Great insight from Wade Mullen

 If you haven't read Wade Mullen's book Something's not Right: Decoding the Hidden Tactics of Abuse -- and Freeing Yourself from its Power, it's definitely worth the read. I plan to dig deeper into the book and how it demonstrates some of the abusive tactics in the RPCNA, but for now, I want to highlight some pieces that are sure to come to light as more is revealed in West Lafayette. (It's similar to what I was saying about "country bumpkins")

A common excuse of ability that organizations use is the suggestion that those in positions to respond were not prepared through education and training ... Once an organization assumes the responsibility that comes with being in charge, they assume the obligation to make sure they are adequately equipped to exercise their authority. Insufficient training or lack of foresight is not an acceptable excuse for leaders charged with the duty to protect the organization's members (page 109)

For example, when a mandatory reporter of child abuse fails to report suspected abuse and then claims, "I didn't know what the law was," that excuse can be challenged by saying, "You had an obligation to be familiar with the laws when you accepted the duty to care for children." In this case, the excuse of ability is not legitimate. (page 122)

When I read this, my eyes were completely opened to time after time RP leaders who completely bungled investigations and cases and then either they excused it or the higher courts excused it. The sorts of excuses we see are things like "intricate" "complex" "deceptive", etc., when the truth is that these men have no qualifications and they refuse to learn.

I can't tell you how many times I was in a situation with leadership where I proposed an option, was shut down saying the option was ill-advised, stupid, wrong or whatever, only to find with a couple of searches that I was right in the first place. These men refuse to learn and they use claims of spiritual superiority and giftedness as an excuse to refuse any attempts at correction or the need to gain wisdom. 

For those still in the RP church, there is an extraordinary amount of wisdom about how abusive systems are created and maintained and how people can get sucked into those abusive systems and end up knowingly defending abusers.

[Hit post a bit prematurely] The point that rings clear here that I didn't get earlier is that being an elder or pastor in the RP church or any other church is not just about being a smart, nice guy who cares for people. Those are essentials, yes, but it's also about training and work. Just like a teacher or doctor, the elders need to commit to life long training. They need to commit to deep understanding of policies, why they are in place, and when contradictory truth is uncovered, like spiritual abuse and conflicts of interest, the policies need to be updated so that the sheep are protected. Even the policies, though, do not protect the sheep when the leadership are stuck in an abusive system. They simply ignore them.

Someone pointed out that Immanuel was founded with elders in their mid-20's. Probably nice guys who cared for people, but didn't have the wisdom and discernment to protect the flock from abusive pastors and a seasoned retired abusive pastor/elder.

Sexual abuse coverup at Immanuel RPC

Please read the article and watch the video:

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2021/12/06/immanuel-reformed-presbytarian-church-child-sexual-abuse-scandal-what-know-west-lafayette-indiana/8800679002/

I heard about this a few weeks ago, but the details were so vague I guessed it was something that happened between high schoolers at a retreat. I learned today that this is much worse and it is much darker.

- The perpetrator was a relative of the pastor, but the pastor did not recuse himself and influenced the investigation

- The elders allowed the perpetrator to continue attending church (potentially with victims) and did not inform the congregation and did not create a safety plan.

- Information was selectively withheld among elders, away from Presbytery reports, and even from deacons.

- When the matter was finally reported to the deacons and the congregation, the tone was "we have this figured out and we've resolved everything"

- The leadership did not cooperate with investigators, and, in the words of a pastor asked to intervene, "the whole thing was a coverup".

According to the deacon who resigned, "I can rebuild relationships and I can make new relationships. I can't give kids their innocence back." and "... it appeared to me pretty quickly to be predatory and serial in nature". Apparently, the session labeled it experimental and hormone-driven.

Presbytery has brought charges against the pastor and all the elders, and this seems like "we're taking care of this, let's trust our leaders and move on", but keep in mind that Pastor Olivetti, from the start, felt that this was something he could hide from Presbytery and cover up. Why did the family of the victims not feel safe in going to Presbytery, or even worse, did the Session refuse to transfer appeals to Presbytery? Remember that the RPCNA authoritarian practice requires members to GO THROUGH THEIR SESSION when appealing to Presbytery. If the families appealed directly to Presbytery, their complaints could have been considered out-of-order and rejected.

Jesus and John Wayne meets Jesus

I've found so many parallels between modern Evangelicalism and the Pharisees. Here's another:

In Jesus and John Wayne, John Wayne is the archetype of Christian masculinity and leadership: warlike, strong, opinionated, violent, abusive, powerful, rich. The "sheep dog" of the wolf, sheep, sheep dog analogy, whose penchant for violence must be tolerated in the name of safety and protection from wolves.

What did Jesus say about this?

And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has been treated violently, and violent men take it by force. (Matt 11:12)

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And He called a child to Himself and set him among them, and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you change and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. So whoever will humble himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 18: 1-4)

And Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I say to you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 19:24)

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles domineer over them, and those in high position exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wants to become prominent among you shall be your servant, and whoever desires to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.” (Matt. 20: 25-28)

The Pharisees were also mini-John Waynes looking for a John Wayne messiah to physically overthrow and remove the Roman empire. They anticipated a strong earthly ruler who would come. Instead they got a lamb. A man who took a beating, then wasn't physically strong enough to carry his own cross.

When the actual Messiah came in their midst, he was unrecognizable to them because he didn't fit the shoes they expected him to fill, and because of that, they strongly rejected him. Isn't that what we see today? Wholesale rejection of the Holy Spirit's work in the church because violence and abuse is the proxy for righteousness, not humility and child-like faith.

I think the image I have for humility and servant-leadership in the church today is a ruler who walks down the street quiet and unadorned, but who has hired a dozen people to walk in front proclaiming how humble he is and beat any who dare say differently.

It seems that revival after revival, there is just some new excuse uncovered to justify abusive leadership.

Patriarchy shows its true colors in Federal court

 In Jesus and John Wayne, Kristin Du Mez explains the philosophical underpinning of what is modern Christian masculinity. Men need to be strong and violent so that they can protect women from all danger. We need soldiers to protect women and children. We need male leaders in government to be vigilant and strong to protect from unholy influences. We need strong male leaders in church to protect the weak and feeble-minded. We need strong fathers to protect wives and especially daughters from harm.

Bill Gothard used a diagram to explain this: 

The idea is that each umbrella is both subordinate to the higher umbrella and under its protection. Thus children enjoy the protection of Christ, Pastors, Fathers and Mothers.

The statement that the Patriarchal system says to women is "we need to be big and strong and manly and you need to trust us as your God-given protectors." This is proclaimed as the fundamental structure for society, and women who walk away from the male-dominated system are opening themselves to evil and a lack of protection.

