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.
69 comments:
Another aspect of the damage done here by the authoritarian RPC system is that any type of real-world intervention, such as social workers, therapy, mental health care, is totally rejected. This means that a wife in this situation probably believes that she is sinning if she goes to outsiders for help. She is truly alone in this. Professionals would quickly recognize the problems, and so they are kept away.
Another thing I find interesting- our RP pastor was constantly talking people into helping with his home projects. I would imagine that Phil Pockras could have used some of his clout to get some work done on the catastrophe across the street if he had wanted to. But who cares if a woman has to live in an awful-looking, inadequate place with several kids.
As far as the teaching to women- I went on a couple of "women's retreats." The main speaker at one primarily shared about how her husband simply wouldn't take "no" for an answer and kept proposing until she said "yes." This was presented as funny and very Godly. One woman talked about how her husband "was calling" to her. It was sickening.
When I was involved, I heard such things as, "I just don't reverence my husband enough,(said by a pastor's wife about herself)" " No woman is going to do an end run around her husband with me,(a pastor)" and "women must submit to their husbands because the very gospel is at stake."
We were told that providing our flawed, family-infested hospitality to visiting elders was our duty, but we shouldn't feel bad about what we can provide, because they are family men too, and know it can't be perfect.
I didn't know the details about the hasty marriage, but it's not too surprising. Nothing can change what happened to Dana these many years, but I truly hope that she can get away from Paul and get real help for herself and her children.
He was an architect and builder and did excellent work. In retrospect, he could have easily had that house in good shape even on a tight budget.
I wasn't aware the depth of the lies told to women. I know that there is a huge bait and switch, though.
Message:
Our leadership is competent to counsel and ready and willing to help.
Actual message:
Our leadership is overwhelmed with the burden of leading, and we don't have the time nor energy to spend counseling whatever issue you have.
Reality:
We didn't become leaders to do the work of leadership. We became leaders because we wanted to feel and look important.
This is a broad brush and not applicable to all RP leaders, but I think it represents a significant portion.
I, too, hope that Dana is able to find healing, but I fear that she is very stuck where she is, physically, emotionally and spiritually. I wouldn't even know where to begin if I were to try to help.
My wife and I read "The Great Sex Rescue" over the summer. It unapologetically calls out a lot of the concerns you bring up regarding complementarian evangelicals' teachings on sex (and, to a lesser extent, the narrow-lensed view of authority that underlies them), WITHOUT then dismissing the gospel, the Bible, and God Himself as if they were the root of the problem. It was a balanced approach that I greatly appreciated.
I think Sheila Gregoire has really brought the abusive mindset out into the open, and it's so refreshing to see it being discussed. It's just sad that so many have fallen victim to it. And that it continues to be perpetuated in church communities.
It's a really really good book and her blog/podcast have also raised significant issues afterwards. I appreciate that they did the due diligence to research, and even had a chapter lined up that they had to remove because the statistical results did not demonstrate their hypothesis.
I appreciate that someone who is solidly a believer in Biblical inerrancy can say, "This is not what the Bible is teaching. This is the creation of a few men that has been passed down as gospel, and it's harming Christian marriages."
These are two good articles she wrote on how Evangelical teaching towards men and women can break down communication. For women: https://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2021/08/3-reasons-christian-women-feel-communicating-directly-with-husbands-is-unsubmissive/ For men: https://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2021/08/christian-men-difficulty-direct-communication-marriage/
The teaching on sacrifice and selfishness nearly destroyed my marriage, and it was completely me because as soon as I communicated how much the sacrifice was hurting me, we acknowledged it and found ways to make it better.
Very helpful articles. I don't think I've actually read anything from the Love, Honor, and Vacuum blog before, but they're both pretty spot-on. Sparked a good discussion between my wife and me about how we communicate.
On a related point, while we were reading The Great Sex Rescue, I discovered that my wife knew all about Sheila Gregoire and the blog, whereas I had never even heard of either. Clearly that says something about my wife's failure to submit her reading material to me for approval and, by extension, my failure to exercise true oversight in my home, as well (of course!) as my failure to be a true authority figure. Or true husband. Or true man.
Or something.
So often the church is a safe place for abusers, while victims are driven out, wrongs covered up and those who leave that church environment are slandered or treated as non-persons? Does the Bible really teach that Christians are supposed to give up their rights? If you speak out against someone who has sinned against you, does it mean that you’re just hardened and bitter? And is it really wrong to “take up offenses” for someone else? The short answer is, No.
Often Christians are left scratching their heads with Bible verses given out of context in the kind of preaching and teaching which is mostly centered around elder, pastor and session as gatekeepers to the congregations spiritual health. Session centric (rather than Christ centric) environments where one’s ability to know the truth is primarily dependent upon the authoritarian leader’s interpreting it for you.
As discussed on this episode of The Roys Report podcast, these are all examples of twisting the Scriptures to condition Christians to accept spiritual abuse, control and poor leadership.
Listen to podcast here>
https://julieroys.com/podcast/untwisting-scriptures-used-to-enable-abuse/
NAPARC (North American Presbyterian and reformed churches) churches and systems have a nasty habit of delusional thinking where they actually believe they are immune, where their systems make abuse “impossible”. That seems like a big concern! If ever there is going to be a place where abuse has potential to thrive, it will be where the leaders actually believe it can never happen there.
They (NAPARC) are tiny churches and denominations, but worth Roy’s report and Battered Sheep keeping an eye on. If anyone be in doubt check out this blog post, in particular note the comments section.
