This is a pretty big break from my normal post, but something I thought was worth sharing as an encouragement on your journey out of abusive spirituality.
I grew up in a musical family. My mother and father both played instruments and sang. My father always wanted to prove his worth to his perfectionistic father, who insisted that his children would be musicians. My siblings each were forced to play an instrument, but they bristled at it and soon were able to quit. When it was my turn, I actually enjoyed playing the piano, but I was also much of a perfectionist.
Because the piano represented much more to my father than just something I could enjoy growing up, it soon became a source of contention between me and my father. At first I loved it, but he only every allowed me to practice pieces or drills. When I just sat down and tried to enjoy seeing how I could put notes together, he would yell at me and tell me to stop. He would force me to perform for his guests whenever he wanted, even if I felt unprepared. I soon grew tired of the emotional burden and wanted to quit, but he wouldn't let me because it would be a waste [and he would lose face in the sight of his father]. So, I emotionally quit, but continued lessons. I got a lot of nastiness from him. He would say I "took my first year of lessons eight times" when someone asked him how long I had been playing. He never attended my recitals, but when I wanted to try a different instrument, he would say "why would you want to give up piano? You've invested so much time in it."
It continued to be source of both pain and comfort for me. I enjoyed playing, but not performing, and my siblings loved to jealously point out every mistake I made because somehow they thought that I was the "favored one" of the family and had to knock me off my pedestal. Playing was something I did alone to manage stress. My dad once, at an RPI conference glowingly pointed out how talented one of the performers was - he was playing and singing a Billy Joel song. I'm thinking to myself, I could have done that, but my dad hated rock music. I'm sure if I had been the one on stage playing and singing, I wouldn't have heard a peep from my dad and my siblings would have had a field day.
Fast forward to a few years ago. I had left the RP church and joined a church with a praise band, which is pretty much the dark side in terms of what RPs hold as sacred. After a few years of just sitting in the pew, I thought I should help out in ways that weren't emotionally straining and didn't infringe too much on the RP worship style. The first thing I did was join the choir. We would sing songs during the offering (much like Orlando did), and some extra music during a separate Christmas service. It ended up being a hard experience. We were told to "smile" - I wasn't ready to smile, and every mistake I made started the playback of my siblings taunts. There were enjoyable moments, but it was emotionally draining. I tried running sound. I was pretty good at it, but again, I would forget to unmute a microphone or I would fight with the overpowering drums and bass. I couldn't enjoy the service because I was "on" - and sometimes the pastor would ask me questions about his message and I'd point blank say I couldn't pay attention with my responsibilities and I'd have to listen later. I ended up telling the worship director I couldn't volunteer anymore at the same time they had already decided to make me worship volunteer of the year, so it felt super weird to accept the award.
About two years ago, I felt a twinge. I didn't know what to make of it. It was completely out of the blue. I felt like God was saying, I want you to play piano for me. Keep in mind that classical music and worship music are completely different beasts - one is sight reading, muscle memory and repetition, and the other is chord structure, theory and improvisation. The improvisation is what my dad yelled at me for many years ago. The feeling wouldn't stop, and I had some thoughts here and there about maybe playing, so I talked to the worship director with the idea that maybe I could practice for a few months with the band to warm up to the difference and then eventually feel comfortable playing during a service.
That wasn't what God had in mind. I got invited to practice one week, and at practice found out I was on for Sunday. I pretty much freaked out. I was completely unprepared and felt horribly exposed. I practiced my heart out during the week and Sunday came I still felt like my fingers wouldn't cooperate. Then this amazing thing happened. I felt complete peace and even joy during the service! I played plenty of bad notes and didn't do much more than play the chords, but for the first time in my life, the mistakes didn't trigger the record of taunts.
As I played more and more, yes, I got better, but I'd have weeks where my family was falling apart, I was an emotional train wreck, and I'd have to pray, "God, if you want the keyboard to sound good, it's going to have to be you this week, not me!" He has always come through. Peace and joy. I've even been able to smile on stage within the last few months.
