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)
30 comments:
These sins of leaders that were kept private- what has my family been exposed to? It bothers me so much to have been groomed to view these people so highly, when they were hiding sin. I only had the problems that I saw to go on, and they bothered me, but I naively trusted them for the most part.
The vast majority of what I've seen covered up when it comes to elders is domineering and spiritual abuse. I've heard of churches driving people to divorce because they try to force the wife to submit to emotional abuse.
The thought that RPCNA elders would be hiding sexual abuse in their midst is foreign to me, but with the prevalence of sexual abuse, especially within authoritarian contexts, I suspect this has been dealt with behind closed doors.
I personally know of some pornographic involvement of our pastor that was never brought to light at all. I have read many stories of abuses of all kinds in other denominations, and I can say that where you find these kinds of abuses, there is always some kind of sexual aspect too.
It may be, however, that in the RPCNA it is the wives who have borne the abuse mostly. As a young wife in the RPCNA, my situation was very complex, but I can say that I received so many devaluing messages. I really felt that I had no value, other than as my husband's wife and as a mother. I was told by a pastor words to the effect that there were things in the Bible that even I could understand. There is much more I could say, but it would identify me, so I won't.
Thanks for your comment! It is so sad to see how much the RPCNA is willing to devalue people to maintain the perception of a perfect image.
As a non-ordained man in the RPCNA, I received a similar message - that my understanding of scripture was suspect and lacking. I could show a leader a clear error in their logic, but if they didn't want to change, they would just pull the "authority" card. I'm the elder, you're not, therefore your argument holds no weight with me.
The way I've seen wives treated is horrific. It starts by creating this assumption that the #1 cause of divorce is some trifling disagreement - toilet paper orientation or whatever - and that the couple immediately throws in the towel. Then, when a couple gets divorced, which usually means one or both spouses have to leave the church and be declared apostate, the assumption is they were lazy. But, the divorces I've heard about:
- husband addicted to porn
- husband emotionally abusing spouse and children
- husband physically abusing spouse
Keep in mind that the Atlantic Presbytery forwarded a paper with approval that "abuse is not grounds for divorce". The Synod-appointed study committee came to the same conclusion. Somehow, God intervened and it did not pass the entire Synod, but it is quite likely that the logic used was that each session gets to choose, not that the RPCNA is somehow taking a stand against abuse.
Being a truth-teller in a dysfunctional, abusive environment is a double-edged sword. On the good side, the truth tellers are not as invested in believing and upholding the lie, so recovery is usually better, but on the bad side, the truth tellers usually receive more abuse because they are the "black sheep" of the dysfunctional system.
Despite the pain of separation, and lies that are probably believed against me, I'm thankful that I'm on a path to healing and not still believing the delusion.
I thought of you last week when I heard a sermon about anger by Rut Etheridge (posted on the College Hill RP church's facebook page). I appreciated his sermon, particularly as I reflected on our discussions several years back on this site. I wasn't sure if this blog would still be active when I went searching for it today, but I see that it still is. I hope you are well and are finding the healing you've been working towards, and I did appreciate our dialogue as I've reflected over the years on righteous anger and its effects.
Chris
Hi Chris, thanks for your comment.
I just listened to the sermon. https://www.sermonaudio.com/saplayer/playpopup.asp?SID=1122002604543 It is unfortunately classic RP. The whole sermon is a bait and switch. Rut starts out acknowledging that there is holy, righteous anger.
But, ask yourself, what examples and patterns does he demonstrate for righteous anger? How does the church handle righteous anger? How do people in the church find justice as brothers?
He says nothing of the kind. He starts out by speaking of the existence of righteous anger, and then puts hurdle after hurdle in your way.
For example, he says, "don't let the sun go down on your anger" - deal with it quickly, but then he changes his tune and talks about Proverbs and how a wise man overlooks an insult, compared to a fool. This is how the bait and switch happens. He acknowledges righteous anger, yes, but then he provides a safe path - "overlook". So, now, you can be angry, which is fraught with issues, or you can "overlook". Hmm.
Okay, but say I still want to be angry. The questions start coming. The first one is horrible. Rut blasts us with the Fruits of the Spirit! If you can figure out how someone can be angry and joyful at the same time, then perhaps you can tell me how Jesus is foretold in Isaiah 53:
"He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted."
Does that sound like a picture of "JOY"? So, Rut starts by placing a burden too great to bear on us. Was Jesus the image of happiness and joy as he cleared the temple? When he confronted the Pharisees?