As of this post, many comments and facts that were posted here have been deleted by Reformed pastor Kim Riddlebarger. And note how he uses the common NAPARC dismissive tactic of blowing off legit concerns by slandering with the standard NAPARC..."oh, you are just angry, bitter or hardened, etc" Classic! This is par for the course in almost all of NAPARC.
These Reformed leaders frequently use stories like the Mark Driscoll / Mars Hill scandal to try to claim "this is why our Reformed system is so much better", which Riddlebarger was attempting here.
R. Scott Clark, DG Hart's blog to name but a few almost always do the same. Use these stories to claim their systerm is better and then block or delete comments who glaringly point out contrary points.
They don't have a leg to stand on, which is why they cut off all dissent with the dismissive...'your just angry and crazy, etc."
Pathetic!
https://www.kimriddlebarger.com/the-riddleblog/here-is-why-elders-matter
David Murray had a blog post that Christians should be boldly and publicly calling out abusive leadership in the church. I quoted Joel Beeke's teaching at the RP Conference that fathers should starve their children if they do not participate in family worship. My comment was deleted and he closed all comments. Apparently what he meant was calling out abusive teaching far away from home (e.g. Driscoll and other outsiders that we can lampoon) but calling out people close to him was not what he was envisioning.
The PCA produced Tullian Tchividjian. I think Tullian is not far off of Driscoll.
I think telling your own truth is never gossip. And gossip is wrong whether it's good or bad. We should never tell someone else's story without their permission.
I think it's so hypocritical about rights. We Christians are supposed to give up our rights, but who is marching about "pro-choice" mask rights? It's the Christians! We don't care about Black Lives, we don't care about the homeless and needy, but by golly! if we have to inconvenience ourselves to protect the lives of others it's too much to ask!
Hopefully tongue in cheek. We have had talks a few times because even good teaching can have legalistic and judgmental undertones. We mostly agree on raising children, but where we have disagreed, sometimes the material my spouse read painted a very dark picture of those with my beliefs, and that pushed us away from each other.
We read different material and it's a great way to screen. We feed each other good books and complain about bad books so the other can avoid them.
In every NAPARC church I've ever been in, the pulpit was constantly used to point out what everyone else, including other NAPARC denominations, was getting wrong. It's like a main feature of attending those churches. The RPCNA is fixated on their "distinctives", the PCA loves to talk about their "polity" and they all tout their theology and "scholarship" and leaders as the only ones who have it right. They are an "in-group" that simply cannot tolerate challenge from those they consider inferior.
It's been phenomenally revealing. I though,naively, in the beginning that Christians would be all over the idea of protecting other people.
*thought
More of the self serving promoting their system.
Link here>
https://oldlife.org/2020/10/14/hope-for-fans-of-ravi-zacharias/
It is just standard operating procedure for NAPARC leaders to use stories like this to falsely declare it cannot happen in “our precious systems “. Delusional hubris, over realized ecclesiology and Protestant Sacerdotalism.
These arrogant men actually believe of themselves that…..
“THE PREACHING OF THE WORD OF GOD IS THE WORD OF GOD.“
They should just be honest about it and call themselves "oracles", if this is what they are promoting.
I doubt that is what they really meant. I presume the same men that wrote this would have argued that faith + works Catholicism was not the "WORD OF GOD", even if it was preached by a lawfully appointed Roman Catholic minister ordained in the Apostolic Succession.
In the same way, no RPCNA pastor would claim that an OPC or PCA sermon on hymns and instruments in worship should be taken as the "WORD OF GOD".
So, I wonder if what they meant is more akin to "the Holy Spirit deciphers truth from error in the preached word" - which makes the "lawfully called" moot. I think the Paul talks about it in Philippians 1 - the motivation of the speaker does not seem to matter, but probably also not the lawful appointment either.
The lawful appointment suggests the sacerdotal system. A wolf is a wolf whether lawfully appointed or not. We should stop saying that wolves preach the Word of God iff they are lawfully appointed. They just don't.
So, Wolf Pockras tolerates Wolf Soma in his flock because he knows on some level that the only difference between them is the official sanctioning of the governing body.
"The preaching of the word of God is the word of God."
What they really meant or mean or however they want to play semantical gymnastics at any given moment is a given in the Reformed world.
It is all part of the cognitive dissonance, gaslighting, hyper authoritarian sacerdotalism and more of the Reformed classic tactic of taking away with the left hand that which was just given with the right hand.
On the one hand Reformed leaders will claim that the statement in question does not mean that the preacher is on par with God, but on the other they will use it when it suits them to claim "now now listen to the voice of God which I have just spoken to you."
Its all about the (c)hurch, not even The Church, let alone Christ.
I call bullshit. (and I think that is what the Apostle Paul would have called it)
The context of DG Hart's blog post is of note: Another major Christian scandal (Ravi Zacharias) comes down the pike and the Reformed world beats the drums of why this cannot happen or is unlikely in our 'oh soooo much better system' of a plurality of elders, etc. etc. Using stories like this to attempt a PR campaign on why Reformed churches are the solve.
Also keep in mind Hart's blog site here is generally filled with Elders, other pastors, and generally pretty theologically savvy people as commenters/readers. At all costs will they hold on to their precious systems and positions of power within the institutional church. It is their idol, it is what in point of fact is higher and lifted up far above Christ.
It is all about the church and the offices therein.
That's a really good point. I tend to think that the original authors were not trying to create cognitive dissonance or play semantic gymnastics, but that is a very concerning thought.