Jim Duggar is a known follower of Bill Gothard and a poster-child for adherence to the patriarchal system. His wife and daughters were taught that he would protect them and fight for justice from anyone who would treat them unjustly.

Jim's son Josh Duggar is on trial for possession of child pornography. In a pre-trial hearing, defense attorneys were trying to throw out testimony about his history of child molestation, saying it was irrelevant. Duggar family friend Bobye Holt testified that Josh had confessed to molesting at least four girls. Link

Trial Patriarchal hypocrisy #1 - women are pastors. The defense attorneys argued that Josh's confession to Bobye (a woman) was a confession to a "religious figure". In Patriarchal systems, women have no religious authority, and thus his confession to her would not in any way be considered "clergy privilege" by their religious system. So it is hypocritical for Josh Duggar to support a false premise that he confessed to her as a pastor. The judge easily saw through the lies and ruled she could testify.

Trial Patriarchal flaw #2 - lies and lapses to protect fellow patriarchs. *IF* patriarchy is a system where innocent girls can trust their fathers to provide justice for them, how does Jim Duggar's testimony demonstrate this? It doesn't. He "couldn't remember" specifics about what was confessed to him, and he was angry when the police report documenting their investigation was shown in court. Jim was under oath and even more pertinent was a Patriarchal authority with the responsibility to protect his daughters and provide justice for them. "The Court found Mr. Duggar's selective lapse in memory to be not credible; he was obviously reluctant to testify against his son," [Judge] Brooks wrote. The patriarchal system is for the protection of the patriarchs. Jim went on the stand to protect his molesting, adulterous, child porn viewing son, while simultaneously minimizing the wrong done to his own daughters. The rumors are that Jim is using financial abuse to control the narrative and scare/shame the Duggar daughters/daughters-in-law from testifying against Josh. Source

Patriarchal flaw #3 - silencing the victims they are supposed to protect. This leads to a new understanding of the coverup. Jim minimized what Josh had done to his sisters (#2). Bobye Holt's testimony was that Josh confessed far worse molestation at 15 years old than "touching girls breasts through covers while they were asleep" - as Jim claimed. Instead he was touching them while awake, under their clothes. That means that Jim was first lying about what happened, and then he was using his patriarchal authority to silence the victims. They knew what happened, but the protection of the Duggar Patriarchy and patriarch Jim's image was more important than protecting the girls. Understand that? The system that says "daughters, trust us to protect you and bring you justice" was the system that shamed those girls into silence to protect the patriarchs. Patriarchy is just baptized rape culture. Society does enough shaming of victims of molestation and abuse, but here is a system where fathers have to shame their own daughters to pretend that they are holy (and try to keep the TV money coming in, of course).

Understanding Galatians as an ex-RP

RP pastors have no qualms about working through Galatians. They see the message of Galatians as kind of a Hebrews-like "NT covenant is better than OT covenant". That is definitely a significant part of the message, but there is more that might not be so comfortable to RPs.

Post RP learning 1: Corinthians and Galatians are essentially the book-ends of the churches. (aside) I highly recommend listening to something like "Immerse: Messiah" - it's simply the Bible read as it might have been at the time, without chapters and verses. I also appreciate The Message translation of the Bible because it is a more grace-focused and readable version - although I typically use NASB for debate purposes as it tends to be more literal. (end aside)

So, Corinthians is the picture of today's liberal church - they are within the bounds of what Paul considers Christianity, but they are focused on celebrating diversity, so much so that they wind up celebrating, I suppose, God's graciousness to a man living an obviously sinful lifestyle. That is too much for Paul and he condemns the church for that, but he also recommends some amount of order in the chaos.

Galatians is, in a sense, the other bookend, but keep in mind that Paul uses strong words and says that what the Judaizers are bringing in is a different gospel - outside the bounds of Christianity. In fact, Paul accuses Peter, who had simply started pulling away from the uncircumcised Gentiles, of forsaking the gospel.

But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? (Gal. 2:14)

So, the Corinthian church is a church that is so invested in "Grace" that they are willing to forsake truth, and the Galatian church is a church so invested in "Truth" that they are willing to forsake grace. However, keep in mind that both Grace and Truth in the sense of these churches are a false caricature, as the reality should not be in opposition. Just like the Pharisees and Sadducees,  the church continues to gravitate towards one of these two positions, but unlike them, Paul condemns the Galatian church of straying from the gospel.

Post RP learning 2: The tollbooth and the path. Recently, I heard a good perspective on grace and truth that got me thinking about how legalism kills the gospel. We as Christians are to follow the narrow path, okay, but the narrow path is protected by a tollbooth, and the fare is too expensive for us to pay. So, first, we need grace because we are not even worthy to walk the narrow path (Total Depravity), but then, we need to be yoked to Jesus because he is the only one who can lead us along the narrow path.

The problem with legalism is that we are too focused on the tollbooth. Once the debt is paid, yes, we can be thankful that it is paid, but the tendency of legalism is to try and prove that we were worth saving because we're better than the unsaved. I think RP sermons/worm theology could come from a good desire to be thankful, but I think while RPs wallow in their worminess, Jesus is holding the yoke and saying, "Come join me on what's next". RPCNA doctrine is so focused on the tollbooth that once we're saved, there's nothing left to talk about, maybe other than RP distinctives and being better than all the other churches.

**EDIT**

To add to this, there is not a lot of discipleship in the RP church. Once a soul is won, it's pretty much, come listen to sermons and come to conferences. Under one pastor, I did attend a men's "discipleship" class, but in true legalistic fashion, each week was: First, point to all our inadequacies in some area of discipleship, let's say reading the Bible; Second, present a relatively unattainable standard for what our proper level of commitment to that area should be; and Third, challenge us to meet the unattainable standard going forward. So, after the series is complete, we're supposed to be spending an hour a day reading the Bible, an hour a day praying, an hour a day meditating, one day a week fasting, and probably an hour a day discipling others to do the same. Maybe these books are appealing to pastors because it seems like a bare minimum to them, not the excruciating burden it seems for others. 

There is definitely a need for a regular rhythm of practicing these disciplines, but I think the focus on "hours spent" is more checking some sort of box rather than how do I develop my relationship with God through daily devotions.