After he's set the stage to doubt our anger, he continues with the questions. Will I offer forgiveness? I can't deal with anger unless I'm first willing. Not thinking I'm willing, but REALLY WILLING, to offer forgiveness.
Do I recognize that I'm really a depraved soul? I can't deal with someone's anger effectively if I don't first recognize how horrible of a person I am first and foremost.
Did I pray about that anger? I know that the anger has to be dealt with before sundown, but apparently, I must spend hours in prayer about that anger because if I don't, how can I confront someone?
Did I sin some Psalms about that anger? How can my heart be possibly right before God and the person I'm going to confront if I haven't set my heart right with a proper Psalm CD - although it might be hard to find one with the right "angry" Psalms.
So, what is the point, then? Not surprisingly, he says it in the beginning. It's about control. Yes, rage may make us feel powerful, and it may be effective, short-term, but what is effective long-term is creating an environment where people are so unsure of right or wrong that they are paralyzed without the approval and guidance of a "solid, Reformed" pastor. This sermon is 100% about maintaining control over people by making people feel they have a right to be angry, then point by point, making them question and dismantle their own views.
Notice how many times in the beginning he sets you up to listen to "what the Holy Spirit has to say about anger." Isn't that the definition of authoritarianism? To claim that you are speaking the very words of the Holy Spirit?
I am understanding much more about abusive systems, and, unfortunately, one of the ways these systems thrive is by suppressing "bad" emotions. Often, women look at battered wives and say, "if I were her, it would be one hit and I'd be out of there." Even if the statement were true (I believe it is a lie), we have to understand that the stage has been set for this abuse to happen, and much of the groundwork is in suppressing anger. It is sermons like this that do the groundwork for abuse.
Can you imagine an emotionally abused (Rut mentions emotional abuse) wife coming to the church. What would she be asked? I'm sure it would be these questions! Are you willing to forgive your husband for his abuse [and return]? Do you recognize the sin you have that contributed to this situation? Did you pray earnestly about this and your own heart in the matter? Did you sing Psalms? And, if she hasn't dropped it by then, the real guns come out. You're not showing the Fruits of the Spirit! Where's your joy? All we see is anger and bitterness? This has been going on for a long time? If you had dealt with this "before the sun went down", you wouldn't be here today!
And that brings me back to the first point. If anger IS to be expressed in a Christian church, then shouldn't the sermon be about positive things that have happened as a result of righteous anger? Would the Magna Carta have been signed without righteous anger? Would the US be a country without righteous anger? Would there be civil rights without righteous anger?
Much good has happened out of anger about injustice. Then a sermon talking about righteous anger should be about how positively to deal with righteous anger in the midst of brethren. Instead Rut says, essentially, you can always suppress (overlook) anger, and then talks about all the dragons in expressing anger. Does he talk about the dragons in suppressing anger? Resentment? Bitterness? Isolation? Being silent when another is abused? No!
I honestly did not understand that the RPCNA had an official position that abuse is not grounds for divorce until recently. I now understand how an RP pastor could tell a story about a wife trying an ënd run"around her husband by coming to him (the Pastor)about something, and how that didn't work with him. I heard that silencing message and accepted it back then. I didn't truly believe that these supposedly incredibly Godly men would actually tolerate abuse. However, to be clear, I was not being physically abused. Our family had to deal with so much spiritual abuse from our pastor that we were perpetually confused and disheartened. I did receive that awful Jay Adams counseling that women are just depressed because they need to get the laundry done. Overall, my problems with the RPCNA are more about their authoritarian, abusive treatment of anyone who isn't part of the elite tier than about their treatment of women, as that is just a natural outworking of their system. I mean, there is no real, biblical accountability for leadership, so that's always going to lead to all kinds of abuses.
The överlook or forgive" instruction that they say is Biblical is really just a bad theology of forgiveness. You never see forgiveness espoused without some qualifier in scripture. Joseph tested his brothers to see if they were repentant. Even Jesus qualified forgiveness when he said ïf your brother comes to you and repents", and "for they know not what they do." I am not denying that scripture instructs us to be longsuffering and slow to anger, etc. But I do not believe a long tolerance for mistreatment when escape is legally available is what the Bible teaches. Also, we are often angry at the mistreatment of others that we observe. In fact, I would say that this is often the major motivator when calling out the abuse of leaders. Women see the effect on their children, and as in my case, the effect of terrible leadership on my husband. They have no answer for righteous anger, perhaps because their consciences are so deadened that they don't experience it?