I agree with the sentiment in part - that is that the Holy Spirit is not bound by human frailty in the preaching and sacraments. I definitely have a problem claiming that "lawfully called" is a barrier to the work of the Spirit.
If I were arguing against Ravi in this case, I would say that an essential part of "lawfully called" is an internal call of the Holy Spirit. If Ravi was demonstrably a wolf, there is no way that the Holy Spirit called him to ministry, and thus his calling is not lawful. But that conflicts with the rest of the statement that an "evil" person could preach the word.
So, it seems the entire statement should be thrown in the trash.
Wolf Pockras has no downside and only upside from tolerating Wolf Soma. While Soma is considered a brother, he furthers Pockras's agenda of authoritarianism and subjugating women. When Soma is uncloaked, Pockras throws up his hands and says "such is the way of wolves", and then asks for "prayers for our church" on Facebook and receives the warm glow of sympathy from fellow authoritarians.
None of his superiors will question how he failed to show proper oversight, how he was blind to an abuser in his midst or even send a commission to his church to understand if there are systemic issues in the church that need to be corrected.
Belle Center is not near Indianapolis, so there is zero interest in expending any effort to help or investigate or whatever.
I use to believe that the confessions and Bible translations were pure. This is a problem, as this view naively assumes humans are basically good. Ironically in denial of a Reformed doctrine of total depravity (which I believe), but upon deeper experience and reflection it is more clear that even those are somewhat tainted.
The confessions written by men with a bias toward their power positions inside the institutional church and Bible translations with the same bias toward institutional church powers and offices (elder, pastor,session) within it.
How else does one explain the gross and obvious mis translations (mis use and abuse) of Hebrews 13:17 in most of the bibles in our homes? To name just one translation issue. The original text had no where near the authoritarian power given to church leaders as the translations handed down to us over the centuries by Churchman translators.
I know for many this is an immediate tune out conversation ender. So don't hear what I am not saying. I am not saying the Bible isn't the word of God or not reliable. What I am saying is that the facts show that it has been in some parts mis translated over the centuries and further in almost every case of said mistranslations have occurred in areas granting way more authoritarian control to Churchman than the original text did. And that is very telling.
What should be so obvious about my point on mistranslation isn't an indictment on God's character, rather it is how sinful humans distort God's truths for their own purposes. This is Christianity 101, yet hardliners in the Reformed world because they are so tribal almost act as if (here again that cognitive dissonance) their tribe or leader of their tribe is infallible.
It shakes us to the core of what we really put our hope and trust in. Sadly for to many (all of us at times to be sure) their hope is in place, tribe and tradition more than it is is Christ.
It's very sad - Evangelicalism has become a brand rather than a commitment to understand what the Bible says. A couple of the books I read lately talked about "Evangelical" being a trademarking of the Christian morality in 1920's America. Then that get's baptized as "True" Christianity and here we are fighting against not a theological understanding and argumentation, but cultural assumptions.
And that is the characteristic of modern Evangelicalism. It's no longer trying to understand what Jesus modeled for us and representing the care of God for the "least of these" - the widows and orphans. Instead it's turning the Bible into Play-Doh and squeezing Jesus into a mold of rugged individualism, outright war against any who stand in the way, and male patriarchy/entitlement.
And, to add to Hebrews 13:17. When we talk about the tendency towards Domineering (literally "Lording it over"), it is intriguing that Jehovah/Yahweh translated "I AM THAT I AM" in Exodus, when God names himself, is subsequently translated LORD. It's such a blatant mistranslation, and it leads to this concept of God as a rigid master, which is not the intent at all!
I believe as you do. It seems that, for all their focus on the OT, they don't seem to grasp how the tribalism led to the Israelites straying from God over and over. The church does the same thing. The church does the same thing, and they are leading it astray.
There's also that verse about "continually studying, but never arriving at a knowledge of the truth," or similar words.
It doesn't even hold up to scrutiny either, because RZIM had a board of directors, and they covered for Ravi just like sessions do for pastors and elders and those they value. The nepotism is just as strong, if not stronger, in Reformed churches. They are simply describing the exact same situation using lofty, euphemistic language.
In regards to Belle Center, can we talk about why RP's have such crappy buildings? That congregation has been there long enough to not be meeting in a building that looks like an old dry-cleaner's. And the Indy churches- "Let's turn houses into church buildings! That doesn't look weird at all!"
Anonymous, this is a really fascinating question that I've dwelled on a lot. What is a Christian perspective on the Arts? Geneva and the RP church in general have a very utilitarian perspective. I would say that something can be beautiful if it costs nothing, but to pay money for something beautiful means that it is taken away from some higher purpose.
I don't believe that is how God sees beauty, but having grown up in the RPCNA and the "Scottish" heritage the idea of spending money on something just for the sake of beauty is hard to grasp.
That said, there is also the fact that RP churches in general are small and struggle from small budgets. They do tend to attract knowledge workers who are paid better, but they also attract patriarchs, meaning that there is a single income.
Belle Center was a large congregation at one point and had a reasonable building, but with the decline in size, they could not afford to maintain it and I can't remember whether it was mold or structure, but I think it had to be bulldozed.
Just to straighten up the record a bit: the translation of yhwh as "LORD" is not at all an invention by European translators in the last half millennium. It has been the standard practice since the days of the Septuagint (where it was translated using the Greek word for lord: kurios). Whatever its ill effects in promoting a theology of domineering may be -- and, admittedly, I think you're overblowing them -- it can hardly be said that this was a MOTIVE in the translation choice.
