RPCNA has a misogyny problem, harassment and spiritual abuse for women who leave

Some ex-RP people put this together in the last few weeks. We were sharing our experience of leaving the RP church. As we talked about our stories and the stories of those we know, a sickening pattern emerged. Every male in the discussion as well as others I knew were generally given their form, and few of the forms had the ominous "outside the church there is no ordinary means of salvation." Generally no follow up texts, e-mails or calls came from the church.

Women, however, had a completely different experience. They pretty much all got the warning on the form, and not only that, they were repeatedly called, texted and e-mailed (harassed) between the time they sent their notice to the church and the time the church "allowed" them to leave.

A former OPC member said that her previous pastor and elder knew she worked at Starbucks, and started meeting each other regularly for coffee when she left the church.

I think there is a sick and twisted doctrine behind this and, while I endured a bit of it, I think when it comes to women, the RP leadership has decided to double down. When I informed my church I was leaving, a couple of elders asked to meet with me. I had no real issues at that point. One tried to enumerate my sins and suggest he would be happy to work on them with me (hard pass!). The other, however, talked about how we had similar concerns and how we could jointly be a positive influence for change. What he said afterwords, though, was shocking and disgusting. He said that he saw making membership vows to be a "marriage", and that the church should "give me away" to my new church, like a father gives away a bride to a spouse. (Don't think women would sign up for being given away by their ex-husbands!!!) Others who left have also been subjected to this line of reasoning.

That's why I think women are so much more harassed then men. Maybe the dots don't connect so nicely when when the church wants to give away men, but when it's WOMEN, it must feel to these men like their daughters are eloping. How dare they! In that way, they feel like they really need to push for a proper "wedding", even if it requires harassment and abusive pressure. That's how many women have described the leaving process:

1. Immediately, the resources of the Session are devoted to winning the person back. That might be constant texts, knocks on doors, e-mails, visits from other members talking about how important they are, etc.
2. Fear and legalism. People are told (erroneously) that they must leave the church "the right way" - that their membership vows are permanently binding. That they must meet with the Session and "request" to leave or transfer.
3. They're told that they must inform the Session where they intend to go. (Don't do this!) Women have said that their RP pastor contacted or met with the pastor of their new church and poisoned the well.
4. Some have been threatened with discipline if they don't follow "the process" (the process is whatever hoops the Session decides they must go through, BTW)
5. I know some families that were manipulated into shaming their daughters/sisters. I think the fact this is a common tactic creates a familial pressure within the RPCNA, and part of the reason this blog is currently anonymous - for me and my family's sake.

This harassment is not just aimed at people who have left Christianity, but many who have reported harassment have remained Christian and just wanted to leave their abusive churches.

Disenculturation vs. Deconstruction

A little bit of a rabbit trail led me to this article, which is surprisingly good given the source.

 https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/deconstruct-culture-not-faith/

I think this gets to the root of the disagreement in the last comment thread. RPs, NAPARC, and much of US Evangelicalism is trapped in a cultural context that includes the gospel, but has wrapped the gospel in a layer of cultural moralism.

As I pointed out, in the 1800's, churches in the US split over the issue of slavery. We look back at that time and wonder why Christians thought it was good and right to own slaves. It was because the cultural context of the slave states justified slavery and racial oppression. Abolitionists had to read past the Bible verses on slavery and ask, "does the Bible really justify and encourage slavery, or is the Bible merely discussing how Israelites/Christians operate in a cultural context of slavery?" It's a real question and just throwing out prooftexts doesn't get to the heart of the matter.

That's why I think it is entirely valid to question the Biblical perspective on things like I have mentioned. The Bible already questions and refines its own conclusions. When the Pharisees questioned Jesus on divorce, he said, "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery." Many sermons take this as the final statement on divorce, but then Paul says something different: "Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace." Even the WCF recognizes that desertion is grounds for divorce, and that a wife divorced due to desertion does not sin (commit adultery) if she remarries.