Post RP learning 3: The RP church is the Galatian church. RP pastors like to focus on the "issue" at Galatia being a rejection of the new covenant for the old, and that is the case for that church, but I don't think the point of that letter being in scripture is merely about people wanting to be circumcised and follow the OT law. Here are some hints to the broader purpose:

Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba! Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. (Gal 4:6-7)

They eagerly seek you, not in a commendable way, but they want to shut you out so that you will seek them. (Gal 4:17)

[and for reference] So a young man ran and informed Moses, and said, “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.” Then Joshua the son of Nun, the personal servant of Moses from his youth, responded and said, “My lord Moses, restrain them!” But Moses said to him, “Are you jealous for my sake? If only all the Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put His Spirit upon them!” (Num 11:27-29)

The Galatians passage and the Numbers passage are the same pattern. God enables freedom through the Holy Spirit and those who want to maintain control and honor try to squelch the freedom and thus the work of the Spirit. We see both sides. Moses recognizes the pride/control issue immediately and, I believe prophetically, looks forward to the new covenant promise of the Holy Spirit being poured out. In Galatians, the Spirit has been poured out and the Judaizers are trying to re-establish control by squelching the work of the Spirit.

Sorry to say, but that is exactly what is happening in the RP church. Instead of following Moses's are you jealous for my sake? the elders and pastors want to shut members out of the freedom of the new covenant so that they will be sought. The shutting out and the seeking are both woven into the fabric of the RPCNA. The further away I get from the cognitive dissonance fog in the RPCNA, the more clearly I see that there is little to no hope of reform.

I've talked about this earlier, but it is still applicable:

But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut the kingdom of heaven in front of people; for you do not enter it yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. (Matt 23:13)

Post-commentary: 

As a former lifelong RP, I've worked through the grief of walking away from the relationships, the fun conferences and especially the beauty of singing God's word a capella. I appreciate that it is an insurmountable barrier for acquaintances and friends who have knowingly chosen a life of being shut out over the heartbreak of walking away.

I also recognize that not every pastor and elder in the RPCNA is a neo-Judaizer, but those who aren't, in my opinion, are the voices in the desert. Maybe not even voices in the desert because they are well aware of the RP idols and have chosen to gently push people away from the idols rather than attempt to chop them down or speak against them. Far more have so intertwined being RP with a quest for power and admiration that the gospel has become slavery to an institution, not freedom in Christ. My reading of the tea leaves - who is training the next generation of pastors, what issues come to Synod and what is the outcome, who are the powerful voices in the courts - is that the RPCNA is on the wrong trajectory. That said, as time goes on, I'm less connected and less interested in what the RPCNA is doing, so unless I get a comment or an e-mail or have a conversation that gets me interested in something, I don't obsess about what is happening in RP-land.

Probably the best litmus test for neo-Judaizer vs. voice in the desert is whether this verse needs an extra comma at the [?].

for the equipping of the saints[?] for the work of ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ (Eph 4:12)

The neo-Judaizers have so claimed the seeking for themselves and the shutting out for the laity, that only professionals can minister, while the laity observe, a rejection of the priesthood of all believers.

Aimee Byrd gives up on reform within the OPC

Aimee says it better than I could:

 https://aimeebyrd.com/2021/10/22/leaving-the-opc/

I reached out to Aimee when the actions of OPC ministers and the Geneva Commons came to light. My encouragement was simply that she listen to what God had to say and not dwell on what conclusions others would draw from her choices. Some would counsel her to say and some to leave, and, of course, whatever path she chose would generate the same sort of support or antagonism.

It seems like she has wisely chosen an approach, and she has recognized the treatment of the higher courts (not her local church or session) as spiritually abusive. I believe her tenacity and candor have exposed the OPC courts for what they are - as I said, not a bunch of country bumpkins trying to do the right thing with limited understanding, but people who will abuse others in the name of their theological sacred cows. It's troubling that the sacred cow of many in the OPC is patriarchy. It mirrors the case of Dr. Hemphill as well, where justice and due process were jettisoned in the name of preserving the patriarchal system.

I pray that she gets the time and space to heal.

I've appreciate her writings and her perspective. I was thankful for the brief time she used her platform to call out the patriarchal and authoritarian abuse prevalent in the OPC. I find it disturbing that her position is well within the bounds of OPC doctrine, yet the higher courts did nothing those who persecuted her for not being narrowly complementarian and patriarchal like they were. These men and women of Geneva Commons openly ridiculed her. They were allowed to openly call her a wolf (insubordination), despite the fact that she was a member in good standing of the OPC.

Narcissistic Pastoring Part 2 - the making of a slave

Background:

I read it in a comment and I experienced it myself. Dana was a happy, cheerful and devoted RP. Now she has been arrested and charged with Child Endangerment. Her husband Paul has additionally been charged with first-degree rape.

The story that the preliminary charges tell: Paul raped a child and Dana stood by and did nothing to stop it. https://www.examiner.org/belle-center-couple-charged-in-alleged-child-sex-abuse-case/

How do two lifelong [I believe] RPs wind up in such a horrible situation? I believe it falls squarely on the shoulders of narcissistic pastoring and Complementarianism. For Paul, the message was one of entitlement and lack of responsibility, and for Dana, it was sacrifice and culpability.

Let's first talk about male entitlement within comp. theology. Males are in a hierarchical relationship above women. Generally, all males and all females, but more specifically, husbands and wives. The "superior" in a hierarchy is assumed to be superior in all ways (morally, intellectually, spiritually) unless proven otherwise, and the inferior is assumed to be inferior unless proven otherwise. Likewise, the "needs" of the superior trump the "needs" of the inferior.

We can read this in complementarian books all the time. The man's need for respect trumps any desire the woman might have for any of her needs. The man's need for sex trumps any rights the woman has to say no, to heal, to have her own desires. And, when men's needs are not satisfied, the woman is blamed for what results - abuse, neglect, adultery, even incest!

In pure complementarian theology, the last time the woman has a real right to say no is at the altar, and even then there is intense pressure to say yes (because he is superior unless proven otherwise!)

Pursuit:

Pursuit is a common theme in abusive marriages. Women talk about being swept off their feet. No extravagance was spared while dating. He was always there to meet every need, answer every call. The man worships the ground she walks on.

Paul moved to Belle Center, I believe, for the sole purpose of pursuing Dana. It took a long time - at first it was "absolutely not" (I've heard this before, as well), but over time, and with presumably superior pastoral insight from Pastor Phil Pockras, she eventually said "yes".

Even the marriage was a red flag. Apparently, he couldn't wait a couple of months for the wedding they were planning, so they got a few witnesses and Pastor Phil Pockras married them on the spot. I'm not even sure if parents were able to make it.

Pastor-sanctioned abuse:

It would be one thing if Paul whisked Dana away from any oversight (this happens sometimes in Muslim/American marriages where the wife is taken to Saudi Arabia and trapped in their Sharia law). But no! Paul buys a house directly across the street from Pastor Phil Pockras. Paul, a hard-working builder and architect left their house in shambles while he went off to fix other peoples' houses.