As to the Anonymous commenter's point about "continually studying, but never arriving at a knowledge of the truth," this is always worrisome when it occurs, and it seems to have been one of the reasons that Bruce Hemphill was convicted by the presbytery in his final discipline case. One of his key defenses at trial was: "Do I believe and accept this proposal, the paper and its conclusion? My answer is no, not yet and maybe never.... this proposal is a tentative proposal, a working hypothesis awaiting the church’s examination." Given that this seemed at odds with the way he actually formulated his written paper (and with the force of his lawyer's closing argument, which included the probably-unhelpful passage "Now that may sound like an argument for... that women should be elders. I’m not making that argument. Bruce certainly did not make that argument but what I am saying is... the changing times, there used to be a time when women didn’t do certain things... and times they are a-changing," and ALSO at odds with the tendencies that Dr. Hemphill had apparently long displayed to those who had been around for a while), presbytery didn't view him as an honest inquirer searching for truth. Whether they read him a good deal less charitably than he deserved is, of course, one of the points of contention in the dispute over whether the verdict was just. But I've never quite been able to agree with the view that most of the presbytery thought he was sincerely uncertain about the matter and then railroaded him out of the RPCNA simply for asking questions. (Much more could be said about that entire case, but I just want to limit my comments here to that one particular point.)
It figures that they would use that Biblical principal against someone, while being guilty of the same thing. The RP's aren't as scholastically focused as other NAPARC denoms, but they still value their "heady" ent-mooty synod gatherings as way above the capacity of the hoi polloi to understand. The reality is, that all of their posturing is incredibly boring and irrelevant, and reinforces the echo chamber they want to live in. That's how they end up with speakers at conferences who recommend not feeding your kids.
Speckled Sheep, straightening what record? Do you believe authoritarianism is an invention of the 20th century? What about the fight over which Archbishop was over the entire church? My point is that LORD is a cultural artifact of authoritarian culture.
I don't think I'm overblowing the authoritarian culture. What did Jesus say about authority? "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles domineer over them, and those in high position exercise authority over them." (Matt 20:25) So, in essence, the DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC of secular authority is domineering. For as highly as the RPCNA holds the Westminster documents, you know what they never mention... domineering, and that was nearly 500 years ago.
Regarding Bruce Hemphill, I don't find "honest inquiry" a requirement for papers presented to Presbytery. You're inventing a standard and then charging him with it. When Bill Chellis brought a paper seeking to define a strong liturgy, was he inquiring or pontificating? Yet, he was not disciplined or encouraged to leave. I don't believe Tim McCracken was forced to subscribe to the conclusions of the committee. So I believe that Dr. Hemphill is being held to a different standard, and I would argue that the standard he is held to suggests that the RPCNA holds patriarchy higher than psalmody or form of worship.
That said, you don't find it illegitimate that the commission appointed by presbytery to counsel Dr. Hemphill on his adherence to a provision in the Testimony specifically took exception to that provision in the Testimony? So, finally Synod was so adamant about punishing him that they overlooked a mistrial and multiple procedural errors to declare a verdict.
Regarding women, it all comes back to a view of God. The RPCNA god is cruel and capricious. A god who would bless women intellectually and spiritually with the same gifts as men, and yet tell them that opening and using those gifts is sinful. I believe in a Jesus, whose first act as the risen Lord was to call Mary to preach his words to the disciples. I believe that authoritarianism and patriarchy crept into the scriptures not through inspiration, but through uninspired men projecting their culture onto the Bible.
"probably-unhelpful" - this is the problem. Synod during dealing with the Cornerstones specifically said that they did not want to discourage people from bringing papers about controversial topics. At the same time they were dealing with Cornerstones, who were upfront and procedurally correct, they were dealing with the Vow 8 fiasco which was a few churches and a presbytery playing games with Synod. "We don't what to do" (when Synod said they had two choices - make them take the vows or remove them from office)
So, given Synod had specifically said that they wanted an open path towards reform even if the topic was controversial, why did Presbytery choose to go after someone for presenting a controversial paper?
It was the Presbytery, then, that chose the direction that Hemphill was forced to take - to lawyer up and protect his livelihood. To probably find some minor issues in the paper that he had changed opinion on, so that he could tell the truth and yet not leave himself open to the full brunt of RPCNA man-hurt.
"Speckled Sheep, straightening what record? Do you believe authoritarianism is an invention of the 20th century? What about the fight over which Archbishop was over the entire church? My point is that LORD is a cultural artifact of authoritarian culture."
(sigh)
I might have thought that you would have known me a little better than that. But perhaps not; on with the dialogue, then, to rectify the matter.
The answers to your questions run thusly: the provenance of the choice of "LORD" as the translation for "yhwh"; no; definitely happened and not a good thing in the annals of the church.
But your point about the translation of LORD for "yhwh" is badly made. Whatever the reasons for this translation choice in Greek Scripture (whether Septuagint or New Testament), the only evidence I can see for its being originally influenced primarily by authoritarianism is your own assertions that this is so.... which isn't really evidence at all, it's just argument. Even if a point could be made about the motivations of the Alexandrian elders in 200 B.C. (and their forebears, who had earlier switched to "adonai" in Hebrew as the spoken version of "yhwh"), I cannot believe that this point could be applied to Paul, Peter, John, et al. in their writing of the New Testament. Unless I am to also believe that the Holy Spirit approved of a word choice that was rooted in authoritarian domination and allowed it to pass directly into the Scripture that He was inspiring, which I guess is possible but seems to require a hermeneutic that includes "He used the authors as He found them and allowed their cultural biases to come into the text UNFILTERED even when those biases were harmful and/or sinful." And that's not a hermeneutic I'm comfortable with myself.
