Since Chris brought up the concept of righteous anger, I thought it would be worth talking through some analogies about righteous and sinful anger. First of all, anger is an emotion. We may think that our emotions are fallible and we need our intellect to keep it in check, but in actuality, both our emotions and intellect are fallible. We need our emotions to keep our intellect in check as much as we need our intellect to keep our emotions in check.
For example, we talk about intuition or "gut feelings" - gut feelings are often right, and we somehow assume that it was luck or providence, but evidence shows there is more to it. My plan is to cover that in part 2.
My best description of anger is an energy we feel as a result of a sense of injustice. Our emotion is telling us that something is wrong, and not just that something is wrong, but something needs to be fixed. We feel a surge of adrenaline, our faces turn red, our pulse quickens. Often our emotional sense of the situation precedes our intellectual sense of what happened.
It is at this point that our intellect is racing to catch up. WHY? is the first question to ask. Why am I angry? What injustice has occurred? Because our emotions are fallible, we need the combined strength of intellect and emotion to understand. Is the injustice I'm experiencing true or false injustice. That is, am I angry because I or someone I care about being treated disrespectfully, or is it some perceived entitlement that has been threatened?
To understand psychology, anger can be resolved (processed) or it can be suppressed. If I understand that I'm at fault, I can use the energy of the anger to work towards change in my own heart - to seek forgiveness and restoration. It can be resolved through putting the energy towards constructive conflict - seeking justice personally or systemically. However, it can also be suppressed. Suppressing anger is flatly unhealthy, yet as we see, in religious circles it seems to be the most acceptable and compelling option.
This is an analogy of an abusive relationship that has blown up. The person on the left is experiencing mostly unrighteous (idolatrous or self-righteous) anger. The person on the right is a target of idolatrous abuse, and is angry as a result of being treated disrespectfully or unjustly. Because the anger grows past the "ability to tolerate", the public peace is broken. For the sake of the argument, this has happened in the church context.
What should happen? I would argue that the church needs to deal, first and foremost,
justly in this situation. If you read
Shepherding a Child's Heart, you would see that Tedd Tripp disagrees. In his mind, we notice that there is red (unrighteous anger) on both sides and we deal solely with the red without recognizing the sheer volume of red on one side. In his description, the child who holds the toy is sinfully greedy instead of sharing, while the child who steals the toy has resorted to violence. The solution, then, is to punish both for disturbing the peace of the house.
So, what happens is what is called all sorts of things - gaslighting, grooming, normalizing, burying one's head in the sand, whatever. This can happen as a result of one's own codependency or external factors. The point is that the anger is not "put away" - it's still there and it's still as big as ever. Yet, the anger is no longer visible in the community. The abuse is still as strong as ever.
This is what is taught in the RP church. Instead of teaching people to deal with anger in a healthy way by choosing to stand up for justice and give strength to victims of abuse, the church chooses a peaceful image. Under the holy and righteous image of the church is unresolved and abusive conflict. What is unfortunate is that it is the opposite of justice.
There's more complexity to it, but as long as the RPCNA chooses to whitewash over conflict in the church through sermons like this, not only will abuse and injustice persist, but anger itself will grow unchecked, hidden under what appears to be a a calm sea of suppression. This is what I mean about choosing image over truth. The anger is still there, the abuse is still there, but it can all be conveniently ignored because everything looks like a calm stream. The church does the opposite of its calling. Instead of shining a light in the darkest places, the church chooses to hide and obscure injustice because it looks good.
26 comments:
his dynamic is how abuse is sustained and hidden in these environments. An outsider may rightly say, "I would never have submitted to that level of abuse". The problem is that this is a boiling the frog situation. The abusive system allows more and more egregious violations while maintaining the appearance of righteousness because it only ever has to acknowledge what is above the water. When image is more important than truth, sin is covered up and abuse flourishes.
Do you have a sermon you could recommend I listen to that teaches well what you believe is a proper view of anger? I'd be interested in listening to it.
Thanks,
Chris
This is pretty close: Part 4 of a 5-part series on anger. https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=31603103810, there is also a first part where he talks about righteous anger, and especially the contexts where righteous anger led to righteous results. Part 4 talks about how we understand and respond to our own anger.
I have a probably minor disagreement later - he talks about getting justice, but at the same time he talks about anger being "quick". Sometimes justice takes years and if, as he says, anger is like pain that tells us there is a moral wrong that needs to be fixed, then we would expect that the anger, in some sense, is going to last through the resolution of the moral wrong, and if there is no path to resolution there may be some residual form of it.
Part 5 is also helpful: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=327032036
He talks about dealing with anger in others - as a second or third party. Unlike Biblical Counseling/RPCNA, he says we need to first LISTEN to understand whether someone's anger is righteous, then we need to ACT based on our understanding - we need to seek justice with the righteously angry.
