I have the utmost respect for highly capable women who are finding their way within the bounds of complementarian/patriarchal churches.
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:
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!
- 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.
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!
30 comments:
These men are revealing who/what they really are. The sessions/presbyteries/assemblies that enable them are revealing what they really are. Why would any thinking and loving Christian submit to them or fund them?
I've read some quotes of hers that are really insightful.
"Do we need men's Bibles and women's Bibles, or can the one, holy Bible guide us all? Is the Bible, God's word, so male-centered and authored that women need to create their own resources to relate to it?"
I think that really gets at the core of the antagonism against her. These men believe that they are uniquely enabled and gifted to read and understand the Bible and that laypeople and especially women are unable to hear the voice of God through Scripture.
This is a reversal of the principles of the Reformation (perspecuity of scripture) and a return to the Catholic view that scripture can only be interpreted through the lens of the church.
NAPARC is hopelessly split between authoritarian pastors and elders who believe that God has limited his revelation to the ordained leadership, who control the church and her courts, and those who believe the Holy Spirit was truly poured out on all, as God has promised.
I think the initial excitement towards her in the OPC was that she as a "housewife theologian" would teach women to keep their heads down and use her fancy theology to enslave the masses to blindly submit to and obey their husbands and pastors.
It was great, until she fleshed out the "soft comp" stance, which is still well within the bounds of complementarian theology, that women should be encouraged to publicly use their spiritual gifts for the edification of the church and not hide them under a bushel.
Very indicative of NAPARC churches, not unusual. Leave. Stop trying to change a system on a tiny island where the majority there, an insignificant holy huddle bubble (NARPARC......folks it is time to leave. Take solace in the fact that while they may be the majority ethos on the tiny island, there is a great big world which belongs to our Heavenly Father out there which you can be a part of.
*where the majority there don't really want or are completely unwilling to change a thing*
Why should a Christian leave NAPARC?
Because.....
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’d like to see the scripture which justifies this institutional fidelity as chief value of the Christian life?
For Reformed tradition and Reformed hardliners, Institutional Identity is in fact such a chief value that a person’s very Salvation is on shaky ground if not adhering to it. That is why you should leave NAPARC.
Before you begin to have false guilt that your leaving or staying is critical to the success of God's church remember.......
“Whether or not the Western institutional church as we know it survives is of no ultimate consequence. What God has accomplished and will accomplish in Jesus Christ will always stand. His Church, in whatever form it takes, will stand with Him.”
Even the WCF must be misinterpreted to take this stand... "The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law) consists of all those, throughout the world, that profess the true religion, and of their children; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation."
The profession is the key to the visible church, not adherence to a specific institution - yet, the RPCNA, for example, takes institutional loyalty to be the key in their doctrines. For example, the removal of a member (by choice or indifference) without discipline always quotes the last phrase.
When all roads lead to Geneva, to the Reformed institutional ehtos at all cost, then Sacerdotalism is alive and well even in Protestant circles. "Give your commitment to the church (read to us,the Session/Elders), indeed the entire orientation of your life should revolve around the church." (and if it does not your Salvation is in question or at least you are less "mature") Yet our Lord and our historic faith says something different.......
When it comes to the Church, Historically as Protestants it has always been the accepted position.......”Christians are members of the universal body of Christ not because of identification with the institution of the Church, but through identification with Christ directly through faith.” Rom 12:5, 1 Tim 2:5, 1Cor 12:12-27, Eph 3:6, Eph 5:23, Col 1:18. I would submit that whatever degree any denomination or church has deviated from this position, it is they who have become an isolated small sect of sorts, adrift from the Protestant and Biblical norm position on this subject. Sacerdotalism isn’t just Roman Catholic, Rome is just a bigger institution than the one these big fish in a small pond in NAPARC circles control, or think they control. But guess what? You can leave anytime you want. Not saying that is easy, but you can do it!
And it's self-perpetuating. Men who grew up forced to revere and awe their church leaders and overlook their faults aspired to be the men who were revered and awed. I felt that warmth briefly when I was under consideration for leadership and I must admit it was intoxicating. I am thankful God closed the door briefly, then slammed it shut. It was a painful experience, but I recognize that I would not then and still would not now be a good leader.