It shocked me that they never moved away from Belle Center. He had an architecture job that presumably paid a living wage, but it was far away, so he gave it up (instead of moving away from Pastor Phil Pockras) and chose hourly/day labor jobs that barely paid the bills. According to comments, Dana had to work as well to make ends meet.

Again, my belief is that the constant comp. preaching and demeaning of women/wives that happened at Belle Center trapped Dana in a financially, spiritually and emotionally abusive marriage. Second-hand, I heard that she described abusive things, and when she was asked whether it was okay to be treated that way, well, she probably deserved it. That's the message coming from the pulpit.

Entitled rape:

This is entirely speculation, but it is not unprecedented. In Sovereign Grace Ministries, there's "Taylor's story" where her husband is raping their 10-year-old daughter. The husband is offered grace, while the wife and daughter are blamed for their "part" in the situation. The wife is told not to report the rape to the police, to be available (male entitlement) for her husband and lock their daughter's bedroom.

In the SGM situation, the comp. culture of the church, the leaders and all their friends led her to believe she was doing the best thing by staying silent and respecting her husband's needs.

And, this is the persistent story in complementarianism. The male needs sex. If he is not satisfied, it is primarily the fault of his wife. She needs to lose weight, go to the gym, get some work done, or generally do whatever she can to be attractive enough to satisfy him.

Given that they lived across the street from the pastor, I'm sure she has been the target of shaming because of her "role" in all this.

What's next?

I pray that in their situation, she wakes up. If Pastor Phil Pockras has been supporting this sham of a marriage for 15+ years and probably blaming her for not being submissive and available enough, she needs to divorce him, take the kids and find a better life. There is nothing but shame left in the RPCNA for her.

She did not bring this upon herself. She was repeatedly victimized and abused by those who should have most modeled the freedom and love of Jesus, but instead, she was trapped and abused.

Like SGM and Piper, Pockras will dissociate himself from any wrongdoing as a result of his cultic and toxic teachings and will continue to play the sympathy card.

Yet - it's a catch-22 for him if someone looks carefully enough - If he couldn't provide pastoral oversight to the family living across the street, he's incompetent. If he provided that pastoral oversight, then why is the husband charged with rape and the wife with child endangerment, and the house in shambles? I believe the most accurate picture of Phil Pockras's pastoral legacy is the view across the street.

Narcissistic pastoring in the RP church - part 1

 

This is a situation that has me so angry. I'm going to start with the most innocuous bit of the whole saga that shows how callous, uncaring and evil this RP pastor is and then start walking though what led to this situation.

Background: RP Pastor Phil Pockras is the pastor of Belle Center OH, RPC (the fact this is in Great Lakes - Gulf Presbytery should come as no shock as the level of narcissism is befitting only those who remain in that presbytery).

Two long-term members of Belle Center were arrested recently, according to https://www.facebook.com/LoganSheriffOhio/posts/4447913998599956

Paul Soma, for 2 Counts Gross Sexual Imposition and his wife, Dana Soma, for Endangering Children

I will talk about the charges in a later post, but look at the response. Their pastor, for decades, Phil Pockras is "feeling heartbroken". Not for any victims, not for the faithful RP wife who obeyed her abusive and allegedly sex predator husband to the point of fleeing from the police with him, but for himself and for his church.

For his church - "Major distress in our church", but note that he is ready to accept pity for himself. Major red flags here. In this situation, you have sexual assault victims, a member of the church accused of sexual violence and another accused of child endangerment and his sadness is primarily for the affect on his church. (And since the pastor is the spiritual equivalent of the church, against, this is all about him.

I'm also fascinated what is behind this response, but I think there will be much more to work through on this one in later part(s).

I don't want to leave you too much in the dark about where I'm going with this. I want to point out that there is a lot of history of Evangelical/Reformed churches creating a safe space for abusive men and how their wives are not only victimized, but gaslighted and spiritually coerced into aiding and abetting criminals.

For example, Katie Sitler, wife of convicted pedophile Stephen Sitler and member of Doug Wilson's church in Moscow ID, was first encouraged to marry him knowing that he was a convicted pedophile, presumably to cure him. After they had children of their own, she allowed him to molest the children, despite being appointed as a court observer [seriously??] to prevent him from doing just that.

One of the reports that came out of Sovereign Grace Ministries was a wife whose husband was molesting their teenage daughter. She was discouraged from going to the police (the elders also failed in their duty as mandatory reporters to report him), and instead they recommended she make herself more sexually available to him and lock the daughter's bedroom door at night. When she was finally fed up enough to be part of a lawsuit against SGM, the statute of limitations had run out.

What I think is heartbreaking is when women and children are gaslighted into a crazy system where they have to choose between their religion (i.e. patriarchal authority and blind submission to whatever the authority says, even if it's wrong) or their morality (I'm sure these women know in their heart that what they are doing is wrong, but every authoritative voice in their life says otherwise).

As the comment suggests, Phil Pockras is not some innocent observer to criminal behavior. He, the GLG Presbytery, and to a lesser extent, the RPCNA, have created an environment where abusers flourish and are protected from scrutiny. Abuse-suffering children are not believed (I can attest to this!). Abuse-suffering wives are not believed, or even if they are believed, they are told that God wants them to suffer for his sake. Both wives and children are taught that God cares more about the "institutions" of marriage and family (meaning patriarchal authority), than he does about the people in those relationships. (It's a bait-and-switch, but that is where they double down)

Edit: It seems pretty obvious what gender matters in Belle Center, evidence for the comment above:

To be clear, many women commented that they were praying for him, too, but I guess they don't count.

Also, I found the charges. The date of the offense is listed as 1/1/2012 for both Paul and Dana. There are no other details, but this is very concerning, given that nine years have passed between the time of the offense and the time that arrests were made.

Twisted Total Depravity, Original Sin and the PCA ruling

As I tried to understand why this PCA ruling bothered me so much, the thing that came back to me over and over again was the concept of original sin. We inherit a sin nature that prevents us from being able to bridge the gap between us and God in our own strength. That sin nature is not a permanent part of our identity, but it remains with us throughout our earthly lives. How God deals with the sin nature varies by each person. As we see with Paul, our "body of death" becomes a consistent struggle during our lives once we are saved.

As I said, on the surface, it seems that the PCA ruling is simply being deliberate and precise when it comes to dealing with our depraved sin nature. They can say that referring to our "body of death" as our identity is theologically incorrect. I get that and I can see where they're coming from. The ruling, however, goes beyond that.

I don't see this precision in the Bible. How can Paul say, "It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost." (1 Tim 1:15) We Reformed people cheer Paul's honesty and humility here, but what Paul is doing is stating an identity. A few verses before, he says what he was - blasphemer, persecutor and violent aggressor.