[as a side note, we need to seek justice whether the righteously angry is a leader or follower. In the RPCNA, there is always a bias that the anger of a leader is righteous and the anger of an ordinary member is unrighteous - it is a false and wicked assumption]
This is SermonAudio which requires an Evangelical commitment to post. I was able to skim the PDFs to see what they said. There is another I want to listen to before I post it.
Thanks. I'll take a listen when I have some time.
Chris
This tendency to equalize the fault of offender and victim, or even reverse them, (DARVO) is something I observed with our pastor and his kids, but it seemed so awful to me that I would rationalize that maybe it wasn't as unfair as it appeared. As in, thinking it seemed really wrong that his son was allowed to bully a younger sister, but then buying in to the idea that maybe it wasn't really like that, or even that she somehow was just overreacting. This is an example of how one can ignore their gut when in such a system, and the "boiling frog" analogy applies.
Yes, that is part of the spiritually/emotionally abusive system. Understanding and beliefs are constantly undermined to the point that even something so clear causes us to question our response.
A Christian psychologist pointed out what often happens in nurseries and preschools with conflicts over a toy. The children are told to "share". Sharing then develops a meaning. For the one kid, "share" means losing the toy whenever someone else wants it, and for the other kid "share" means getting a toy whenever I want it. No justice is served, but the peace is restored.
So true. In far to much of Christian Counseling, especially of the "Reformed" variety there is a heavy focus on peace at all cost. A kind of flattening takes place where both estranged parties are leveled to being equally wrong, while the good old boys on a committee sit in judgement to work it out for you. What this winds up doing is making the party that was truly the offended party or victim become even more frustrated/exasperated to the point of just flat out needing to get out of that system entirely.
Whether over family counseling situations, theology, church politics or Biblical exegesis this ethos and the authoritarian leadership which rules over it is a primary reason people just cannot stand to stay in the NAPARC environment. And we are talking about conservative good faith Christians who cannot stand to stay in that environment. In doing a little math, NAPARC represents 0.002 % of the Christians in the USA. I get it that selling out and watering down the Christian faith "mega church" style is no answer either, but honestly what do the sycophants and leaders in the RPCNA think they are accomplishing in their tiny holy huddle other than a pat on their own prideful backs?
Chris,
I appreciate good sermons too. But I am curious as to why you are in need of a sermon on this? If truth is written on a subway wall, would that suffice? The reason I ask is that I suspect you may have succumbed to the Reformed Sacerdotal lie expressed in the headline of the second Helvetic Confession (a view shared by all conservative Reformed denominations) which states.... "The Preaching of the Word of God, is the Word of God."
That is lie, from the pit of hell, yet promoted in communities that are supposed to embrace Soli Scriptura. A lie which gives more power than is biblical to church elders and pastors. Which in turn leads to all manner of the kinds of abuse being pointed out at blogs like this one.
Now to be sure that at times a good sermon can in as accurate as possible human way reflect the truth of the scripture text being preached on, but let's make no mistake.....the preaching of the Word of God is NOT on par with actually being God's Word.
Not trying to be hostile or accusatory here, but just getting a sense as to what is a driving view or theology behind your thinking?
Anonymous, this is a discussion carried over from another post - where a sermon by Rut Etheridge was recommended as a treatise on righteous anger. I was explaining that Rut's sermon was, in fact, setting us to believe that he was encouraging righteous anger, but then beating us out of it through a series of unbiblical (Pharisaical) requirements placed on that righteous anger that made it untenable.
Battered RP Sheep,
Thanks! I am aware and have been following. I am still curious. You have provided a sound explanation and other resources. Why is a sermon the clincher/ best authoritative word on this or any subject?
I would submit that the extreme high view of "preaching" from the office of "elder" held in the Reformed community is actually higher lifted up than the scripture texts themselves.
I am not accusing Chris of holding this view, rather questioning and yes even wanting to make that point in general.
Can we not read through what you cite in your post and come to a reasonable determination as is? I think so and can do so in good Christian conscience without an church office holder clearing it for us.
thanks again and we very much appreciate your blog!
I think it's a fair concern that this isn't some sort of out there theory in liberal Christianity or popular psychology. I agree with you that it signals a lack of self-trust when it comes to discerning, but we all were conditioned that way when we were RPs, right?
Yes, very much so. Not to say we should not have trusted mentors/pastors/leaders in our lives, but the real issue is not that you or I have too low a view of the church or authority, rather the real narrative here is that NAPARC and certainly the RPCNA has far too high a view of the institutional church and offices therein.