In the same vein, God allows and even seemingly recommends polygamy (kinsman redeemer) in the Old Testament, but then Jesus says, "the two shall become one flesh" as if to say that polygamy was never God's intent, and Paul underscores that later to say that an elder must be the "husband of one wife" (pastors say 'one woman man'). So, Israel, Abraham, David ... and others are examples in faith that Paul would exclude from being elders in the church.

So, now when we look at the Bible, we need to not only understand our own cultural lens that we use to interpret, but we also need to understand the cultural lens of the people the scriptures were written to. In a sense, simple, yet complicated. We can understand "love your neighbor as yourself", but Paul points out that "don't muzzle an ox while she is threshing" isn't as much about farming as it is about allowing people to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

So, all these things you want to accuse me of heresy about...

Reputation management vs. righteousness

Growing up RPCNA in a "core" family meant that we were immersed in the culture from a young age. We knew that good kids sat quietly in the pew and listened to the message. It was okay to have something to keep our hands busy, but silence was a must. At home, we critiqued various aspects of our church experience. It might be theological flaws in the sermon, or the discussion at presbytery that came to a decision without any logical rationale just based on emotion and a few persuasive pastors.

In a sense, we were not an "A-list" RP family, but we were well-known. It was good that I wasn't popular enough to be selected for the presbytery youth leaders or asked to speak or be a counselor at a presbytery youth camp.

Even then, my sense of my own relationship with God was heavily tied to what, in retrospect, was a inseparable blend of integrity, works righteousness, and reputation management. So, the most "assured" I felt was when I went to all the church events, tithed, read my Bible and prayed every day, and pretty much tried to "keep my nose clean" as my current pastor associates with lackluster Evangelicalism.

What I realize now is that in the authoritarian system. My authority - father, pastor, session - functionally replaced my need for relationship with my Father. So, keeping up on my spiritual disciplines and being a "nice Christian" got smiles from my church, and thus, I must be okay with God.

Much of my struggle since I left the RP church was in first recognizing that those authorities were not stand-ins for God. I needed to have a relationship with God, and as I pursued that relationship, I realized that those stand-ins for God were spiritually abusive, and, as a result, my view of God was also spiritually abusive. Not only did I have very little of a relationship with God, but as I discovered what I wanted in a relationship, it was completely uncharted territory. I was a Christian in the sense that I recognized my sin and prayed for Jesus to forgive it and lead me, but much of my experience was a poisoned view of who Jesus was, what he wanted from me, and especially who my Father and the Holy Spirit were.

One of the hardest things right now is picturing my Father with a smile on his face, and seeing how he will make me more "valuable" to the kingdom as my body loses it's strength, my mind loses it's edge and my emotions are worn by the constant battering of the evil in this world. What if I never get over the picture of God as the perfectionistic narcissist the RPCNA taught and exemplified?

I think of this picture when there was a Facebook discussion about children in worship. On one hand, "of course God wants children in worship", but then comments come out about how it's really not acceptable for those children to, well, be children. So, then we see just what Jesus was rejecting when he said, let the children come to me! The people who want only adults in the service. It's okay if they're six month old adults or three year old adults or even middle-school-aged adults, but they better act like adults because... well, I guess God is not pleased when children act like... children... in his presence.

One of the "this is the church where I can learn about God" moments happened pretty early on. My kids were, I guess, testing the boundaries of what was appropriate at my new church. They were drawing and giggling a bit, and couldn't keep still. I was completely frustrated because at any RP church, there would have been the intense pressure of the many furled brows wondering why I wasn't controlling my family. After the service a woman who was sitting behind us, and most likely the one who would have been the most offended by my children's behavior, made a point of telling us how wonderful it is that we bring our children with us into the service and how much she loves seeing children being children. It was completely the opposite of what I would have expected hearing in the RP church. RPs would be sure to remind me about the nursery, cry room, or "training" room as some churches have, where children don't have to be physically removed from the sanctuary to get swatted when they get the wiggles.

For you ex-RPs, I wonder, how has that journey been for you from thinking you're a top tier Christian as an RP to, I guess, the awakening that the so-called "God" you served all your life was a horrible caricature of the real God. In a sense, as much as I want to rid myself of the false idol and get to know the true creator and his love for me, it seems that everything is poisoned against that.