I think the basis of the concern is normalizing specific identities. This is concerning because the church has compartmentalized effects of sin that are okay and those that are not. Talking about original sin.

Statements one could make about results of original sin:

I'm blind. PCA would probably accept this statement, even though the blindness is part of the original sin, and presumably the bodies we receive when glorified are not blind.

I have Down Syndrome. Again, okay because it is part of original sin, and a characteristic that has physical basis.

I have ADHD. Okay, we're now starting to get into the gray area as far as Reformed beliefs go. There is pretty good evidence that ADHD is innate, but because it is now a struggle of self-control, which is a spiritual fruit, there might be concern.

I am attracted to ... (non-normal attraction). Again, this could be a result of original sin, but if ADHD is gray, we've now crossed the line. Even though self-control is a spiritual fruit, and thus, lacking self-control would be fairly categorized as sinful, this must clearly be wrong.

The difficulty I have is that all of these are fixed in the resurrection, or through some other miraculous means. They can be managed, they can be accommodated, but we don't have the expectation, in this life, that God is going to remove these burdens from us.

My conclusion, then, is that ADHD and SSA can be innate characteristics, just like blindness or genetic diseases, that are a result of original sin, but the PCA wants to refuse that. They want to deny that innate characteristics can lead us to sin, which is a denial of Total Depravity. Total Depravity says that we are born predisposed to sin. Calling out our sinful predisposition is not a "sin identity", but recognizing our depraved condition under the Fall.

Conversely, when the PCA claims that ordained leadership cannot have a sin identity, they are asking leaders and those who aspire to be leaders to cover up their depravity. They will even refuse to recognize the implications of this. Modesty is moot because no true Christian would have a fleshly struggle with women's bodies (despite the fact that the church calls this a universal male struggle). Sigh.

PCA General Assembly rules: Ordained leadership cannot struggle with temptation

In a ruling befitting the Judaizers in Galatians, the PCA ruled the following (wording thanks to https://twitter.com/PCAByFaith/status/1410594510912901123)

16-4 Officers in the Presbyterian Church in America must be above reproach in their walk and Christlike in their character. Those who profess an identity (such as, but not limited to, 'gay Christian,' 'same sex attracted Christian,' 'homosexual Christian,' or like terms) that undermines or contradicts their identity as new creations in Christ, either by denying the sinfulness of fallen desires (such as, but not limited to, same sex attraction), or by denying the reality and hope of progressive sanctification, or by failing to pursue Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions are not qualified for ordained office.

First of all, I'd like to put this up against scripture. Paul says, in Romans 7:

For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.

We don't know the nature of this sin struggle that Paul is talking about, but we understand that being a Christian, and even being a Pastor/Apostle does not remove temptations. Here we see that some temptations are a result of "our own flesh" versus the sorts of temptations Jesus struggled with that were not due to the coexistence of a sin nature.

So, this is the sort of ruling where the conclusion(?) might resonate with many of the leaders, but the reasoning is essentially denying gospel principles. Are PCA leaders limited to those who have, through God's grace, overcome all of their fleshly temptations? Is it, instead, just a name game where it's okay to struggle with besetting sins, but not okay to "identify" with those besetting sins.

That's honestly what it sounds like, but it is wrapped in anti-gay language. So, play this out. A man wants to become a PCA pastor having had a lifelong struggle with alcoholism. He recognizes that his battle with his flesh means that he needs to abstain from alcohol for the rest of his life, lest he give into the temptation. So, I guess he can say that he struggles with alcohol, or maybe that he is tempted by alcohol, but if he says "I'm an alcoholic" BAM! It's over, no ordination for him! Is that what this is all about - maybe on the surface, but I think it's worse than that.

Let's look at the second aspect. What has the PCA's action been with regard to fleshly struggles?

Tullian Tchividjian was deposed by the PCA for his extramarital affair. At that time, I believe, multiple women had come forward and described his pursuit of them in what can best be described as clergy sex abuse. Yet... the PCA essentially created a restoration team, including Paul Tripp, designed to restore him to ordained leadership. He was approved for a non-ordained leadership position at a nearby PCA church, and his team went on the offensive to recharacterize his sins as relatively minor and forgiven compared to the sins of those around him.

So, in essence, Tchividjian was a clergy sex abuser, but he didn't "identify" as a clergy sex abuser, so he can still be restored, but a pastor who "identifies" as same-sex attracted is disqualified?

There is a third aspect. Temptation is not sin. When studies show that >50% of pastors "struggle with porn", they're not talking about identity or temptation. This means that these pastors are viewing porn. On the other hand, when a pastor talks about same-sex attraction, but remains celibate, he is tempted, yet presumably without sin. The PCA turns this on its head. The porn-addicted pastor is qualified, but the same-sex attracted pastor is disqualified.

This is indicative of a dangerous theology. We, as Christians, become new creatures, yes, and we have the Spirit-given power to resist temptation, but we are not automatically freed from our fleshly tendencies. That is what Paul is saying. We are at war with our own remaining sinful desires, our body of death, as Paul says. The PCA is driving honesty and integrity underground, because denying our sin struggles is the opposite of accountability. Pastors will be afraid to be accountable, lest they find themselves unemployed. The PCA is also perpetuating the authoritarian myth that PASTORS are different than you and me. You see, WE may struggle with our sexual identity, and we may struggle with besetting sins, but the approved pastors do not. They are spiritually shielded from sinful tendencies, and if you dare accuse them, you probably won't last long because they are now in a battle for their lifelong calling and identity as God's anointed.

Jesus and John Wayne

 I got a copy of this book from the local library. I like that the author took the approach of primarily creating a historical document rather than editorializing about the ramifications of the Evangelical push towards Toxic Masculinity (she doesn't even use the term from what I recall).

My takeaways: 

• The church became enamored with the ruggedly individualistic picture of leadership, courage and strength portrayed by movie heroes, generally, and John Wayne, specifically.

• Throughout the 20th century, this image became purposefully used and associated with Christianity and specifically Christian manhood and leadership.

• In the positive sense, the image created this idea that the men of the church should see their primary goal to be the protection of the weak of society, specifically, families and women.

• In the negative sense, this led to putting men in a specific box (the John Wayne) box, including recharacterizing Jesus's life and actions on earth, and using this as a measure of their spiritual condition. So-called "weak" or "effeminate" men could never be church leaders. Patriarchy is portrayed as a godly and Biblical model.

• Also in the negative sense, this led to a toxic masculine leadership model. Our godly leaders must be obeyed, never questioned, and rule by iron fist is the model of righteous leadership, not evidence of domineering.