I feel in a lot of ways, God is saying, "Yes, I'm your father, but I am NOT your dad!" That's really what I've needed because I really couldn't picture him as anything except stern, separate, perfectionistic and even abusive - the God of the RPCNA. Instead, he has shown himself as loving, providing and gracious.
And, that is not the end! My current church could be described as Reformed and somewhat Charismatic. Not over the top, but they recognize Spiritual giftedness as continuing today (this could be many posts!). One of the members who claims to be able to see angels occasionally took me aside about a month ago and told me that she often sees an angel standing behind me while I'm playing. She says the angel is ministering to my heart. Again, as a formerly lifelong RP, it's hard to take that at face value, but then I put that with my experience. Playing or singing in front of people has always been nerve-wracking and emotionally draining, but I find exactly the opposite when I'm on stage at church, and not even in practices. It made complete sense to me in the moment and still makes sense now. It's really been something I cling to when things turn dark and I feel worthless - this mini-story of my life where God saw darkness and chose to supernaturally intervene.
I had already decided that RP worship wasn't defensible from scripture without a perfectionistic, incomprehensible and gnostic view of God, but I find it interesting that God chose to drive a stake straight through the heart of the RPCNA's distinctives when he worked to undo my abusive past.
43 comments:
I'm very happy for you.
I'm in a modern American baptist church now, and keep seeing little blessings that remind me of why I left. I still struggle with mentally justifying the lack of Psalmody and the drums and guitars and instrumental solos, but at the same time I love that people are there to worship the God of grace and freedom, and to lift up Jesus Christ (not only by Old Testament shadows, but clearly and explicitly).
That was what hit me one day one visiting my current church. The members were happy to be there. It was a joy rather than an obligation for them. I had already decided that being in a non-abusive church was more important than "regulation". What really changed my mind about worship practices was that, unlike other RPW issues, instruments and psalms has a positive example. The core of the argument then becomes, why would God restrict rather than free? That is a core tenet of the infant baptism argument - why would God allow infants to be circumcised and not baptized? So, isn't a core of the RP worship argument, why would God allow instruments to be played in worship and then restrict them, and why would God allow human compositions (e.g. Hezekiah) in worship and then restrict them? There is nothing in scripture that demonstrates the subsequent restriction. That is why I claim that one must have a presupposition that God is restrictive (isn't that Satan's claim in the Garden!) to make the restrictive argument.
Thank you, that's helpful. I know people who left the RPC in shame and then eventually gravitated back because of exclusive Psalmody. And whenever a "core" member left, I would wonder where they could possibly end up, because of everyone's shared convictions on Psalmody. So getting that straight in my head is important, and I'm grateful for all help in that matter.
When we were looking for a new church, a friend counseled that we should look for "love, joy and peace" in the members. In hindsight, while those were not completely absent in the RPC I attended, what dominated was the strictness. That should be no surprise, as you've pointed out that's their god, and people reflect their god.
I've talked to RP friends who acknowledge the church has abused them and they will not leave because of the worship style. I think it's a hard call because so many who grew up in the church have been conditioned into thinking that other styles are sinful, and the discomfort/guilt can be overwhelming.
There is definitely a spectrum of RP churches. Some are loving and peaceful even within the restrictions, and some are downright abusive. I don't have much hope given that the most abusive presbytery has been flooding their leaders into RPTS.
I appreciate the feelings of guilt many have. But it’s false guilt in these cases. When we think it through Biblically it really is not that complicated. Why is “worship style” so high on any Christian’s key most important doctrines? It speaks volumes that this worship style issue (and so many other issues are that important) church membership, a almost Rabinic exactitude/legalism on Sabbath issues, etc. are so greatly high and lifted up. Idols all! Galatians 1 applies here. It’s a different Gospel and we are told that even if an angel from heaven, or even an RP elder teaches other wise, “Let them be accused.”
Groups, individuals or even organizations claiming to be a church who primarily uplift institutional identity, traditions and institutional fidelity as a chief value for all its members, instead of primarily uplifting Christ, are engaged in Churchianity more than they are Christianity.
These are hard and inconvenient truths and I can appreciate how programming from the cult makes it difficult to walk away from. I have been there.