When the Regulative Principle of Worship becomes an idol...

I want to comment on the sadness of what this article, and especially its comments, represent:
1) The tendency to parse the scriptures for any practice that can be made into a command.
2) The tendency to then attempt to claim that practice has been a litmus test of orthodoxy throughout church history, and thus should be the same today.
3) The tendency to elevate such practice and reinterpet all other things (e.g. size of church) in light of the new-found command.
4) Complete and utter blindness when gently corrected (e.g. why is "table" commanded, but "reclined" not, when they are in the same verse?)

I'm am so thankful that I've matured enough in my understanding of who God is to understand that this level of "care" for his worship is really about straining gnats and swallowing camels. I remember, with sadness, the time in my life that I knew all the checkboxes, and many of the checkboxes within the checkboxes that set the truly elite on a separate tier reserved for the RPW purists.

That said, I do understand why this is such an important debate for RPs. I believe RP pastors want to have a large following. They have the best theology and of course the best spiritual gifting, so why don't they have lots of members? Well, things like "the table" can easily explain that away. A pastor cannot have more than about 50 people in his congregation before they have to step down from the pinnacle of "pure" communion. So "obviously" it is not that the RPCNA is a legalistic, cult-like church where most Christians would smell the aroma of brimstone and stay far away. It's not even that the RPCNA fills a niche within Christianity where those who desire a small, tight-knit congregation can find a good fit. No, of course, it's because the RPCNA is faithfully parsing the scriptures to find the precise model for the "pure" church, and that most pure expression of the Christian faith can only be done in a congregation that can fit around a table.

On Hope and voting with your feet

There was a recent thread on one of the posts. I'm not sure what led to the comment, but I felt like given the direction the thread took, I was being called out for being "cynical" about the RP church, and that somehow having "hope" that the RPCNA can reform would dictate a more positive attitude.

When I left the RPCNA, I actually believed that the fundamental teachings were correct, the procedures were correct, maybe incomplete, and the primary problem was a new culture of authoritarianism. I was wrong. I believe that when the fundamental teachings of the RP church are distilled, there is a narcissistic god and the "new culture of authoritarianism" was really reframing the church culture through the lens of a micromanaging, narcissistic god.

"Hope", though is a codeword. The battered wife is told to return to her husband and "hope" and pray that God will change him. The battered sheep is told to submit to his session and his church and "hope" that the culture will change. I don't think it's cynical for the wife to divorce her husband and still hope and pray that he changes, nor is it cynical for the sheep to leave an abusive church and still pray for reform. So, what are options for people who are in the RPCNA hoping for change?

Stay and fight or stay and be a light?

Reform can happen many ways. I think the least helpful way to bring about reform is to stick it out and hope for the best. God chose prophets, gave them Spiritual gifts to proclaim his message, but what was their commission? Hosea was told to marry a prostitute because her unfaithfulness to him mirrored Israel's unfaithfulness to God. Jeremiah was told to preach the destruction of Judah, and what would happen with the leaders? "They will fight against you, but they will not overcome you, for I am with you to deliver you". Yes, occasionally, these prophets brought reform, but mostly they were ignored or rejected. I do believe that God calls many to be his voice in churches that have forsaken him, but I don't think that is the call of every believer in the RPCNA.

I knew I wasn't a "stay and fight" kind of person, but I did have the idea that I could stay and be a light. The issue with this for born-RPers is that being a light in the midst of darkness still requires a strong identity in Jesus. I didn't have that because I grew up in the RPCNA where my identity was cleverly co-opted into what my session told me it was. So, I'm trying to challenge my session and other church members about authoritarianism in the church, and at the same time my identity is being crushed by leaders who I've been groomed to believe more than my own conscience.

Vote with your feet?

Leaving is often shamed by those who choose to stay and claim that they are fighting, but it has a lot of Biblical support: "For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand outside. I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God Than dwell in the tents of wickedness." or "Any place that does not receive you or listen to you, as you go out from there, shake the dust off the soles of your feet for a testimony against them." or 'Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.'"