• Politically, the Evangelical church became coupled to the "hawkish" factions within government. Friends of the military and friends of those who want to use our military to enforce American values (all in the name of protecting the home front).

• Also, in the negative sense, the positive concept of protection of women and children did not come with a desire to be accountable for protecting women and children. Thus, the hero worship took over and leaders tend to be exonerated of their abuse of women and children, and women and children are expected to sacrifice whatever they might hold dear on the altar of the greater mission.

Overall, it's a good read, well researched and definitely helps understand how the church became politicized.

Shame culture and the RPCNA

I recently read a great article about how Southern honor/shame culture has infiltrated Christianity. https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/where-does-the-south-end-and-christianity - titled "Where Does the South End and Christianity Begin? Understanding the role of shame/honor culture in the roots of Christian rage."

The point is that Christianity should be about guilt - a natural feeling that comes about by doing something wrong. Shame on the other hand, is about being something wrong. I have said in the past that the RPCNA twists the doctrine of Total Depravity to trap members into participating in shame culture.

The article has a poignant quote:

In a guilt culture you know you are good or bad by what your conscience feels. In a shame culture you know you are good or bad by what your community says about you, by whether it honors or excludes you. In a guilt culture people sometimes feel they do bad things; in a shame culture social exclusion makes people feel they are bad. 

This is very applicable to the RP church because shame/honor is used as a rod to drive expected behaviors. I want to point out how some comments made on my blog demonstrate how shame culture is used to make in/out black/white divisions. If you're interested in digging deeper, I also want to point out the my regular commenter Chris specifically does NOT engage in the shame behavior, which is, I believe, why we are able to have collegial conversations.

Comment #1:

You sound like a bitter woman, Kathy.

Note that this is loaded with shame. The author, almost certainly a man, is flat out trying to discredit anything I say. First of all, the word bitter has been defined in Evangelicalism as a point of no return. That is, there is no need to treat me as a human because I'm beyond redemption. Secondly, why does the commenter want to point out that I'm a woman? I suspect that this person is steeped in patriarchy, such that woman itself is intended to put me in a lesser category (note to RP women...). Third, calling me Kathy (i.e. Kathy Stegall) is intended to put me in a category of people who have been marginalized and shamed in the RP church. Kathy was, at this point, still a member in good standing in the RP church, so this person is essentially calling me (assuming me to be Kathy) an unrepentant sinner. This person is insubordinate to the RP church.

The other thing of concern... in shame culture, there is typically an IN group - they determine what the community says. In the RP church, that group is typically elders and pastors. So, it's likely, being that this person feels comfortable shaming others on their own authority, that this person is a pastor or elder. This may be another reason why Chris does not choose to shame, or it may play some small part, because Chris is, in my opinion, one of those genuinely kind RP's.

Comment #2:

You rant and condemn the RP, but are not willing to identify yourself. You hide behind the cloak of just1sojourner.

Did I mention that these comments are all uninformed pot shots? Beyond a cursory glance at the site, it should be abundantly clear that I'm not Kathy and I'm not just1sojourner

Again, there's about 1% substance - yes, I choose to be anonymous - and about 99% turn anonymity into some sort of character reference. Keep in mind that we sometimes honor anonymity, for example Silence Dogood and Publius were names used in Colonial times. So, condemning someone for anonymity is an argumentative fallacy, by which they can ignore the substance of the argument by challenging something external to the argument.

Keep in mind that in a shame culture... in and out is determined by the community, so let's say I have friends and/or relatives still in the RP church. Guilt culture would recognize, despite disagreement with me, that my guilt does not fall on my RP connections, but shame culture would use shame to pressure those connections for maintaining their connection to me - someone out of the group. Remember that Jesus was shamed for being "a friend of sinners". That is not guilt culture, but shame culture.

Comment #3:

Kathryn Stegall, the EPC would be a good fit for you. I am sure Mr. Hemphill will put in a good word for you.

Again, this is a subtle shaming. Mr. Hemphill, Kathryn Stegall, and the EPC have apparently been determined to be "out" of the RP circle of true believers, therefore, my being or being associated here is a point of shame.

This brings up an interesting point for you remaining RPs. What does the RPCNA teach about churches that are "in" and "out"? It's really unclear. The NAPARC churches appear to be "in" because there are fraternal relations, but on the other hand, they are "out" because they don't hold to the RP doctrine of exclusive psalmody. At best, they are Christians with an asterisk(*).

There is no reason to actually take time to consider. Here's an example. I've called out specific errors in the Westminster Confession of Faith - primarily that it ignores domineering and abuse by "superiors" - which enables the authoritarian culture we see in WCF churches. The EPC holds to the WCF, which is a significant reason why I would not be interested in the EPC.

The RP church is steeped in shame culture. Your position in the church is based on the community opinion, which is, effectively, the opinion of pastors and elders. In my case, I held a position (women deacons) which was church doctrine, yet my pastor and elders opposed women deacons and used public shaming of me to, I suppose, prevent me from influencing those around me.

Christians should refuse to participate in shame culture. Another good quote in the article about shame culture:

Ancient (and modern) Middle Eastern culture that is the Biblical context, is thoroughly shame-based. But traditional Western (as in European) readings of Scripture are more guilt-based, and have tended to … impose their guilt-based worldview on Scripture. This is why the penal substitution metaphor for the Cross (we’re guilty and deserving of punishment, Jesus takes on our guilt) has so dominated Western theology. Much of the movement of theologians of color, especially from Asian-Americans, has been to recover that original shame-based context and message. So, the Gospel is not just “We’re guilty; Jesus removes our guilt” but “We feel shame—and we have no way to deal with it effectively—but Jesus absorbs our shame.”

If Jesus absorbs our shame, then there is no place for shaming of Christians in the church. We accept each other, as Paul did, as brothers and sisters. We're all "in", unless we act in ways that lead those around us to believe that we are "out", which becomes a matter of church discipline. 

What is JOY and how does the RPCNA destroy it?

I've mentioned before how I believe Reformed/Evangelical legalists equivocate between happiness and joy in a way that destroys people's motivation and self-esteem. I'll briefly revisit that, and then propose a definition of joy that is distinct from happiness and helps put this teaching in perspective.

The sermons on joy seem to go in a definitional circle. First, joy is promoted as an essential of the Christian life [i.e. a legalistic requirement]. If you do not have joy, you cannot be a Christian, because the life of the Christian is a life of joy. Then, joy is juxtaposed with happiness [equivocation part 1] - that is, the non-Christians seek "happiness" [a fleeting emotion], not "joy" [which at this point is some ethereal, non-fleeting emotion and will never be defined] and that is ultimately a worthless endeavor. Examples of joy are given. People are described in terms indistinguishable from happiness. Paul sang in prison, martyrs sang while being burned, people work demeaning jobs with a smile on their faces. Examples are paraded of people who were not brought down by horrible circumstances  The unstated definition of "joy" throughout is "spiritual, deep, non-fleeting happiness". This is then brought full circle by the reiteration that we Christians should experience joy in all circumstances, which as far as we can understand from the sermon equates to, "Christians need to "look and feel happy", no matter the circumstances." Sometimes there is even the claim that God provides harsh circumstances for the Christian to put us face to face with our lack of joy.