I get that you were burned very badly by, at the very least, authoritarian parents and church officers. And I sympathize, to the extent that someone who has only witnessed but never directly suffered such an experience CAN sympathize. But the correct response isn't to then see authoritarianism as ubiquitous and assign authoritarian motives where demonstrably none exist. (Note what I am NOT saying: I am NOT saying that the correct response is to assume away authoritarianism in all cases, pretending it either doesn't exist or only exists in some sort of acceptable-because-holy fashion.)
As for the Hemphill case, I will, as I did before, limit myself to the topic of whether the presbytery thought he was sincerely uncertain about the ordination of women. Maybe that's not an accusation that folks have launched at the presbytery -- or at least not one that YOU'VE launched at the presbytery -- but I feel like I've heard it. And my only purpose here is to say that I think it's clear that they did not think that his decades of study on the matter had left him in a place of uncertainty. They appear to have seen him as "continually studying, but never arriving at a knowledge of the truth," and they acted accordingly. I am not at all commenting on whether the presbytery OUGHT to have acted in this way; I am simply saying that they DID SO, and that assertions to the contrary seem to me to be unfounded. There are plenty of other fingers one could point at the RPCNA courts that are more based in fact.
As for the many questions surrounding the case, both the ones you asked and a number of other broader ones (should they have brought the case to trial in the manner they did? should they have convicted him once the trial came? should they have even had the trial? should the Synod have reversed the decision? was there any justice present in the case at all? and so on), they are worthy questions. The courts of the church and the men who comprise them are not -- manifestly not -- infallible. But those questions are beyond the scope of what I was and am trying to say here, so I will leave them unaddressed here.
In the above, in the 4th paragraph from the end, let me strike out the phrase "... which isn't really evidence at all, it's just argument." Just sort of pretend that was never there.
Speckled sheep, if you want to debate facts, let's debate facts, if you want to debate motivations, let's debate motivations. Ad hominem and poisoning the well are not welcome here, and especially trying to say my experience clouds my judgment. All our judgments are clouded by experiences.
I have said before that scripture is full of examples where God reveals the truth incrementally rather than all at once. God allows polygamy, divorce and slavery, but then says all should strive to be elders, and elders must be monogamous. It is erroneous to make the argument that God wants polygamy, divorce and slavery simply because it was sanctioned.
So, I would argue that whether or not the Septuigint translation of, e.g. Psalm 110, is based in authoritarianism does not preclude Jesus from using it to ask a question. In the same way that Jesus tells Peter point blank that sons do not pay the temple tax, but he tells Peter to pay it anyway.
And, let's touch on this. I think there is a powerful argument that the minority gets to be heard about racism. We white people can argue all day that racism isn't somehow systemic - that maybe we see an incident here or there - but perish the thought that racism is woven through many institutions. I'm not sure how you can claim that "demonstrably none exist".
So, maybe instead of thinking that someone who experienced abuse by authority has nothing important to say about authoritarianism. Maybe the opposite is true that you're simply blind to authoritarianism coming from a position of authority? I grew up being taught and thinking that racism and sexism were relics of the past, ended by the Civil Rights movement, only to look and find claim after substantiated claim that both are not only extant, but prevalent.
My point about the Hemphill trial was not whether he believed or not. I can only assume he believed, since he joined the EPC, which ordains women. My point is that Synod has, in the past, not made subscription a legal requirement. The Cornerstones were not put on trial for their beliefs. I believe Tim McCracken was not forced to make his beliefs about instruments and psalmody known to the court.
The Constitution is now behind a C&C wall, otherwise I'd find the exact wording of the oath, but I would say if he felt, in good conscience that his conduct and beliefs were in line with the oath, I think it is fundamentally unjust for the court to have required subscription beyond that. My understanding is that Alleghenies asked him point blank if he supported women elders and he said yes, but that is second or third-hand.
The thing that struck me, and I heard it first-hand, mind you, was the hatred I heard in the voice of the teller about the original trial, hatred directed towards Dr. Hemphill and those who were, I suppose, seen as friendly or blind to the danger this man brought to the church. Hatred tells the story of the case much more than "not -- infallible" men trying to to their best to seek justice. This wasn't a bunch of bumbling country boys trying to do the best they can. It was parliamentarians bringing their copies of Roberts Rules of Order and historians searching back in the Minutes for the best way to properly turn the thumbscrews.
I also had a first-hand account of what happened to Ron Stegall at his presbytery meeting. Again, lots of firebrands wanting to lynch him, but instead, calmer heads prevailed. They returned his paper. (Just like Alleghenies, except Alleghenies returned his the paper and then proceeded to press charges over the contents that they had refused to read... intriguing)
I still don't know what that has to do with your assertion that Hemphill is "continually studying, but never arriving at the truth" in response to the original comment. I think the original comment was rightly pointing out that the verse can be rightly applied to the RPCNA. For example, the RPCNA Testimony and Constitution have been edited multiple times, yes, but have any additional rejections or corrections of the WCF surfaced in the past, say, 50 years?