A major problem with how the RPCNA does Christian Counseling is their utter conflating of forgiveness and trust, their conflating of love and being in relationship.
I can forgive someone and not trust them. In fact often it is unwise to trust certain people. I can show love, but not be best friends or maybe have no meaningful contact with someone.
Is it it ideal that these things go together, sure.
Is it a biblical mandate, no way.
I can have Spirit led forgiveness and love and yet not trust or be in relationship with someone.
I am very concern for the neurotic atmosphere this creates in the congregation as well as the arrogance it creates in RP leadership.
Amen! What you have expressed is much closer to hitting the Biblical mark than is the sermon by Rut Etheridge. In fact one can see how the system, methods and theology which Rut (and the majority of naparc leaders) espouse leads to cover up, more abuse and more authoritarianism.
The official position is: "Desertion can be a ground of divorce only when the departing person is an unbeliever" - this is an interpretation of the Westminster Confession of Faith teaching on divorce.
I'm guessing that officially, Synod did not want to go beyond this teaching to say that abuse is not grounds for divorce, but even within this there is strong question, first, whether the RPCNA truly recognizes abuse (if they do not recognize domineering), and second, how much grace and mercy they will extend a recognized abuser before "granting" divorce.
I am not even sure that it is legal for spiritual leaders to:
1) fail to report spousal abuse
2) command that someone suffering from physical abuse return to that environment, or face consequences in their faith community
Unfortunately, as far as I know, mandatory reporting laws only cover adults if they are intellectually challenged - like elders and disabled.
Many of the mandatory reporting laws have arisen specifically because of abuse coverups within religious and educational systems.
It is interesting to me how we can listen to the same sermon and come to very different conclusions about what the preacher was teaching.
I understand his sermon in different ways as you, I guess not surprisingly based upon our past histories. It seems to me that he is saying that there is indeed righteous anger, but because Scriptures make it clear that anger is an emotion that can often lead us to sin, we ought to do things like pause, pray, examine the Psalms, examine our own hearts, before we act on that anger to ensure that anger is not leading us to sin.
You don't agree those are good things to think through as we think about our own emotions of anger? Do you agree that anger is an emotion that can easily cause us to react irrationally and sinfully?
Chris
His sermon brings this to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3qccz1Mdjo
It's the scene from Cool Runnings where they are trying to recruit people for the bobsled team. I think it's analogous to the sermon. The question is... what is the purpose in the coach explaining bobsledding? Is it to encourage people to join the team, or something else?
Let's say I do a sermon on marriage. I start by saying marriage is good. I say that singleness is a good option, but then I spend the rest of the sermon talking about all the obligations of marriage and none of the benefits, am I really advocating for marriage.
Listen to the sermon again and tell me on concrete good thing Rut says about righteous anger, besides "it's a good thing." What does righteous anger accomplish?
I understand that this is difficult to process. We both grew up in staunchly RP families, going to conferences and, I expect, fully invested in RP doctrine. I never dreamed that I would leave the RP church, and when I did, I had a hard time even walking into another church.
I'm going to point to three cultural artifacts of the RPCNA system. I don't expect you to answer them, but keep them in the back of your mind... each one highlights an aspect of whether image or truth is being preserved and maintained.
1 - Why is it so critical for middle school and high school youth to be convinced of "demoninational distinctives"? If the RP church is the most wonderful, loving, gracious church that ever existed, then why would people ever consider leaving? Why do our youth have to be guilt-manipulated into staying by convincing them that if they choose a church (essentially ANY OTHER CHURCH) that sings hymns that they are engaging in sin? Why does the church mourn over "lost generations" (i.e. EVERY GENERATION) who have left the RPCNA?
2 - When Joel Beeke said that we should starve our kids if they didn't participate in family worship, why was there no outrage, no condemnation, no correction? This was at RP International Conference with virtually EVERY PASTOR in the denomination in attendance, and NOT ONE PASTOR who vowed to shepherd and protect the flock felt it their responsibility to stand against this wicked statement?
3 - When Tim McCracken challenged the RPCNA distinctives of Exclusive Psalmody and instruments, perhaps the most clearly taught, closely held and articulated doctrine in the whole church, why did Synod appoint a study committee to answer his arguments, even though they had been answered time and again? When Bruce Hemphill challenged the RPCNA teaching on the authority of women, a position that had not had any Synod review for nearly 30 years, with a completely unanswered line of reasoning, why did presbytery and Synod refuse to even consider his paper, and then make every effort to demonstrate their rejection of his position?