Also, one of the admins of the Facebook group responded about Aimee Byrd and it was so awful that I couldn't post the response without a page or so per paragraph showing how horrible and demonic the logic is.
At first, he claimed that the screenshots were faked, but then he claimed that "when read in context" he believed none of them to be offensive.
True, true. Your post here could be titled....”The spirit behind the leadership In NAPARC”. This is the norm. I too know that intoxicating dynamic you speak of, as I was for a short while eyed as a candidate for Elder training within NAPARC. At the end of the day I simply could not go down that road because my conscience (though I was not quite ready to leave) was disturbed by a over realized ecclesiology (much to high a view of the institutional church) which was so very present in NAPARC. In fact I came to realize that is was not Jesus, not even the 5 Solas of the Reformation, not the gospel, but rather it was the church (Elders, tradition, process, bureaucracy, etc) that was the most high and lifted up doctrine. That realization is what caused me to leave.
That reminds me of a time I wanted to write a paper on a specific issue. My pastor recommended that I should study the decisions of the church on the issue. When I showed my surprise, he said that someone would have to do that work.
I was pretty much shocked. If the RPCNA is "semper reformanda" and "sola scriptura" as they claim, in opposition to the Catholic church's viewpoint on tradition, then why does it matter what positions the church has taken in the past on some given topic?
But I found out that, more often than not, precedent trumps the clear reading of scripture. To wit, pastors and elders are generally charged with violations of the denominational standards (Testimony and WCF) rather than scripture.
You have summarized so well here the things that I believe I have seen in these churches. It is a great thing to realize that one can leave and be free. The last PCA church that we were members of- the session has never even acknowledged our leaving, sought to talk to us, or anything. We've spoken to one nearly retired elder about our concerns. They've never even sent us a letter. (We now really would not like to even hear from them.) We were faithful, tithing, laboring members of the church. That shows how seriously they take their responsibility to the sheep.
Our last PCA pastor came into a very studious congregation and began to put down pretty much every way of studying the scripture except his own seminary-trained way. He emphasized his own understanding all of the time, assuming the ëxpert" role. I have always wondered why men like that can't consider the mothers of small children who can't even use the toilet alone, when a "pastor"can spend all day studying. Also, the people who actually labor to produce the money to support the "pastor's" academic lifestyle. Do these men think that God, in Christ, just fails to teach such people anything?
For those who have made an idol of the Institutional church who think human leaders are the infallible voice of God (show me the scripture text on that?) , to them if you are a Christian who thinks Jesus reigns above the church you are complicit in evil. And you are not just complicit, your heresy is a direct threat to others, and therefore needs to be extinguished. You see for them you can’t reason with heresy. You have to ban it. It will contaminate others’ souls, and wound them irreparably. Anyone who doubts this only need to give but a little push back toward the hyper authoritarians and Sacerdotalists and just see how that goes for you.
And it should be noted and I would encourage everyone to go and look at the actual scripture verses first hand associated often as proof text for the Reformed Sacerdotalist's on Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 25:2....that all of the scripture text are far and away abundantly and clearly speaking of the invisible spiritual church, not the visible or institutional. Simply put, when it comes to the actual text of Scripture they don't have a leg to stand on. The Emperor has no cloths.
Is the Church important--Yes! Is it primarily spiritual and not institutional--absolutely. Scripture overwhelmingly shows that, yet after the High Priest's of Authoritarian Institutionalism scripture twist the heck out of it one would think (and many unfortunately do)....if I am not an official member of a visible church my Salvation is in doubt. No scripture actually backs this position. It is Churchianity vs. Christianity.
The thing I think is so dangerous about this is that it is not a theology per-se, but a toxic culture that the church falls into. He devoted his whole life to studying "what Jesus would say", is the expert and has a bunch of people affirming him. Then someone with no "expertise" disagrees and the whole system is now in question.
We fall into hyper authoritarianism as a culture because we trust some church-approved system to produce godly ministers and then we trust those ministers to perpetuate and reform that system. At some point, the system becomes more trusted than its fruit. "RPTS-trained, presbytery examined and certified" is all the branding we need to implicitly trust this man as a God-ordained authority. The brand, then, becomes something to be protected at all costs, even if it means squashing a few little people.