Nonetheless, once a person really drills down from scripture (not church traction or elder authority) it becomes clear their traditions don’t have a leg to stand on without scripture twisting. NAPARC and the RPCNA scripture twist better than anyone. This is the fundamental issue in the RPCNA, people are trained/ programmed not to be like the Bereans, but rather to be dedicated followers of the (c)hurch and the tribes traditions. This is simply putting idols above Christ.
To belabor the point a wee bit more……
For Reformed tradition and hardliners, this Institutional Identity is in fact such a chief Paramount value that a person’s very Salvation is on shaky ground if not adhering to it. Just go and tell your elders you are leaving the (c)hurch without another (c)hurch to directly transfer membership to and watch what happens. Your very Salvation will be called into question. That speaks volumes and says everything one needs to know. I challenge anyone to show me that these statements are not a fact generally speaking within NAPARC. We can split hairs on degrees, but fact is to some degree or another these thing are true.
I think there is an echo chamber and positive feedback loop between distinctives and authoritarianism. So, let's take the distinctives side. If you can convince a group of people that a denominational distinctive (e.g. a capella exclusive psalmody) is worth remaining separate over, then they will naturally accept some level of abuse. In their minds, the distinctive outweighs the negative experience elsewhere. Because of this, they will accept authoritarianism because the alternative is to walk out of the denomination into another which does not have the distinctive. They are trapped.
On the other hand, when you start from authoritarianism, the authorities will want to have something to hold over the heads of the members. For marriage, it might be, "you will be homeless without me", or "the court will give me custody of the kids and you'll never see them again". For the RPCNA, it is, you will have to give up the distinctive. So, the authorities agree that pushing the distinctives is absolutely necessary, and the members agree that they will allow authoritarian abuse so as to be able to practice the distinctives. Things like joint worships and conferences provide encouragement that the members are in a "large group" of people who agree that this is a good system.
The leaders then must walk a fine line. On one hand, they cannot make worship practices a fundamental issue - they have joined with other denominations with different worship practices. On the other hand, if they do not sufficiently promote the worship practices as being a significant matter of faith, people will not see the point in submitting to abusive leadership. So, OPC/PCA worship is portrayed, like other differences, as, at best "gross negligence" and, at worst, "willful sin because that's what I want to do Sunday morning."
Great point about the loop of authoritarianism and distinctives (theological traditions) keeping God’s people enslaved.
In the 16th century, men like William Tyndale, Greek scholar and translator of the first printed English Bible, knew that the word "ecclesia" did NOT translate as "church." In his translation of the Scriptures, instead of using the word "church," Tyndale used the word "congregation" to place emphasis upon the congregation of God or the community of God's people who assemble ONLY under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He wanted to rid the Bible of the ecclesiastical words set in by a powerful clergy system and move the unscriptural focus from a building and institutions to the people.
He knew that the word "church" was totally misleading and that inherent in that word resided all the apparent justification for an institutional Church with all its trappings.
Tyndales emphasis was deliberate and true. It is obvious to see how this offended the religious leaders of his day, just as it does the religious leaders of our day; because Tyndale's emphasis on people being the Ecclesia of God distracted readers from seeing organized religion, hierarchical leadership and the buildings dedicated for religious service as pertaining to and even defining the Church.
Think about this, not even Luther or Calvin were killed as martyrs. Tyndale was burned at the stake by church leaders and elders. Why, because he perhaps more than any of them was a bulldog about getting the translation into the people’s hands, a translation that got it right regarding putting the institutional (c)hurch in it’s proper place.
Sadly while the Reformation got so much correct, nonetheless the men leading the Reformation church for the most part embraced the status quo of the lifted high and mighty the institutional (c)hurch and by implication the power positions (elder) therein. They further cemented it via their confessions which have become a de facto Pope.
Not to say everything in the Reformed confession are all wrong. But they are wrong on the topic of the (c)hurch.