Another part of the story is that I'm now in a grace-filled Reformed church. It's a church where the leadership models resolving conflict through dialogue, not courts and papers. A church were people can have views that conflict with official positions and still not get shamed or shut down. A church where the pastor says during a sermon, this is what I believe and this is why I believe it, but I could be wrong. If you disagree, let's talk about it. There are still systemic issues, but when I look back at what got my panties in a bunch growing up... what comes to mind is seriously, dudes, grow up and start acting like adults!
I made the comment about "always studying", and .yes, I was using that to broadly describe the pharisees that run these churches. That they would use it to attack one another is a rich irony which proves my point, because while they are doing that (in the proper Roberts' way), people in their congregations are molesting kids. (reference to the last two blog posts here) I wonder which Jesus thinks is more important- protecting kids, or flying white papers around? And no one should defend them by saying that they can do both, because obviously they don't.
A Speckled Sheep,
I would ditto much what Battered Sheep says. I don't think the real narrative here is a over blowing the authoritarianism and Sacerdotalism in the RPCNA and NAPARC in general. Rather you seem to be downplaying, dismissing and sweeping it under the rug by a great deal of justification and soft peddling.
On translation: In a post at this site titled "Selling Authoritarianism to Ordinary People " there is solid outline and unpacking of Hebrews 13:17, it's blatant mistranslation from the original text over the centuries. One of many examples of systemic power abuse within the larger Reformed Presbyterian world and the RPCNA.
A Speckled Sheep,
What are your thoughts on the essential ethos that exists within the RPCNA which states to some degree or another.. " the entire orientation of a Christians life should revolve around the church"? Henenc forth making it all about sessions?
Can you see that this is an idol which practically replaces Christ as Lord?
Do you think it is even possible that an over realized echlesiology turns the church and its power structures into an idol?
*ecclesiology
*Hence
More self serving from the usual suspects beating the drum on why their tribe is oh so pure.
https://heidelblog.net/2021/10/presbyterial-problems/?unapproved=517659&moderation-hash=4256b4b47850595e70ab06a41b9451c5#comment-517659
Here it is.
https://heidelblog.net/2021/10/presbyterial-problems/
It is of note that the Presbycast which is linked at R. Scott Clark's site gives this advice to pastor's....
"Do you trust your Presbytery and your church? "If the answer is no, then get out."
If only that freedom were granted with blessing to those lay Christians in the flock. Instead what is par for the course among the hardliner authoritarian NAPARC leaders is revile, disown, shun or even send official letters of departure calling one's Salvation into question for no other reason than the member decided to leave a particular church, not the Christian faith mind you, just a (c)hurch.
Let's get real, the RPCNA and NAPARC in general are not tiny because they are the most pure, they are tiny because they are the most caustic, turned in on themselves and most repelling.
Battered Sheep: Regardless of my views of your judgment, the fact that I made comments about it without really knowing you personally is over the top and, worse, perhaps also slanderous on my part. Even more worse, I believe that by doing so, I have increased your pain, or re-inflamed a wound that is healing, or whatever similar analogy you think is most apt. And none of this is okay. I am sorry, and I apologize; I will not make such comments in future.
Last comment on Bruce Hemphill, just to try to clear away some of the mud that I've apparently put on what I'm trying to say: From inspection of the public record, it is quite reasonable to conclude that there was a variety of ways in which Dr. Hemphill was a victim of undue process and/or unjust decision-making and was, to repeat my earlier phrase, railroaded out of the RPCNA (and if you believe women are qualified to be ordained to the eldership, there's obviously a whole lot more that's wrong with the situation beyond mere process). I simply want to say that, based on the public record (or, perhaps better said, my reading of the public record), "the presbytery thought he really wasn't certain what he believed about the ordination of women and kicked him out anyway" can't credibly be advanced as one of the variety of examples of undue process and/or unjust decision-making. This is the ONLY, limited point I am trying to make. If no one here is advancing that as an example of undue process -- and it now seems likely to me that no one here actually is -- then I think this is a good thing...... and probably makes everything I've said on the matter irrelevant to this forum.
Anonymous: I have nothing at all to say about the translation of Hebrews 13.17, other than that I am not questioning the points you've made. I was making -- and am now making -- ONLY a very different point about the general usage of "LORD" as a translation for "yhwh" and the reasons why I don't think it's correct to say that authoritarian culture is a good explanation for why THAT particular usage occurs.
Fair - such is the trial of anonymous conversations :)
I do think you should seriously reconsider why you think abuse victims have a less accurate radar for abuse than someone who has, by their own admission, never suffered abuse.
I think this plays into a victim silencing and shaming mentality that I find repeated again and again in NAPARC.
Who do you think is more qualified to judge if a pitch is a curveball? Someone who once read a book about pitching, or someone who was a college baseball player? So, then, how is it that the church silences and disqualifies abuse victims as "hypersensitive", "deserving" or flat out "wrong".
Another thing. I didn't understand what I went through as abuse until that name came to me during a conference. I questioned whether what I went through was abuse, and read quite a bit about emotional and spiritual abuse to arrive at that conclusion.
Abuse is a pattern of mistreatment aimed at maintaining control.
Often, those who are being emotionally or spiritually abused are driven towards a belief that the treatment is deserved because abuse is intended to maintain a position of shame. Specifically, I've seen Total Depravity misused as a doctrine for the purpose of elevating the position of pastor/elder and lowering the position of congregant through the use of shaming tactics.
My impression is that many, even most (perhaps Speckled is in this category) acknowledge problem issues within the church but do not see it all as systemic problem. Kind of see those bad issues as one offs or isolated.
