now folks, I have been in that place so many times I don’t even have to pray about it anymore. I’ve just learned to trust God in this area, and I know He is sufficient. It’s settled in me. It’s not even a thing I pray about anymore. I want it to become settled in your heart as well. Let the desert do its work.
Appreciate your comments. "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse" was a book that opened my eyes about how the good things of the Christian life (fellowship, discipline, preaching) can be manipulated and abused by those who seek power for its own sake, and those who are deluded into that mindset.
They set a clear definition of a spiritual leader. A spiritual leader is someone whom God has brought through Spirit-anointed life experiences and who has that wisdom to share with others. -and- when we are instructed by those spiritual leaders, it is not that we should blindly obey them, but that we obey the Spirit in ourselves who is also working through them.
As a good RP (at the time I read it), I bristled at their definition of spiritual leader. There was nothing about being elected, there was nothing about being examined, there was nothing about being seminary-trained or ordained. On the other side, there was nothing about respecting authority or obeying leaders.
But, it got me thinking. Were the influential people in my life the pastors and the elders, or were they the 60+ year old "has-beens" who had never been elected or examined, but whose words overflowed with wisdom and life experience? Was my life guided by pastors who had to have the "right RP answer" at the ready for any question when examined by the Presbytery committees, or was it guided by those who had time to listen and walk with me as I wrestled?
And... the problem with the young, inexperienced and unwise elders who have knowledge and energy is that they become conceited and seek honor for themselves and not for God. They beat their fellow servants, as Jesus said, because they don't think the master will come back soon. They start thinking of the church as THEIR church and not Christ's church.
I had a conversation once with the current President of Geneva College. He was bemoaning the fact that the College was not "church-controlled". Of course, all the Corporators and a majority of the Trustees had to be members of the RPCNA, but what he explained was that it wasn't _enough_ to be RP. Only Trustees directly appointed by Synod could be considered "church" Trustees. It's the same thought at work. It's not about Christ's church, but about the RPCNA 501(c)3 church, controlled by men and committees.
At ‘Gentle Reformation’ an RPCNA blog written by RP pastors and seminary profs in an effort to bend the knee to their idol of the institutional church, an RP pastor publish the Saturday before most churches were practicing social distancing, a blog post declaring that while sessions will decide whether to cancel camp meetings, conferences and the like we should never lose the nerve to cancel what is man’s ONLY HOPE, the church. Stating we should ourselves and anyone we can there..... ....... “Christians must hold their nerve at this time of 'Corona Crunch'. God's Church must be the very last place on earth, only as a very last resort, to lock up man's only hope, or have it's doors shut for fear of the Germs.””
Christ alone is our only hope! This is a false hope this arrogant man is proclaiming, not to mention endangering the community.
....stating we should drag ourselves and anyone we can there..
On a day when most all other churches wisely cancelled due to the coronavirus crisis, all of the RPCNA churches in our area met on 3/15/2020, even had evening service later in the day. 50 plus people gathered at 2 different locations.
Why? Well we know why. We can hear it plainly stated in the Gentle Reformation blog, the same view held by most RP leaders......these people (especially leaders) believe the church is the way by which ones ONLY hope lay. Not Christ the object of our faith, but rather the institution and the priestcraft therein is the way of Salvation. That is a false Gospel and it needs to be called such.
If I had to name one reason I left the RPCNA, this plainly demonstrates it. They simply have made an idol of their visible institutional church. They have embraced an over realized too high a view of the church and are indeed engaged in Sacerdotalism. This can and has led to all manner of problems, including abuse.
They have put their hope in the church instead of the Lord of the Church. They have put their trust in the Sabbath, instead of the Lord of the Sabbath. They have given people poison well water, instead of living waters.
“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one , but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven (even a highly regarded pastor) should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you (Christ is our only Hope) , let him be accursed. ........Am I now seeking the approval of man or of God?”” Galatians chapter 1
So, so helpful. Thank you!
It would be interesting to read a list of such sessional commands. I've definitely seen the tendency for them to just make decisions for the congregation (such as changing service time), without really consulting members. But, on the other side, I've seen them decide not to discipline someone who deliberately split people off to start their own church, because they simply believed he would fight it too much.
There are great potential benefits to pastors in manipulating congregants into their accepted community. They learn who has which assets and abilities, which they can then take advantage of. Their overly high view of their offices allows them to view their own using of people as God's provision for them and their ministry. While members struggle with various issues, they can callously say, "Look how good God is, by seeing how He provides for our family!" It's a clever prosperity gospel of a different flavor.
I existed in the RPCNA in a state of denial. I would see elements of this tribal elitist selection of leaders and ownership of "their" churches, and I would think, "Yeah, that seems really off, but they can't seriously believe that way. After all, they have the true Gospel that they are sharing." Sometimes a leader would say the right words, such as that his church is really Christ's church. Saying the right thing made it really confusing. It's only been recently that I have really understood that you have to look at what people do instead, that is, their actions toward everyone, and what they say when they don't think you are paying attention. What is the fruit of their leadership? Is it people coming to Christ, developing their gifts, (all the people, not just a select few), and everyone being edified, or is it just people seeking to conform to whatever the leaders are fixated on? Are people being domineered (which has been explained so well in this blog), or are they being genuinely served? Is their an openness to know lay people with interest and curiosity, or are they simply inventoried and used for whatever they will give over to leadership? Is there respect for the lives that people have lived, or is respect only owed to leaders? And,since it's been observed that there is Sacerdotalism in NAPARC churches, are people encouraged that the Holy Spirit leads them, or that the leaders must do it?
Yes, careful listening is the key to identifying what they really think. I remember a sermon that justified elder-led-only Bible studies, and the conclusion was that the laity's understanding of the Bible was suspect, while the leaders' understanding was approved.
The more I listened for it, the more I heard. I heard a pastor say, essentially, that the Holy Spirit did not convict us and hold us accountable in our "private" scripture reading, but only through the preached word.
..."a leader would say the right words"....
Yep, they have the lip service down pat! Problem is (and this is no exaggeration) the deeply held view which is actually the MOST consistently practiced in the RPCNA is not Christ Alone, not Sola Scriptura, not the priesthood of all believers led by Holy Spirit, rather it is blatant Sacerdotalism, Authoritarianism and man pleasing.
Here is just one of many many examples which could be cited.....
Look at how the RPCNA views Matthew 18:20. The dominating actual view (even though some like to mute it for PR) is that this verse is primarily only speaking about the gathering of the session, of the elders. As mentioned, same goes for prayer and Bible reading--the only "really valid" one are the elder led Bible studies and prayer groups. All must always and forever be run through the session, not Christ. Y
You see dear sheep, your gateway to heaven is your precious elders. So says the defacto and habitually practiced theology of the RPCNA leadership. Everything is session centric for the RPCNA, not Christ centric. It is flat out a different gospel.
Our beloved Lord and His Word say different. Christ is the way, the truth and the life. Our life orientation revolves around Christ, not the session or the institutional church as they would have us bend a knee to. Do not bow to their idol of the session and the institutional church.
Post a Comment