“The Kool-aid only works if everyone drinks it.” -Pastor Jim Jones
"New Presbyter is but Old Priest writ Large." - John Milton
Ezekiel 34:1 And the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God to the shepherds: “Woe to the shepherds of Israel who feed themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? 3 You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool; you slaughter the fatlings, but you do not feed the flock. 4 The weak you have not strengthened, nor have you healed those who were sick, nor bound up the broken, nor brought back what was driven away, nor sought what was lost; but with force and cruelty you have ruled them. 5 So they were scattered because there was no shepherd; and they became food for all the beasts of the field when they were scattered. 6 My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and on every high hill; yes, My flock was scattered over the whole face of the earth, and no one was seeking or searching for them.” 7 ‘Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: 8 “As I live,” says the Lord God, “surely because My flock became a prey, and My flock became food for every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, nor did My shepherds search for My flock, but the shepherds fed themselves and did not feed My flock”— 9 therefore, O shepherds, hear the word of the Lord! 10 Thus says the Lord God: “Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require My flock at their hand; I will cause them to cease feeding the sheep, and the shepherds shall feed themselves no more; for I will deliver My flock from their mouths, that they may no longer be food for them.” 11 ‘For thus says the Lord God: “Indeed I Myself will search for My sheep and seek them out. 12 As a shepherd seeks out his flock on the day he is among his scattered sheep, so will I seek out My sheep and deliver them from all the places where they were scattered on a cloudy and dark day. 13 And I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries, and will bring them to their own land; I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, in the valleys and in all the inhabited places of the country. 14 I will feed them in good pasture, and their fold shall be on the high mountains of Israel. There they shall lie down in a good fold and feed in rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. 15 I will feed My flock, and I will make them lie down,” says the Lord God. 16 “I will seek what was lost and bring back what was driven away, bind up the broken and strengthen what was sick; but I will destroy the fat and the strong, and feed them in judgment.”
I once heard a (prominent) RP pastor analogize from the audience in Hebrews being tempted to abandon the faith to members of RP congregations being tempted by "hymns."
Astonishing.
And seems relevant here.
Yeah, growing up RP it was really difficult to see even OPC and PCA classmates as anything other than severely backslidden based on what was taught from the pulpit. It was taught as such a simple and easy argument that those who sing "man-written" songs in worship are obviously doing it because it feels good and they don't care what God thinks.
Having read many arguments and through scripture, the argument comes down to "was the Psalter intended to be the one and only collection of worship songs?" There's no clear argument either way. Even within the Regulative Principle, there is example (Hezekiah) of what seems to be non-inspired words used in worship, with no negative commentary, and example of an inspired song that was taught to Israel, presumably for worship that is not in the Psalms (Deut 31,32). The song in Revelation is also a counter-example. Habakkuk 3 says, "For the director of music. On my stringed instruments." - a clear indication of use in worship.
So, ultimately, the Exclusive Psalmody argument comes down to whether God intended the Book of Psalms to be inclusive or exclusive, and that, in my opinion, is not clear from scripture, and the reason RP's fall on the clear exclusion side is because of their belief in a God who is exclusive.
That's why Galatians is so pertinent to the RP church. They narrow the gospel by adding on rules based on very narrow arguments and then acting as if they are fundamental. In this way, they mischaracterize God.
Instead, God is the father in the story of the Prodigal Son, who throws cultural dignity to the wind in order to run and embrace his son. His arms are open, not closed. He doesn't hold out the checklist of all the Reformed/RP distinctives to make sure the son is worthy enough to be welcomed back. I love the Psalms, and I regret that the modern Evangelical church stifles the spectrum of emotions, but I don't think that God set up a pattern of restriction in worship music. An RP came to the conclusion that man-written sermons were a violation of the RPW. Every example of a sermon in scripture is inspired - kinda hard to refute given the stance on Exclusive Psalmody.
Agree with all this!
Sorry, comment got cut short. Would only add that fear seems to be a primary driver in many of the arguments for EP I'v seen. Which also speaks to the view of God and His relationship to the believer.
Thanks, yes. The RP view of God is not better than the Arminian view. Instead of "you can lose your salvation", it's "you can do all the right things and discover at the judgment that you had one fundamental doctrinal error." Functionally, it's the same, pastors preaching from the pulpit that "if you .... you're probably not saved", and the hyper-focus on preaching about God's wrath and judgment without distinguishing (purposefully, I believe) between wrath and judgment to those who reject him contrasted with love and grace towards those who accept him.