It requires wisdom to walk out of a church. I certainly did not have wisdom beyond a notion that God had given me gifts to use in service to his kingdom and the church I was attending was rejecting my use of those gifts. That was the kernel of truth that freed me from the RPCNA, but since I've left, I've seen so much more how the RP church is hurting the faithful by peddling a harsh, judgmental and narcissistic god in the name of the gospel. I believe the divide in the church isn't over whether the pastor ministers or teaches ministry, but whether the pastor preaches a narcissistic god who abuses us for his glory, or preaches a loving God who stands with us against abuse.

When is hope futile?

I think there is a parable that is very accurate here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_drowning_man - the essence is that a man wants God to save him from drowning, but he refuses the "ordinary means" - a canoe, a boat and a helicopter - and instead, presumably, expects something miraculous. When the man dies and confronts God, God says, "what did you want? I sent you two boats and a helicopter!"

What I mean by this is that when we want God to reform our church, maybe God responds by showing us a different "our church" vs. reforming the church we are physically present in. I have grown far more in my non-RP church than I did in the RP church, in far less time. My gifts are welcomed and appreciated, and when I'm overwhelmed, I can step back and get a response of thankfulness and not shame. I would love to have hope that the RPCNA will reform, but the further removed I am from the toxic culture, the deeper I recognize that toxic culture pervades. It will take a miracle. Call me cynical, but I see the RPCNA with the pedal to the floor headed towards authoritarianism and toxicity. 

Getting stuck in dysfunctional family roles

 This is probably also applicable to people who grew up in the church and were never allowed to break their childhood persona, but I was reading yesterday and found this quote to be very insightful:

In Charles Whitfield's book, Healing the Child Within: Discovery and Recovery for Adult Children of Dysfunctional Families, we are given a list of rights we all have. It is titled, "Personal Bill of Rights," and it is found on p. 116-117. One of the rights I love on this list is:

"I have the right to change and grow."

As I previously mentioned, in shame-based systems, we often get put in a certain role. No matter how hard we try to get out of that role and change, we are still seen in the same role. If we were the screw up, we are always seen as the screw up. If we were the one who kept all the communication growing, it became our task in the system to continue to do that. If we were the heroes, we could do no wrong. When we try to discuss having a problem or a struggle, we are often dismissed.

We have the right to change and grow. We have the right to look at our old roles and change them. We have the right to learn and make changes based on what we are learning.

What we can't control is how other people view us. We may have the right to change and we might change, but it does not mean others will acknowledge or honor the changes.

Barb Tonn, MA - Shine the Light of Truth on Shame: Daily Reflections p.409-410

In reading about dysfunctional families, it seems rare that children are ever able to graduate from what role they were assigned. I expect the same is true in dysfunctional churches, which is sad because we supposedly believe the Holy Spirit is an agent of even miraculous change, but somehow miraculous change is not enough to overcome the shame-based assigned roles. 

 

 

 

Reformed beliefs on mental illness and Christian Science

We good Reformed people recognize that Christian Science is a cult that mistakenly believes that all sickness is a result of our lack of faith, and that if we believed the "right things", we could escape sickness.

Students of Christian Science are learning through their daily study of the Bible and the Christian Science textbook that sickness is not a stubborn reality which must be endured because it cannot be cured. Sickness is only an erroneous concept of God's perfect handiwork;
Source

We should compare that to the teaching of Biblical Counseling, which is prevalent in Reformed circles

Also, as a counselor listens to the pain of sexual assault, it is easy to get so wrapped up in a counselee’s pain, and this may mean you sidestep the topic of your counselee’s failures. Now don’t hear me wrong. The sexually violated woman is never, repeat never, at fault for her abuser’s sin against her. Yet in response to the trauma of sexual violation, she may also sin.

Reframe her story. She is no longer a victim. In Christ she is a victor. 