Bonus points for drawing an example from Cool Runnings. That's a favorite movie in our family, and I've seen it at least a dozen times. As far as what he's trying to do there, I'd say he is trying to determine those that are actually serious in their commitment to the team, which would be needed for an Olympic attempt, and weed out those that are there for just casual/social purposes. Showing extreme examples would certainly do that.
It seems to me that you are upset more for what Rut didn't say, which seems like a tough standard to meet. I don't think it was his purpose to talk about what progress righteous anger might have in regards to specific situations. That's a certainly valid topic for a sermon, but not the avenue he chose to take. I see nothing in what he did say that isn't consistent with Scripture.
As far as what good righteous anger does, it's a part of the human (and divine) character and range of emotions, so trying to assert that it's not a valid emotion Christians can have is not a Godly message, and one Rut made clear when he clearly stated that for the Christian, and the church, anger can be a valid emotion to have and there should be a space for it in the church.
So I don't think you're being particularly fair to Rut, or to the sermon, in your analysis of it. What I hear is less complaint about what he said, but that he didn't pursue additional topics in his sermon that you felt were necessary.
I also think it's a fairly unfair to assume an example of an abused wife coming before Rut (or a random session) and assuming how he, or someone else, might counsel that woman, unless you have sat under Rut (or the session in question) in such a setting. I have no doubt that, unfortunately, there are some sessions who would take such an approach, and that's not unique to just the RPCNA. I know of such a women who was treated that way in a similar situation. However, I also know of a woman in the RPCNA that was encouraged to separate from her husband, and the church brought discipline on the man. Those are hard situations, and no doubt haven't always been handled the best throughout the RPCNA, or the broader church.
I'm not looking to really get into any longer discussions here. You've brought up some worthwhile discussions points that could be good to think through, but on an anonymous message board, or at least everyone else besides me is anonymous, I don't know that's the most profitable thing to engage in.
The RPCNA no doubt has some issues, and it has failed to live as it should at various points throughout history. That's part of the reality of the church being made up of fallen and sinful individuals. It'd also be silly for me to assert there aren't ungodly men anywhere in leadership positions throughout the denomination. Scripture warns us as much. But there is much good that is going on within the denomination, and much kingdom work in process for the glory of Christ.
Again, I don't know your past history, so I can't speak to it, as I don't even know who you are. For however the RPCNA may have harmed you in the past, I am sorry for that.
Blessings,
Chris
My annoyance is what he does say as well as what he does not. There is a need for balance.
But, what he does say is bad enough. For example, he says that "timeliness is important" referencing "don't let the sun go down on your anger", but then he says "pause, pray and walk away ... it can wait."
That's a conflict. If it must be conducted in a timely manner, how can it wait? This creates confusion, not clarity, and confusion leads to inaction. In fact, each of the subsequent "questions" leads to further inaction.
(1) Does God share our anger?
(2) How angry are we at our own sin?
(3) Are we willing to be confronted about our own sin?
(4) Are we willing to seek and grant forgiveness?
(5) Have we taken our anger to the Lord in song?
I think these questions, and if not the questions themselves, but the treatment of the questions, are an emotionally abusive way to destroy a Christian's desire to seek justice and reconciliation through righteous anger.
At each step, there is false teaching and bewilderment. For example, for the first question. Rut quotes Proverbs as if to say that righteous anger must be in line with the "six things the Lord hates". None of those is "hardness of heart", yet Jesus in Mark 3:5 "looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart".
Chris, this isn't innocent. It's a form of gaslighting. He says "righteous anger is good", ok, but then he, in the form of "wise counsel" starts running through laundry list after laundry list of do's and don't's and heart postures and gotchas on the "righteous anger" side and a constant reminder of "wait" "walk away" on the other.
So, the conclusion is that walking away is good and righteous, and that acting on it is so difficult and error-prone that you really have to have it all together, and who has it all together? And the fact that he creates cognitive dissonance between "timeliness" and "waiting" creates an atmosphere that is conducive to subsequent gaslighting.
Chris, I'm truly sorry that I have to be anonymous. My concern is that RP leaders who might feel strongly about what I have to say could abuse my RP relatives and cause friction in my family.
I appreciate you using your name, but I don't believe I can reciprocate.