It's been a journey to undo this in my heart and mind. Still, when bad things happen, I immediately go to the thought of "what did I do wrong that God is punishing me?" Completely fear based, and that's so contrary to what scripture says, but the RP church would rather have seats filled with members trapped in fear.
Well said, well said! I think the Spirit is way bigger than the RP give it credit. I don’t mean by that promoting a charismatic view, rather a focus on the mystery involved in how God works.
No need to “strain out a gnat but swallow a camel”.
The RPCNA does this at a very high level.
Good News, Christ is good, hope is real on the other side of the RP prison.
I think much of the problem is that the Church is viewed as an institution defined by the Blue Book and the leaders, and that institution needs to be protected against the common people. They have forgotten that the Church *is* the people.
https://eldership.org/resources/murray_elders.html as an example says: "After the seventeenth century, however, Congregationalism, in general, moved decisively away from the idea of two classes of elders and came to hold only the offices of pastor and deacon. The reason why Presbyterianism did not make the same change was that it had evolved a system of checks and balances which made it impossible for the eldership in any congregation to act over the head of the minister. In theory the minister and elder might be considered to occupy the same office, in practice the minister, as the permanent member of the local presbytery, had very distinct privileges."
So, essentially, the party line of Reformed theologians is that the pastor has needed to be protected from the knuckle-draggers, namely lay officers and congregation, so he can properly minister. So, Presbyterianism survived by elevating the pastor above any others in the congregation who might bring any challenge to his office or teaching. Such was the state of the RPCNA until recently, and I believe that the current generation of pastors are working to reverse it.
I have found, in practice, that in the local congregation, the pastor is taken above the Blue Book. I've pointed out multiple infractions to deaf ears. The Constitution just becomes something to be wielded in a way that enhances the power of those whose power needs no enhancement. How much of what we've seen judicially has been, "let's understand how this should be done the right way" and how much has been "this is what we want to happen, so let's bulldoze a path"?
How would you counsel someone who knows that they need to leave but is afraid to because they don’t want to have to defend themselves in arguments with the session? What would happen if I just started to attend another church?
This is a deeply spiritually abusive place, but the session is so intellectually sharp that any argument or discussion about why I want to leave will be shot down with proof texts and arguments for the RP. Thank you
(continued)
In that meeting, and all that follows, cast your soul on the Lord, and have no fear of man. In all you do, set your eyes on Jesus, and seek to please Him. You must obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29), and then trust that He will deliver you. As you go through that dark valley, this is where those years of singing Psalms pays dividends! “The Lord’s my Shepherd, I’ll not want… Yea, though I walk in death’s dark vale, Yet will I fear no ill… A table Thou has furnished me In presence of my foes...” “Who with God Most High finds shelter In th’Almighty’s shadow hides.” “God, the Lord, from whom is vengeance, God, Avenger, O shine forth! Judge of all the earth, O rise up! Pay the proud what they are worth.”
Before you pull the trigger, be sure to count the cost (Luke 14:28). Consider well that they may indeed do all that they can against you. Expect no soft word to turn away wrath. Your friends will think you’re crazy or even apostate, not because you’re wrong, but simply because they haven’t gone through it themselves and they hold the Session and the RPCNA in such high regard that your experiences are impossible for them to even accept as real. If it’s you against the Session in the minds of your friends, the Session will always win because they have the respect of the people, they control the only Really Perfect Church, and they have the pulpit to whitewash their views as the doctrine of God every week (and twice on Sundays) in front of all the people. Nevertheless be assured that you are not alone! Others of us have left the RPCNA because of the spiritual abuse we witnessed and/or suffered. There truly is spiritual abuse in the RPCNA, and you are not imagining it. And in my opinion, leaving is worth the loss of reputation and dear friends, and even a great shaking to your assurance of salvation. Have no doubt that if the Lord leads you through this deep darkness, He will restore to you the years the swarming locust has eaten (Joel 2:25) and give you twice what you had before (Job 42:10).