Whereas Battered Sheep, myself and many others see a pattern of power abuse aimed at maintaining control and the session centric ethos so deeply embedded in these churches that it is going to make that a hard place to be even where it might be a relatively decent particular church with decent leaders. But as soon as things get messy even in that particular decent church that is when things go haywire.
Many go decades in those churches without really needing to get elders involved in their lives on anything deep as far as serious problems go. But when things get serious you find out quick who their real God is. It is the institutional church.
When you are part of an ethos, tribe (denomination) which upholds in practice that one's life centers around the session, traditions, and faithfulness to the institutional identity rather than to Christ then whether admitted or not that is a very unhealthy, unsafe place to be. What you will most often find there is a counseling, all roads so to speak lead to protecting the church, its officers and its traditions.
This is in no way Biblical, but they continue to get away with it because most are either in the camp of the relatively unaffected who just do not see it as a big deal.
To any in that category, make no mistake this is not a site of ranting hypersensitive snowflakes.
Ask yourself this....
What is it really that my local tribe and denomination really actually lift up as the most important things? Is it second service where the emphasis is on the pastors lecture or is it communion weekly which tends to showcase Christ? Is it your relationship with Christ or is it your relationship with jumping through church hoops? Etc etc. If it is (c)hurch and not Christ (remember what you do speaks louder than lip service) are you really in the right place? Yeah, maybe you in particular have not been burned by the church, but if you are in one which upholds loyalty to tribe of Christ, on Christian principle, isn't it time to reconsider where you are at?
Also, are they really that isolated? I mean again let's get real, after 230 years in N. America the RPCNA has 6000 members and 70% of those are basically related to one another.
I get it, we don't want to be sell outs and mega church growth focused, but come on people! After that much time you gotta stop fooling yourself that you are that tiny because you are pure and the world is just out to get ya. No, guess what it's you (the RP as a denomination) not the world.
Not sure about your perception, but growing up, "problem issues" were people who got in the way of doctrinal purity. There was a list of RPCNA liberals, mostly 2nd/3rd generation leaders who didn't accept RPCNA exceptionalism and, as far as I was taught, wanted to destroy our distinctives so we could be absorbed into the OPC/PCA. I was told that the only reason the RPCNA existed was that God wanted to preserve Exclusive Psalmody.
In that sense, the church only failed when it did not make black and white, abundantly clear what the doctrine was, and that included strong discipline for those who challenged any of the hot button issues.
True. You are probably correct in that abuse issues specifically have not even been much on the radar of the RPCNA or most of NAPARC.
And when leaders in those system do get involved when abuse issues come up, because of their very skewed version of authority coupled with the awful thrust in “Biblical counseling” emphasizing that both parties are always equally wrong, it sure creates a horrible experience when one has to go through it with those “shepherds.”
I can certainly see that exclusive psalms is a pillar issue in the RPCNA. However, from my perspective (no doubt this will look different depending on where one was) and my time in the RPCNA, it is their doctrine of the church itself which is even a bigger hot button issue. Everything (even psalm exclusivity) is tied to it. Namely a too high a view of the church itself and by implication too high a view of the offices and processes within the church. If I had to name one root cause (not just symptoms or fruit) as to why I left the RPCNA it is their tenacious exaltation of over realized ecclesiology and Sacerdotalism.
So bad that it is to the point of idolatry and causes them to actually get the Gospel itself wrong very often. Not to mention a whole lotta pride, abuse, good old boy ethos, etc etc.
I did experience power abuse and cover ups, etc. Not of a sexual or physical nature, but without a doubt it was spiritual abuse. With much pain along the way I have been trying to put the pieces together which has led me to this. I certainly do not have all the answers. Gotta say, your blog has been a very blessing along the journey.
Thank you!
To echo what Anonymous has said, I too have found reading this blog to be a blessing. I think it has made me more a self-aware person and a more conscientious parent, and maybe other things as well.
I told myself I was never going to engage on this point, but oh well, here goes: I don't intend to leave my NAPARC church unless I am forcibly removed. Could happen. The name Speckled Sheep was not chosen at random. But there are still plenty of sensible people here, and if we all leave (I, of course, like to fancy myself a sensible person), then there really is no hope. There's a debate to be had, no doubt, about whether there is any hope even now, but I don't feel like stirring it up because I don't know what evidence I would find convincing to show me otherwise. I already have plenty of evidence that the church courts are capable of really serious errors (both doctrinal and interpersonal), that they can't even follow their own rules, that there are way too many ordained men who have way too high a view of their own standing because they are men and/or because they are ordained, that abuse can abide and flourish within the denomination's bounds -- and I also see substantial numbers of examples, not just a few scattered and occasional ones, where sensible people are pushing back (both in and out of the courts), where errors have been corrected and repented of, and where ordained men are truly humble, self-critical, wary of overburdening their sheep, and reaching out to shelter and protect the weak and the oppressed, and I think there's still hope. At least I can't say that I see the balance tipped irreversibly in one direction or the other. I am not suggesting that everyone needs to share this view (it is too impressionistic to really be objective), but I also don't think it's just wishful thinking.
But again, it's not a position that everyone can stand in, and for those of you who can't, I am hardly in a position to cast aspersions. PC does not, after all, stand for Perfect Church -- and insert Really Perfect Church for RPC, Only Perfect Church for OPC, Perfect Church in America for PCA, etc. To your own Master you will stand or fall, not to the diehard denominational blowhards. And if He has brought you out to a better church, then that's where you should be, and I am glad that He has brought you some measure of peace. I also feel some combination of disgusted, disappointed, distraught, and discouraged that you had to leave/were forcibly removed. Above all, I am also extremely grateful to God that you did not flee from Him -- indeed, it sounds like you fled TO Him -- when you fled from His under-shepherds.