"I also think it's a fairly unfair to assume an example of an abused wife coming before Rut (or a random session) and assuming how he, or someone else, might counsel that woman, unless you have sat under Rut (or the session in question) in such a setting."
Is it unfair for me to expect Rut to practice what he preaches? If this is, as he says, "what the Holy Spirit wants to teach us", then I fully expect that he would use his own teaching as guidance for his approach to matters of discipline.
It's easy to see how, if this is Spirit-filled guidance, it would be used in the situation. "Are you willing to grant and seek forgiveness" "Well, to be honest, my heart is not ready yet." Then what? Rut is spiritually obligated, based on his own words, to reject this person's complaint on the basis that it is "unrighteous anger". I don't see how this is an unfair or baseless accusation.
I'm not trying to bring you out of your anonymity. It's clearly important to you, and I don't begrudge you for that. It does make for a bit of an awkward dialogue, though, at least on my end.
I didn't walk away from that sermon thinking he was discouraging me from be angry. In fact, I thought he was encouraging it by preaching it was a legitimate emotion for the Christian to have. But he was also echoing what so much of Scripture does when it talks of anger, which is cautioning us to be wise in our anger because it has a very close connection to sin.
I guess it reinforces the fact that we both see things through our past experiences, projecting things into sermons and counsel that may or may not actually be there. I think that's common for all of us.
Again, thanks for the dialogue. I know you aren't the first person hurt by the church, and the RPCNA, and you won't be the last, unfortunately. I appreciate your perspective as it helps sharpen my own view of the RPCNA, where we are weak, and where we are strong.
Chris
I appreciate hearing your perspective, too. I also understand your concern - I would agree that everything he said was, at least on the surface, scriptural, but only taken individually. The problem is when it is put together.
The purpose of emotional abuse is to create a controlling environment by destroying a person's self-worth and self-trust, especially when it comes to the person seeking that control.
When it comes to RP preaching, there are telltale signs that this sort of abuse is occurring.
Equivocation - saying two contradictory things with equal weight. For example, it is very typical in emotionally abusive sermons to hear happiness and joy used synonymously and in contrast to each other.
Gaslighting - I believe the way this happens in sermons is first saying something positive about something (e.g. righteous anger), and then subsequently minimizing and destroying any possible way to experience that positive thing without failure.
Demeaning - The pastor repeatedly brings up our failures and mistakes as a way to create an imbalance of power. Oftentimes, the pastor may say "we..." but, that doesn't include officers of the church in their official capacities.
Authority - the pastor uses claims to inerrancy and authority to signal that we members are not worthy to judge his words. When a pastor says "listen to what the Holy Spirit has to say to us" and then teaches in his own words... he is claiming inerrancy and prophetic ability. This is juxtaposed to our errancy, and thus we are being told to accept these words without question.
Cognitive Dissonance - the pastor teaches contradiction, each with full authority, and because the emotionally abusive stage is set, we assume that we are unable to understand because of our inadequacy. For example, Rut teaches that anger must be dealt with quickly, before the sun goes down, and then he teaches that anger can wait. That is contradictory. He does not clarify, so the listener is being led to presume that his understanding is simply faulty. He teaches that sometimes we must act on our anger, but then teaches that we can always walk away.
So, in conclusion, this sermon is just flat out emotionally abusive. It doesn't matter if the bits and pieces are scripturally true, when the sum total of the sermon is designed to make us feel unworthy and inadequate. Some of the teaching may be true and helpful, but the sum is emotionally abusive.
I get what it looks like on the other side... when we are in an emotionally abusive environment, we are keenly aware of our own failures and we are enthralled by the words of the pastor. God walked me down a horrible path where my TRUE sin was put in front of me and through being face to face with my pride, I realized how much sinful pride was inherent in RPCNA officeholders.
Ok, so I tried to listen to this sermon. Here's my translation of the intro: "Haha! The elders may have punished some people here, haha, just joking. Be ready for some rules that will show you how guilty you are and intimidate you! They are God's rules, though, and Jesus is all about them. You will BE these rules if you're seeking Jesus."
Good Grief!
Kathryn Stegall, the EPC would be a good fit for you. I am sure Mr. Hemphill will put in a good word for you.
If you're going to try and figure out who I am, the least you can do is still guessing the same name over and over. You're still wrong and you also haven't eliminated any possibilities.
If you read my articles, you would realize that I believe the WCF to be fundamentally flawed, which would rule out the EPC.
Also, it is Dr. Bruce Hemphill, although I'm sure you have no intention of being respectful.
Post a Comment