It is very difficult to go through this alone. Cling to the Lord in private worship and prayer, even if at times that’s just “groanings too deep for words” (Romans 8:26). Cherish the few friends who do not shun you. As soon as you are able, look for a new church. It doesn’t need to be “perfect"; in fact, it might very well help if it’s visibly imperfect (praise band, uninspired songs, unbiblical leadership model, immersion baptism, even a bit of Arminianism)! But so long as there is true love, joy and peace there, and above all the gospel of Jesus Christ being preached to undeserving sinners, have no doubt that those imperfections will be used by the Lord to strengthen your faith and round you out as a disciple of Jesus Christ. If it’s a church that loves lost sinners then they will accept you too, no matter what people in the RPCNA think of you. And most churches in North America don’t ask for a formal transfer of membership; it is enough that you believe in the Lord Jesus. And that’s what matters in all of this: believe in the Lord Jesus, take up your cross and follow Him.
I hope you’ll let us know how it goes. I wish there were an easier way to connect, but I think it’s difficult to do so and still keep our anonymity, so posting here is probably the best we can do. I'll keep an eye out for your future posts, and be in prayer for you. The Lord be with you!
This is the best advice I've seen. https://thewartburgwatch.com/permpage-how-to-resign-from-a-church-whether-or-not-you-are-under-church-discipline/
It's the nuclear option, so proceed with caution, but after receiving that letter, any attempt to contact you or discipline you is illegal.
It really depends on your situation. My session was spiritually abusive, but mostly rational. I requested my "letter" and they sent it without the typical "outside of the church there is no ordinary means of salvation", so there was really nothing to complain about.
The Wartburg Watch recommendation is completely legal and will completely cut you off from the RP church. They cannot legally discipline you because discipline falls under freedom of association, meaning that your membership in the RPCNA is express consent to participate in their discipline. If you "request" transfer or removal from the rolls, again, you are agreeing to participate in whatever discipline process is in the books.
You could always take one step at a time - request removal, and maybe meet with them understanding that they are likely going to guilt trip and abuse you in the meeting, but be prepared in case they decide to escalate. I don't know. I do have a friend who tried to leave and was guilt-tripped into staying only to be further abused.
Sorry for the spam. When I agonized over leaving without going through "the process", I found this in the Constitution(Testimony): 25:17 - "When any church imposes sinful requirements for membership; when its constitution or creedal statements are fundamentally unscriptural; when its administration is corrupt; or when sound preaching and proper discipline are neglected, it is the duty of Christians to attempt its reformation. Then if such efforts prove ineffectual, it is their duty to separate from it, and to unite with a sound church."
First of all, spiritual abuse is corrupt administration, because abuse is a violation of the responsibilities of your church leadership. Second, it is undoubtedly not for the church to decide whether or not you have "attempted its reformation". A friend was wronged by a session and met with them only to have the session say, "we don't believe we've wronged you". An abuser is not (generally) going to admit to abuse.
When I left my church, I gave very specific examples of abuse. They admitted no culpability to any of the examples, but instead gave a general, "we didn't treat you as well as we should have, but... let's talk about YOUR SIN!" That is most likely what you will experience. It's called DARVO - Deny (they did nothing wrong worthy of confession), Accuse (Let's talk about what you've done), Reverse Victim and Offender (Now you're the one living in sin and you really need them to help). In my case, after ignoring me for a couple of years, and telling me that they didn't want to engage with me, all the sudden they want to "work with me" to fix my problems. No thanks.
Black Sheep, that's why the Wartburg Watch approach is reasonable in a situation where the bridges have been burned. If the church disciplines you, contacts you or even airs your dirty laundry publicly, they are in violation of your Constitutional rights - because the government has always interpreted spiritual authority as voluntary association. You voluntarily become a member and you voluntarily remove yourself from membership. Once you are not a member, you are not subject to church discipline, because the church cannot discipline a non-member.
Thank you for reminding me where I read that article, which I've now managed to find again.
How to Resign From a Church Whether or Not You Are Under Church Discipline: https://thewartburgwatch.com/permpage-how-to-resign-from-a-church-whether-or-not-you-are-under-church-discipline/
Sorry, this is a bit of a hot button for me. I would recommend one of two approaches, both of which are proactive. Either inform the session you want to leave, but understand that you are submitting to the process (this is what I did), with the understanding that at any time you can legally cut them off by sending them a certified letter, or inform the session through a certified letter that you are no longer a member.
