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.