The conclusions are that: (1) joy is deep, emotional happiness, exemplified by a happy demeanor. (2) The church has no responsibility to encourage or create joy in us because the way to create joy is to put us face-to-face with our lack of joy. (3) We should not try to avoid or change joyless circumstances, other than find a way to divorce our emotions from our worldly circumstances.

My definition: Joy is an emotional response of being a valued member of a larger group.

I like this definition because it shows how the Reformed church misses it completely.

1) Our joy in Christ. We Reformed Christians are supposed to find joy in our relationship with Christ and God; however, the Reformed church destroys our sense of value. Yes, we are adopted heirs, whatever, but when it comes to value, the church shoves Total Depravity in our faces. Worm Theology is ultimately one that removes our joy by making our relationship with God one that is valueless. Yes, in a sense, we are not worthy. That is true! BUT! In Jesus we are MADE WORTHY! We can claim worth and value through Christ. The church blurs and ignores that message to maintain abusive control.

We should have joy in Christ, because we are a valued part of God's redemptive plan. He loves us and wants to overflow our lives so that our joy can flow into others. While I do believe that God can remove our joy in something that is replacing our joy in him, I don't believe that is a primary method, especially in a church/family system where shame and legalism are present. Imagine the story of The Horse and His Boy, but instead of Shasta, newly discovered son of the king and heir to the throne, being treated like royalty, the king says, I need to treat you like a slave so that you can find your own joy within. NO! He was treated like a slave his entire life, why would the king treat his son like that?

I'm not a fan of John Piper, who I think follows the same approach, but read a Neocalvinist rebuttal of Piper:

Do true believers, who have turned toward God in repentance, and come to Christ in faith, and know the joy of sins forgiven, seek after happiness?  Of course not!  They have been redeemed by the precious blood of Christ, adopted into the family of God, and know God as their heavenly Father; their names are written in the Lamb’s book of life; they are risen with Christ, and they seek those things which are above, for ‘their life is hid with Christ in God’ (Colossians 3.1-4).  Believers are exhorted to ‘put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and holiness’ (Ephesians 4.24). The joy of serving the risen Christ is the greatest joy known to man this side of heaven.  True believers do not seek after worldly happiness, for they know the blessings of their heavenly Father.

There is not one hint of value here, only legalistic duty and, quite frankly, the juxtaposition of happiness and joy (Do true believers ... seek after happiness?) suggests that the mere thought of Christians desiring happiness is evil. (Another equivocation, mind you, now happiness and joy are opposites!)

2) Our joy in the Church. The visible church is an organization that seeks to provide a place of growth and service for the individual Christian. The church should demonstrate and represent Christ's love to the world, but also to the individuals. We should receive joy as part of the church to see how God builds up his saints and how our individual gifts contribute and matter to the greater good. It is fundamentally joy destructive for Christians to be treated as unnecessary or unimportant or sideline observers in the church, yet this is a tenet of the Neocalvinist church where the "ministers" do the ministry and the laity obey their leaders and praise them at every opportunity.

This is also why authoritarianism is so tempting in the visible church. People desire joy and see their leaders as being joyful because they are fulfilling their ministerial call, so they want to be leaders themselves. We have a lot of people becoming leaders simply because the church does not value non-leaders. Not only that, but when non-leaders complain about a lack of joy, they are told that their relationship with God should be their source of joy and they are unrighteous to seek joy within the church - an equivocation, and unspeakably evil.

3) Our joy in the family. Our family is our closest bond and common purpose. The church should be encouraging parents to raise their children with joy - meaning that the children are valued, their purposes are valued and that they are an important part of the family mission. Instead, the church teaches a system of emotional and physical abuse where the children are taught that they are worthless and don't matter. Parenting books talk about breaking the will, they talk about the child being constantly at odds with God, they talk about the need to downplay their accomplishments and punish every infraction. Children are taught "I'm third" - God first, others second, me third - a message dripping with worthlessness.

So, why are we surprised that every RP generation is a lost generation. When we are, at every turn, beaten away from a sense of hope and purpose, and it is replaced with reminders of our own worthlessness and inability, it's not surprising that there will be many that will seek hope and purpose outside the RPCNA.

Comment on seminary training

I received this comment and thought it would be best to devote some attention to it. 

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 think there is a flawed system in place here. I've had many debates on this subject and am more convinced that this is a core problem in the church today. The Apostles were trained in a mentorship/apprenticeship model by Jesus. There is good evidence that the next generation of pastors were trained in the same sort of model - walking alongside the Apostles. At some point, however, the church "discovered" that the apprenticeship model wasn't working(!!) Pastors were not being properly trained in basic Christian truths, and thus an educational model was necessary. This led to the seminary model where pastors were given a base level of knowledge necessary to pastor a church. Our church history has been filled with examples of trying to find that right balance between the book smarts and apprenticeship model.

To add some insight into this, there is a book by Peter Colin Campbell, called The Theory of the Ruling Elder, or the Position of the Lay Eldership in the Reformed Churches. This book is public domain and available online. This book completely floored me. Campbell had access to the minutes of the Westminster Assembly. This is his understanding of what happened in the Westminster Assembly:

While the Grand Committee declare unanimously in favour of the institution of lay rulers in the Church, they carefully exclude from their conclusion not merely the term presbyter, in reference to lay rulers, but even that of elder, as liable to be confounded with "presbyter," and refuse to quote I Tim. v. 17, in regard to the office. The conclusions of the Committee are recorded thus by Gillespie and Lightfoot: — 

1. That Christ hath instituted a government and governors ecclesiastical in the Church. 

2. That Christ hath furnished some in His Church with gifts for government, and with commission to execute the same when called thereunto. 

3. That it is agreeable to and warranted by the Word of God that some others besides the ministers of the word be church governors, to join with the ministers in the government of the Church. Rom. xii. 7, 8 ; i Cor. xii. 28.

Some members had expressed a wish to rest the institution simply "on a prudential ground" — that is, on expediency — and some were opposed to the citation even of the two above-mentioned texts, although none except Dr Temple and Lightfoot voted for their being omitted. But the attempt of Whittaker and Gillespie, renewed the following day, to procure the citation of i Tim. v. 17 as applicable to the office of lay ruler, met with no success; and the conclusions of the Committee were sent in to the Assembly in the form in which we have given them above, with the following addition : "That in the Church of the Jews there were elders of the people joined to the priests and Levites in the government of the Church." 