In the first case you are hoping that they will send you a "letter of standing" - that means that you are in good standing as of the date they release you from membership, and you leave as friends. The certified letter is always an option if things go south, or if you're just not wanting to continue.
In my case, I was hoping for reconciliation and wanting to reform, but I was pretty certain that reform was not on the table. Their response letter confirmed that. They were interested in reforming me, not themselves. That said, I was pretty sure that they weren't going to do anything more abusive than the standard "outside of the church there is no ordinary means of salvation" clause. I didn't anticipate them wanting to meet and talk about stuff. So it was a pretty safe option.
In my former more deeply abusive church, I would have weighed the options much, much more carefully. I set a date to either transfer or leave, and I ended up being able to transfer, but if I had ended up leaving, I would have been very reluctant to meet with the Session. I knew others who met and it was emotionally abusive - they were completely blind-sided by all the stuff that was thrown at them. Shame, guilt, fake apologies, playing the victim. So I definitely understand any reluctance.
Another consideration in burning bridges vs leaving as friends is whether you have relatives or friends in the church. I've been able to keep relationships mostly positive since leaving, but that definitely would have been different if I had burned bridges. Even though they cannot "legally" discuss your situation, that will not stop them from gossiping about how you hurt them and rejected Christ's spiritual authority. I'm not sure where I stand over whether spiritual authority is "voluntary", but RPCNA elders, regardless of whether they have to abide by the law of the land, believe that they still have authority over you until THEY relinquish it.
I want you both to know that I am deeply grateful for your responses. I will be considering your counsel over this week and have resolved to begin taking action. But, I am truly afraid. Please consider holding me up in prayer.
Thanks, I set a reminder to pray. A lot of spiritual/emotional abuse is making people feel weak and inadequate. You aren't! You've recognized that your shepherds are not speaking the words of Jesus. (My sheep hear my voice) - that's a huge first step! It's not an easy journey, but as I wrote in the article, worth trusting the urge of the Spirit in your heart.
I will be praying.
Above all else, follow Jesus (the Good Shepherd; John 10, Ezekiel 34), through His Word. Whatever you need will be given you so long as you are walking in His way and not your own (Psalm 84:11; Proverbs 3:5-6): wisdom, courage, truth, and more. Have His mind of humility and love, and have no doubt that your heavenly Father will lift you up, as He did Jesus (Philippians 2:5-11).
Since you are concerned in particular about what to say in potential meetings, let me also leave you with Matthew 10:19: "When they deliver you over [to the courts], do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour." Jesus is faithful and true, so lean on Him.
Have been praying. One thing that came to mind as an option is transferring to another church. It's not a great option because being spiritually abused you probably don't want to jump right into another church without fully vetting it or at least being down the road of healing. It's pretty straightforward, you can join the new church and then send the RP church a letter saying you've joined a new church, please remove me from the membership rolls. If the church is more formal about membership, they would request a transfer on your behalf, like from one RP church to another. Upside is that it's pretty standard and there's not much the church can do. RP churches have gotten into presbytery trouble refusing transfers to another denomination they don't approve of, so there's not much they can do, and it's not much worth trying to talk to you either, because you're already gone.
I'm all for doing things "decently and in order", but it's amazing how much denominations have layered on top of the simplicity of the Scriptures. I really think that the Scripture that best deals with the situation before us is Matthew 18:15-17: there is sin (spiritual abuse) in the church, so you should confront it with the individual(s), then if there is not repentance you tell the congregation, and then if there is not repentance you leave. But dealing with it the RPCNA way you need to know policy and constitution and deal with Session and Presbytery and Synod, and there would be commissions and reports and letters galore; or if you want to just leave you need to send a letter with the right words at the right time. Dealing with sin is difficult enough without adding all the complications of layer upon layer of bureaucracy.