As you have pointed out, as just one of many examples, why is it that personal prayer or Bible reading is considered sub par compared to preaching or elder led prayer groups? Why is it that I have heard from many RPCNA pastors from the pulpit say ...."the entire orientation of your life should revolve around the visible church'?
That is a lie as well. The orientation of our lives centers in Christ led by the Spirit. All else is sinking sand.
It's a very subtle shift between the sheep hearing Jesus's voice through the preaching and people thinking that the preaching must be Jesus's voice. I think it's a sure sign that the pastor is NOT speaking for Jesus when he asserts that he is.
In reply to Anonymous above, I'm sad to point out that what I think they are accomplishing is taking care of their own. Our former pastor failed in two churches, but, no worries, he was able to obtain gainful employment within one of the denomination's institutions. If one is part of the elite, others will always be looking out for them. Only when they run out of people on the bottom of their "pyramid" will they have a reckoning.
That was my conclusion, too - the system was too corrupt to allow for change (which I did try, but was rejected), and as long as I was in the system, I was faithfully tithing to support spiritual and emotional abuse against myself and others.
Oddly, there are similarities with the IFB "men of God", with their "touch not the Lord's anointed" schtick. And also with Rome, of course.
There's also a line of thinking that when relatively kind, sensitive people (people who have empathy) sacrifice their voice and conscience to stay in these environments, it sends a message to others that it is a safe environment. So, giving to them emotionally also supports their abuse, and I've realized that I no longer want to invite others to accept the authority of leaders who really just care about themselves.
A cultish behavior is isolation. I think in extreme cases, cults form enclaves or essentially imprison people, but what does it look like in less extreme cases? I believe people are encouraged to distrust those outside the church, and even within the church, people are taught to distrust each other.
The silence, though, is a huge thing. Having been in multiple churches, there are completely different opinions on congregational meetings. Some are essentially a free-for-all where people are encouraged to express concerns, but some are, one way or another, designed to discourage any conversation. I was in an officer election where the church leadership refused to allow any discussion before the vote.
And, yes, I knew people who were looking for a church when I was a member in the RPCNA and I wasn't about to invite them to attend.
I think I'm healing enough to chuckle at my naive self, sitting there hoping that the people we'd invited would like our church and want to come back. They never did. Haha- I guess they thought it was all a pretty weird way to flex.
Chris, I've been thinking about this. Initially, I figured that you were in a different RPCNA system than I was - it's quite possible that this is true. The concern I have is that we have such different views of the same sermon. A favorite analogy I've heard from RP pastors is that counterfeit agents are taught by studying the real currency, not counterfeits, so that they can spot fake bills. I think this applies.
When I left the RP church, I was shocked at the irreverence portrayed in sermons. It was never okay to question God or to be angry at God or have faith struggles. Then (armed with the RP encyclopedic knowledge of the Psalms) I started to see that the Psalms portrayed that very thing. Real people with real struggles taking them to God and working through them.
Hearing sermons where the pastors are dealing with _real_ Christians with real struggles, not the "I didn't read my Bible this morning and I wonder if I'm still elect" struggles, but the "my husband, the epitome of Christian faithfulness, just died of brain cancer and I'm so angry with God that I want to walk away from Christianity altogether" struggles.
Once I got over the RP shock at people who were encouraged and empowered to be _real_ with God and each other, I started realizing that RP sermons were more than dull and boring. They were encouraging emotional falsehood. The same sort of falsehood that Rut lays out where he dangles the carrot of the church needing to have a place for righteous anger, then so destroys the concept of righteous anger through legalistic and unbiblical requirements that any rational person would agree that it's better to suppress the anger than to deal with the legalistic weight of it.
There's a reason conservative denominations are called "the frozen chosen". The frozen part isn't something to be proud of. If the more we are _like_ God, the more zombie-like and cold we become, what does that say about God?
Sorry, been busy with other things, and it's not my intention to get into a long and lengthy drawn out discussion on here. So just to tie up a couple loose ends:
I asked for a sermon because that was the context of what we were discussing. Nothing more than that. We were talking about one sermon, and I was curious for another that might reflect another perspective. No belief that only a pastor can speak truth about God's Word, or that a pastor's word is as good as God's Word. Everything we hear, sermon or otherwise, needs to be analyzed through Scripture. Being Berean in our life as believers is what is best, whether those words comes through preachers, or through children, or anyone in between. Sorry, please don't read any more into that question than was meant.