The conclusions, or, as they were styled, "votes," of the Committee were brought up for the consideration and approval of the Assembly on the 14th November 1644, preparatory to their being transmitted to the Houses of Parliament; when, as Lightfoot tells us, "there fell a debate about naming church governors, whether to call them 'ruling elders' or no; which held a very sad and long discussion: at last it was determined by vote thus, — such as in the Reformed Churches are commonly called 'elders.'" Gillespie made a last attempt to obtain the recognition of the theory, and, with obvious purpose, moved that the Assembly itself should call them "ruling elders;" " but this," Lightfoot tells us, "prevailed not."* The battle of the presbyter theory had been fought and lost. 

* It would have been well had the caution happily exercised by the Westminster Divines in the citation of Scripture in reference to church government been shown on other occasions. The craving for express Scripture warrant, in matters where common sense is a sufficient guide, was natural in the position of the Reformed Churches, but it led sometimes to an unjustifiable and even ludicrous straining of the Word of God. 

* There is a blank in Gillespie's Notes, extending from the 25th October to the 15th November 1644. 

The following is the chapter on the subject in the 'Form of Church Government ' as finally authorised by the Assembly: — "Other Church Governors. — As there were in the Jewish Church elders of the people joined with the priests and Levites in the government of the Church, so Christ, who hath instituted government and governors ecclesiastical in the Church, hath furnished some in His Church, besides the ministers of the word, with gifts for government, and with commission to execute the same when called thereunto, who are to join with the ministers in the government of the Church, which officers Reformed Churches commonly call 'elders'. 

Nothing can be more significant than this sound and well-guarded language. Equally guarded and significant is that of the Confession of Faith in its allusion to lay rulers. It knows nothing of them as presbyters or elders in the proper sense. 

The conclusion of Campbell's book as that Gillespie et. al. returned to Scotland and misrepresented the position of the Westminster Assembly, thus establishing the Ruling Elder as an ordained office and through it, "Classical Presbyterianism", when Westminster came to the exact opposite conclusion.

There are definite conclusions regarding ruling elders, but consider what the implications are for the Teaching Elder.

1. There is no warrant for "young" teaching elders. The name elder itself suggests age and wisdom, not youth and knowledge.
2. There is an expectation that the church should see the fruit of their parenting, not have pastors with infants.
3. There is an expectation of a life lived within a church and demonstrated faithful witness, not seminary training and a 25yo pastor.
4. The Biblical model has always been people chosen from the congregation by the congregation and not candidates approved by the leadership and forced on congregations.
5. The seminary model and cost/"benefit" of seminary training paid by the church lead to a push to train younger and younger pastors for a lifetime of ministry rather than, let's say, a 50yo man who has had a successful career and raised his children well.
6. The church has fallen into [what the church claims!] is the failed messianic model of education where morality and character can be imputed through book knowledge.
7. What does a 'plurality' of elders [pastors] mean when RP churches are often separated by hundreds of miles from the next-nearest RP church.

There is much more to say about this, but the more you think about the implications of what transpired in the quote, the more staggeringly we've fallen away from even Westminster.

To reference an earlier comment, as much as we may be upset with "Pastor McPedigree" - that model is so much closer to the Biblical model, and, I believe, we see much more faithfulness and pastoral qualities in the 2nd and 3rd-generation pastors who were raised under their father pastors and had essentially an apprenticeship. What we see in the young hotshot pastors is exactly what you've related. They cannot wait to wave over a congregation. They cannot wait for the adoration and obedience they see pastors command, and once they are in that position, the thought of pastoring -shepherding and walking with people - is the furthest from their mind.

The book, The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse also points to wisdom and Spirit-guided life experience as the hallmarks of the office of elder/pastor. These are things that cannot be trained in seminary.

The Reformed church likes to claim that study of the Bible in the original languages of Greek and Hebrew is necessary to be a pastor, but this seems to be mainly an Islamic or even old Catholic claim. The history of the church shows that there was an early effort to translate scriptures into the common languages of the day, and we still see that today. The Holy Spirit works beyond language, and thus claiming that a pastor must know Greek and Hebrew to be effective is more a slap in God's face than anything else.

Recovering from Spiritual Abuse - Part 4: Depression, Reflection, Loneliness

Hi all, welcome back after the Christmas break :) Today's topic is a hard one for sure, and is probably why it was so long in coming. I think it will be hard to separate externally-forced stage 4 grief from internally-forced stage 4 grief, but I will try. I think in handling personal grief, such as the loss of a loved one, there is a sadness once the loss is truly recognized. When leaving an abusive church, I'm sure there is that, too, but also, there is the sense of active abandonment. There is a distance with people like Chris who would not share the same fellowship with me now compared to the past, especially knowing my journey.

So, the external grief is very hard - there are people I saw week after week, invited over for dinner and was invited over regularly. There was a shared sense of purpose, of friendship, and even though we perhaps had similar views of the failings of the church, when I left, there was a rift. When I look back at the fun at conferences and church picnics and all of the fellowship common to RPs, it's hard not to feel left out and abandoned. When I left it was a very clear choice - I could stuff myself into the RP mold for me so that my family and I could have the RP experience, which was mostly good for the others in my family, or I could follow God without compromise and accept the consequences. There have been a lot of consequences - mainly bad from RP-land and mainly good from non-RP-land.

Internally is somewhat different, and I can't really say which stage I'm in - it seems to change from day to day. Much of the depression comes from being between a rock and a hard place with family and church. For both, there was fellowship and fun times and a sense of belonging, but at a cost of knowing and accepting my place. The places where I was supposed to be accepted offered that acceptance at a price too high to pay - shame and silence.

There is also a related self-shame spiral. I was as legalistic and hate-filled as any RP towards those who compromised truth for comfort. I thought of the people who left the church as weak and inferior, because I believed the RP church was the most pure. Even if I could try to right that, what would the response be? How do you apologize for something you never said or did, but felt in your heart? It seems the best I can do is promise to do better with my new-found freedom. But, even with freedom, there is conflict - what if following that freedom puts me in direct opposition to the born-and-raised RP position on exclusive psalmody and a capella singing?

Isolation has become a struggle because I don't feel like I can invite anyone into my processing of grief. On one hand, it would be good to have some help with the load I carry, on the other hand, if I show anyone the load, I doubt they would want to help carry. I think that is why online spiritual abuse groups have become a lifeline for so many, even if they cannot share things in person, they can still hear and commiserate.