To circle back around, that's why I find the "honored pastors" comment so revealing. The problem with Aimee Byrd is that she calls into question the NAPARC pastor brand. They are teaching slavery, not freedom, and it's not even the doctrine of their church. These men now need to either circle the wagons and protect the brand, or they need to change what they are preaching. Guess what they will choose!
Well said. I do think it is both a culture and a theology. The Defacto theology and doctrine is indeed to make the "RPTS-trained, presbytery examined and certified" and ones trust in them a fruit in and of itself. Hence the practical worked out theology is in effect.....the system, the brand is a fruit in and of itself. A self referential circular argument to be sure. While it may not be the "official" Blue Book doctrine of the church, nonetheless practically speaking it is indeed the doctrine of the church.
I have seen an awful lot of spiritual pride by sycophant members within churches in mere blind agreement with leaders.
As much as we call out leaders, (and we should) they would not get an easy pass had it not be for a large group of members who back them. NAPARC has tiny churches for the most part small ponds with a pyramid of good old boy hierarchy. When I look back at the type of people that seem most attracted at NAPARC churches, its interesting. Of course it is not just NAPARC though, it seems to be the story of "The idol of the Institutional church" Have you all seen the movie "Spotlight" or are you familiar with the story?
Then again, when it comes to the "type" of person attracted to the institutional system, I gotta point that finger right back at myself and get the log out of my own eye, because at one time I was unwittingly rooting it on. Total Depravity is real and the Reformed need remember that when they put undue ultimate trust in fallen human beings. Christ Alone.
I am currently listening to a podcast which is speaking about church leaders being unwilling to invest anything into women "because they're just going to be moms." As if theological training, and care from leadership would be wasted on someone who spends their days keeping tiny humans alive. I can't help but wonder at what kind of abuses the wives and kids of these men endure.
I've seen that in the RP church. It led to a generation of women who were not employable, and then became financial burdens on their parents... Not surprisingly, when the fathers had to pay for their daughters to sit around the house, because they couldn't do anything else, they changed their tune.
Ultimately, though, this is a slap in the face of God. Jesus says, strive to be like me. Jesus demonstrated incredible wisdom and knowledge. God gave women amazing brains. So, the church in trying to tell women that they should not be wise, or knowledgeable, or use their brains is telling God, "why did you give women this gift that we now have to suppress?"
The legalistic god of conservative Evangelicalism is one who gives amazing gifts and then makes pronouncements that it is to his glory that they be suppressed. This god is a god of continual suffering for his sake - not suffering from his enemies, but suffering that he himself creates by making people suppress the desires he has put in their heart. It sounds like the Greek pantheon.
What is the name of that podcast?
http://www.wickedshepherds.com/
Worth a look see and makes many of the same relevant observations.
I'm convinced that most in the pews put up with all this crap and will not take a backbone stand against the institutional church because its all about being part of a tribe. Being comfortable in a community tribe trumps truth almost every time. Churchianity vs. Christianity. So sad, so very sad. Yet most in that systemic mess are convince it is we who have gone off the rails.
It's innate in our culture. We generally assume that the people in power (husbands/fathers, bosses, church/secular leaders, experts) are there because they are wiser, smarter or more righteous. That's in the language of the Westminster Confession - that "superiors" are such because of gifting.
Now, if I walk into a church and the pastor says something that I'm skeptical about, but everyone else is nodding in agreement, I think that maybe I'm the one who doesn't completely get it. And, in fact, the Reformed tradition is replete with seemingly common-sense "proofs". The problem is when you take the argument of proof "A" against proof "B".
Small example, paedocommunion is sinful because the "households" that partook in the Passover specifically excluded children (or at least did not specifically include children). Yet, paedobaptism is commanded because the "household" that was baptized MUST have included children. So, the same word, household, that is the keystone of the two arguments is equivocated - once to include children and once to exclude children. But, if you listen to one argument or the other, they make complete sense.
In relevant news: "I've just heard ecclesiastical charges have been filed in the OPC against three members of #GenevanCommons:
Shane Anderson, Bennie Castle and Michael Spangler.