And just to be clear and avoid accidental misunderstanding: when I say "I also feel some combination of disgusted, disappointed, distraught, and discouraged that you had to leave/were forcibly removed," I mean that I bear that disgust, disappointment, distress, and discouragement toward the church you had to leave, not toward you yourselves.
Speckled Sheep, I think each person is called to their own path. I briefly tried to push back and reform and I quickly realized I didn't have that calling. I appreciate those who have tried to push back and reform, but after having been out for awhile and having my eyes opened, I think all the presumptive doctrinal purity in the RPCNA is based on the Regulative Principle, and the Regulative Principle is not defensible from scripture, unless you have presupposed God to be harsh, narrow and distant.
If God is a good father, what good father gives disjoint and unclear direction on how some family tradition operates, and then punishes the children when they miss the hints? It would be one thing if the father even wrote those hints down, but in the case of the RP distinctives around worship, even the hints themselves get derived from extra-biblical speculation about things in the Bible.
I don't think that is a healthy view of God, and it's one that is the centerpiece of how the RPCNA operates.
Anonymous: "To any in that category, make no mistake this is not a site of ranting hypersensitive snowflakes."
Unfortunately, we're ranting hypersensitive snowflakes. The definition of snowflake is someone who wants to be respected, but is not an authority or leader.
Dana, thankfully is not allowed to speak with Paul until after their trial which is upcoming. Dana, as of right now doesn't want to go back to Paul and is getting therapy. She has a long road ahead of her but knows what she needs to do.
I hope she finds healing in therapy. The transition from her being a ray of sunshine before Paul to justifying her own mistreatment and a life of misery has been heartbreaking.
I just saw your comment, "[Paul Soma] 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." This is correct: it was a very bare-bones wedding ceremony. Very informal, no decorations, very minimal, and a Psalm sing as they walked down the aisle, instead of music or a piano playing Pachelbel's Canon in D. Regulative principal of worship applied to a wedding ceremony, every RP girl's dream wedding!
I think many RP men's dream wedding. Most of the women I know want the festivities. My wife drags me to weddings, and if we both cannot attend, I'm the first to volunteer to skip.
I don't think the RPW is minimalist in that sense. I know some RP pastors who have cut stuff out of services, but it seems more about letting them hear the sound of their own voices for 80 minutes of a 90 minute service than trying to keep the service as small and focused as possible.
To Battered Sheep: Is there any way to have a private conversation regarding Paul and Dana Soma? I am someone extremely close to the situation and I'd like to talk about it.
To the person who is extremely close to the situation: was the judge more lenient on Dana when he found out she was a Christian? I heard that this might be the case, but I am not close to this situation. I assumed she should have had a more substantiative sentence, because she shielded Paul and/or didn't turn him in. This could have potentially protected the children from further abuse. If I am out of line, please correct me.
I have an e-mail account listed below for this blog for personal contact.
I would hope the judge would be more lenient if he discovered she was a member of a patriarchal, high-controlling church. There are many examples of women in similar situations who were blamed by the church. Like, "if you were satisfying your husband, he wouldn't be molesting your children", or "the children need a father. If he goes to jail, your children are doomed to hell." There are cases where the church hired lawyers to smear the mothers and protect the fathers' custody.
I can't remember who talks about this, but she said that women should be coached to resolve abuse issues prior to divorce proceedings. If the husband is molesting the kids, he should go to jail before she files for divorce, because the family courts are going to force 50/50 unless the husband is in jail/loses parental rights, etc. Divorce is never a way to protect the children from an abusive spouse.
I also forgot - I heard that the victims asked the judge for leniency in Dana's sentencing, so I don't think it was "Christian = leniency".
The judge did feel empathy for Dana. Was it well-intended empathy? Sure, but knowing what I know about the spiritual, emotional and sexual abuse the victims endured over several years - that Dana was aware of - Dana received a slap on the wrist. The aftermath and the horrible grip familial sexual abuse justified by a father's "right" to do as he pleased wrecked the entire family. . If you could just hear the court transcript of Phil Pockras standing up in court DEFENDING Paul and begging for lenience on his behalf - disgusting. No one at Paul's sentencing except for the victims' caregiver stood up for the victims or their siblings. Everyone one else that stood up at Paul's sentencing asked the judge to show him mercy. What? Like the mercy he showed his victims?? Paul mysteriously fell into a coma in prison less than a month after sentencing and died shortly
So many people, including Phil Pockras, who is supposed to be a mandated reporter, sat on the truth when it was first uncovered, months before Paul and Dana's arrest and did NOTHING. The victims had to continue living under Paul's authority and submit to his whims until someone finally reported it a second time and the kids were taken away. This such a heartbreaking story because the children are the ones who have carry this around for the rest of their lives.
Is there any documentation of this? I know of some reputable news organizations (e.g. The Roys Report) that have journalistic integrity, but also aren't afraid to dig into dark stuff like this. The presbytery and broader church need to have their abuse coverup shoved in their faces so they have to take action. The system is broken and they are, so far, burying their heads in the sand.
I wonder if someone in Ohio would be willing to find out the ability to get trial transcripts of sentencing. Availability, cost etc. Sharing what Pockras said, I think would be good. If someone knows / could find out from the court, I think funding might be able to be found depending on cost. I have no idea what public access laws are but....
Post a Comment