Secondly, I guess I've never felt any preacher or elder tell me to hide my emotions or that it wasn't OK to question and wrestle with God. In fact, the counsel I've received from pastors and elders was to follow the examples of the Psalms that show many people doing just that, when I or others are struggling. Denying the human emotion, which is part of the reality of being created in the image of God, is not a healthy thing in the life of a believer. Bring those struggles to God, emotions of hurt, anger, confusion, pain, and the Psalms give us a great way of doing just that. The older I get, the more I love the Psalms, and there's not much doubt I've spent more time in the Psalms than any other book of the Bible. They are such a gift.
Third, yes, I've often lamented the "frozen chosen" aspect of the RPCNA. I appreciate the deep longing for truth and theology that the RPCNA offers, but I've also looked at other churches who are far less "frozen" during their services and thought, there's something there we're missing. Obviously there is a balance that is needed, and there are some denominations that I would feel are too far over that line when it comes to their services, but, to use an example, I've regularly thought that this is an aspect that the African American community gets better that we do, from their preachers, to the people in their pews. Their "Amens," arm raising, their passion and other similar emotions, there's something good there.
Lastly, again, I've never been given the impression that personal prayer or Bible reading is sub-par in any way. I think there is something of high value to the regular gathering of God's people for corporate worship, but there are other important aspects to the Christian life that happen in our homes and in our quiet moments alone (prayer and Bible reading).
Thanks,
Chris
I'm not sure you realize what you're saying. It's okay to bring "struggles" to God, including "hurt, anger, confusion, pain." But here's the kicker, in the Psalms, we are taught that it is okay to be hurt and angry WITH GOD. That is a huge difference and that is taught as sin in RP churches.
I don't know how or if your eyes will be opened to the emotional and spiritual abuse that is happening. I still felt more true to RP doctrine than the leaders who tried to impose their interpretations on me and then justified it by playing the authority card - I must follow what they say because they are my God-ordained leader.
How sharp that divide is depends on the individual and the situation. I think the Great Lakes-Gulf influence on the seminary has produced highly narcissistic and authoritarian pastors. More and more, the worship service itself has become the only means of grace for the RP, and what happens outside the service is more and more being considered less beneficial, or even suspect.
I hope that you're not experiencing this, but I suspect, more, that, like in Rut's sermon, you're just not attuned to how cognitive dissonance is used to abuse in the name of challenge.
Here is a quote from an RP pastor on SermonAudio: "One of the ways we can prepare ourselves for worship is to be in the word during the week. But 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 conforms us into his image, convicts us of our sin, shows us that there is forgiveness and hope in Christ."
The meaning behind the meaning is that only the preached word is "objective" truth. When we personally read the Bible, it cannot convict us the same way preaching can. That's narcissistic and authoritarian. They couch it in office terms "this happens to preachers as well" in their _personal_ reading.
What he's actually saying is that during the week, the Bible is a really nice book to read, like Lord of the Rings, or the Narnia series, because having it on our minds is good for when the Holy Spirit speaks through Gawd's Ordained Servant. There is a denial of the work of the Holy Spirit in the RP church, except through the ordained officers. Maybe it's just the area I'm in, but I've heard the same sentiment from at least five RP pastors in the region.
Chris,
Appreciate your feed back and glad to hear your view. However I must say that generally speaking the RPCNA does not hold your view. In fact the RPCNA does in fact hold the view being described by "Battered Sheep", myself and others.
At ‘Gentle Reformation’ back in March at begining of shut Covid 19 shutdown (RPCNA blog written by RP pastors and seminary profs) we see just one example of effort to bend the knee to their idol of the institutional church and authoritarian power therein. Here RP pastor Andrew Kerr published the Saturday before most churches across America were practicing social distancing by closing public worship, he wrote a blog post declaring.... ""we should never lose the nerve to cancel what is man’s ONLY HOPE is the church." Stating we should "drag 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.””
Man's ONLY hope is the institutional church. This does not align with Scripture and this is NOT an isolated example. Rather it is indicated of the hyper authoritarian and Sacerdotal view which dominates the bulk of the RPCNA.
That article says a lot about image and truth, Chris. Kerr eventually came around to a more correct viewpoint, other pastors weighed in, but no other pastor directly called him out on his stance. When Kerr did post a more correct article later, he did not apologize or clear up confusion, instead, he allowed cognitive dissonance.
In other words, the IMAGE of Kerr as an authoritative pastor was more important than the TRUTH that he was calling Christians to ignore their own safety and government mandates for our protection to gather together.
Also, keep in mind that Gentle Reformation is not some radical fringe RP blog, but has, among others, RPTS president Barry York among its contributors.
On the topic of cults, the Netflix series on Scientology with Leah Remini is really interesting. They get deeply into the heartbreak of what cults do to families. It's all very extreme, but the hubris,manipulation, and narcissism of the leaders, along with the submission, dawning comprehension, and pain of the followers seems very familiar.
Post a Comment