I think there are two views you can apply. The first view is the "how do we codify how to do this correctly?" It makes sense that the typical things - joining, leaving, transferring, minor discipline, meeting, would easier if there is consistency. The second view is the "how do we protect ourselves?" This leads to some of the obscurity and weird limits - like a 30-day appeal and appeals going first to the court you're appealing.
I would also argue that the idea of study committees creating recommendations is backwards. Instead, Synod should reach some consensus and then send a committee to write an opinion. So, for example, let's rewrite the Directory of Worship. Instead of saying, "What needs to be fixed and how are we generally going to fix it?" Synod creates a committee which rewrites the entire book, and then Synod must vote "approve" or "reject".
As Michael LeFebvre pointed out to me once, our church does a lot of discipline by policy. Instead of saying "we think X has rejected Exclusive Psalmody, let's talk", we say "Let's create a policy that all Elders must reaffirm their commitment to all foundational doctrines every year." Supposedly, the latter fixes the former, but it really doesn't.
I think that if you're going to have a denomination that exerts control on member churches, then policies and procedures for the "typical things" have to exist. But that inevitably adds bureaucracy and politics, which become all the worse when many in the churches are already attracted to detail and minutiae in theology, and you end up exalting policy and procedure over the Word of God. I've come to think that more important than national denominations with a common doctrine and worship practice are fellowships of local churches of diverse doctrine and worship.
When I think about "what is the purpose of church leadership" - it is to protect the flock. I agree with the "cone of clarity", some doctrines are worth breaking fellowship over and some doctrines are not crystal clear. So, the flock should be protected from clear and important doctrines, and from abusive members. I think most churches have built up structures to protect their sacred doctrines - ones they wouldn't excommunicate over, but have elevated above important doctrines. So, they build a publishing house, a college, a seminary and a missions organization, all around spreading their specific flavor of doctrine. It's pervaded the culture - we are increasingly a divisive society.
This whole denomination encourages people, basically, to have a ‘relationship’ with the denomination, not with God. They completely cut God out of the loop. I’ve never seen a group so brainwashed before, from an intellectual starting point. With some cults the hook is in the emotions, but in the RPCNA the hook is imbedded deeply in the intellect, and in my opinion is a type of insanity. No one in relationship with God can be blind to this manmade nonsense. We need to know God!
It's portrayed as intellectual, but the hook is emotional. I think most of the people in the denomination don't understand the theology or the arguments. They want purpose and affirmation. Instead of pointing people to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as affirmation, the leaders interject their desires as God's. The message is consistently, your leadership is Spirit-inspired to direct and guide you. The elders are brainwashed, too, into thinking that they have that level of power over the members and that they are to be obeyed and, for lack of a better word, worshiped.
Hello brethren, it is me who you counseled on leaving the RPCNA. What a ride it has been. In efforts to continue in anonymity I would like to keep the details to a bare minimum. Thank you for giving a timely and thorough response. i decided to rip the bandage off quickly, so to speak, and send the suggested letter notifying my withdrawal of membership (I follows the suggested format and instruction). It was a very difficult process. They did not honor the letter. Furthermore, they officially disciplined me when I stopped attending services. After a few months I finally received a notice of withdrawal. I am in a much better place spiritual and emotionally, and am now in the process of attending other local churches as I prayerfully consider where to commit myself. The previous blog post on what to do after leaving the RPCNA has been very helpful. Just wanted to give a brief update. I thank the Lord for you
So sorry your former church chose to abuse rather than let you go. The more I hear, the more thankful I am I got out.
Maybe we should start collecting a list of churches that have harassed members who have resigned using the TWW form letter?
I'm in favor of a list of those (churches) who have harassed after any letter format, as well as other means of trying to leave (this will increase anonymity and reduce the risk of identifying individuals or families who have left by different methods). You'd think we were leaving the Mormon cult with the way these churches behave. Mormons at least have a group geared specifically to helping them get out now. These authoritarian cults are growing in 'power' and the damage they do, and I wish there was a group/attorney/something to help people walk through the process even more. The RPCNA church has a major culture of fear (among other things), and there are many who want to leave but feel trapped.
Glad to hear that you're out and that healing can begin and joy in the Lord be restored.
Post a Comment