My name is mentioned in the charges.
It's one step of many, much harder ones.
But it means something." https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fvhobbs5%2Fstatus%2F1301537081202798593&widget=Tweet
Yes and what is so important for conservative evangelicals/Reformed to remember (but most don't) about the proper exegesis of Bible texts regarding leaders (husbands/fathers, bosses, church/secular leaders, experts) is that the submission cited in scripture is assuming they are worthy. It is an extreme narrow and inaccurate reading of scripture to take away that ALL leaders are worthy to be followed just because of their office status or position.
In fact in this fallen world where total depravity is a reality a very large percentage of those who seek leadership positions are actually awful authoritarian power trippers. The Reformed who embrace total depravity of all people should understand this. Yet remarkably as a culture/tribe it is as if they stick their head in the sand or waive a magic wand of dismissal when it comes to church leadership authority. its not grounded in reality or Biblical truth in any way. It is a de facto Protestant Sacerdotalism which in effect makes a session essentially a group of infallible Popes.
It is nothing short of outrageous. A false and "different gospel" to be sure. One that has brainwashed multitudes as they attend their regular meetings and drink the Kool-Aid.
NAPARC needs a Reformation BIG TIME! And just like the 16th century Reformation that will not happen by staying and trying to change the status quo, it will happen by the masses leaving and starting a fresh.
Who tweeted that? Where?
Semper Reformanda!!
“Whether or not the Western institutional church as we know it survives is of no ultimate consequence. What God has accomplished and will accomplish in Jesus Christ will always stand. His Church, in whatever form it takes, will stand with Him.”
You can copy the link above and paste it in your browser. I figured it was better to put the link here than update the post.
Others will know much more than I about the system of educating NAPARC pastors, but what I have seen is not very impressive. I know of a man who had no education beyond high school, who got an Associate degree in business from an online place that no longer exists, and somehow was accepted by a respected reformed seminary. He now has an MDiv, and gets to "pastor" a church. He, like many others, seems to believe that his sole purpose in life is to be studying. Then he "serves" his congregation by "preaching and teaching." This entitles him to a salary and to be the head of the "session," which makes all of the decisions for said tiny church, with no accountability to the members, although they give lip-service to the idea of accountability. The church has no outreach into the community, but is quite a comfortable little enclave for those who think that the church is a little mini-seminary/book club where the only hope for people is held tightly, inerrantly, and rather exclusively. Sermons frequently mention what the Catholics/Lutherans/Baptists/ people who don't study their Bibles like he does are getting wrong. I could say much more about how the church has accepted the idol of perceived scholarship in the place of elders as described in Scripture. But my original point is that these men are perceived as "educated", but truth is, many of them are seemingly not acquainted with the realities encountered by people who must hold to knowledge/skill sets in order to produce something of tangible value in the world to provide for their families and support the church. This ignorance would be fine if it were accompanied by a humility and kindness, but the church seems to love to put people who lack those qualities in leadership positions.
All of this affirms the scriptural assertion that "knowledge puffs up". I think stamping achievement onto men simply because they succeed at reading and regurgitating and communing with others that do the same is part of the problem.
I am sorry that I didn't see the question sooner. I listen to so many podcasts about spiritual, physical, and sexual abuse in churches and cults that I don't remember which one this was. I will just state here, though, that the fact that there are multitudes of facebook groups, twitter accounts, blogs, podcasts, advocates, court cases, news stories, documentaries, reddit groups, and other online resources for survivors should say something to anyone willing to lend an ear. I didn't even mention licensed therapists, such as mine, who have heard all about it.
I gave up on having a career, even though I was secularly college educated, because I initially wanted to stay home with my children when they were small. Then, along came the RPCNA, and I bought in to their teachings. I am unemployable now, but thankfully, my husband can support us. The irony is that now that my children are nearly all grown, I've had the time to look at all of this, and see the rotten system for what it is. Though my voice was silenced and my intellect not valued for a long time, I do believe that God loves me, and Jesus is His perfect representative.
Men who say "serve me and mine so that you will be serving Christ" are not.
Post a Comment