An essential part of defaming her story has three parts and is based on Ephesians 4:22-24:

Discarding old patterns of ungodly thinking

Thought reconstruction

Adopting new patterns of godly thinking Source

The similarities are pretty striking. To first understand why they are so similar. The Biblical Counseling word "victim" must be examined. Let's reframe this story from mental/emotional to physical. Let's say the "violation" is instead a car accident caused by a drunk driver that leaves the woman wheelchair-bound. So, the rhetoric is now:
"The paraplegic woman is not, repeat not, at fault for the accident caused by the drunk driver [true]. Yet, in response to the trauma of having her legs amputated, she may also sin [true]. Reframe her story, she is no longer paraplegic. In Christ she is able-bodied. [uhhh. Hmmm.]"

So, we see that the spiritual and temporal get mixed in much the same way as with Christian Science. Yes, God created a world without sickness, just as he created a world without trauma and victims. YET! The world isn't there today. Just as someone can be born with missing limbs, someone can lose limbs. Some are born with mental distress and some become mentally distressed by a natural response to abuse.

We know, when considering this physically, that a victim of a drunk driver may require extensive surgery, followed by months, if not years of physical and occupational therapy. Obviously some accident victims will never fully recover in this life.

So, why does the church and Biblical Counseling insist on a six week mental/emotional recovery program? Why does the church and Biblical Counseling insist that modern psychology, counseling and psychiatry are detrimental, and that Christians should never be state-licensed mental health professionals?

In a sense, the Christian Scientists are more theologically consistent. They believe the body AND mind to be reversibly damaged, whereas, Evangelicals believe that only the mind is reversibly damaged. In other words, both faiths believe that the solution to a broken mind is faith. I wonder what they believe about Alzheimer's and senility - if that's a lack of faith or part of a broken body, but the evidence is pretty clear that something is different between the body and mind.

For the body, Evangelicals believe that medical treatment is necessary, good, and helpful. It's good to take medicine because medicine can help things. High blood pressure can be corrected, cancer can be fought, drugs can alleviate pain and make life better. For the mind, however, any drug, despite how studied and widespread is just covering over some sort of sin. A psychiatrist might prescribe anti-anxiety medicine to help a sexually violated woman deal with flashbacks and crippling fear, but the Biblical Counselor would simply call that "sin" (not a natural psychological response to trauma) and if it isn't fixed in six weeks then the person isn't leaning enough into Jesus's "victory".

In the same way, Evangelicals would think nothing of a member who has torn an ACL signing up for a year of physical therapy to strengthen the joint after surgery. They wouldn't blink an eye at a member with a back injury having to have regular injections for the rest of their lives. Yet, the idea that it might take years of counseling or therapy to recover from a severe trauma like sexual violation, or complex trauma like growing up in an abusive home, is considered scornful. The idea that someone with Bipolar Disorder might have to take medication for the rest of their lives is considered a lack of faith.

I would also say that just as a person's body would be harmed by the church refusing to recognize a medical condition, the same is true for the mind. What would happen if a church told a member with a broken ankle that they were sinning if they didn't play volleyball for the church league that weekend? Wouldn't that be cruel and irresponsible? But churches and Biblical Counselors (as seen above) tell abuse victims to "reframe" their mental state. What does that mean? It seems that it means acting as if the abuse never happened, just like playing volleyball on a broken ankle. It often plays out like this - the church gets the abuser to repent, and then pressures the victim to forgive and act as if nothing happened. If the victim doesn't feel safe being in the same room during worship, that's not forgiving. If the victim files a restraining order, that's not forgiving. If the victim won't submit to joint counseling, that's not forgiving. Just like a broken bone, if the victim isn't good as new in six weeks there's probably something wrong with her.

Maybe the church needs to recognize that the mind, just like the body, suffers under the curse, and just like bodies can be born disabled or harmed later in life, the mind is similar, and just as the church accepts much of modern medical treatment for the body, they should recognize that there are valid medical treatments for the mind.

Update on Immanuel RPC happenings at 2023 Presbytery and Synod meetings

RPCNA Synod met last week, and during the week the GLG presbytery met. There have been a lot going on since last years' verdicts:

Immanuel RPC:

IRPC voted to leave the RPCNA. This was rejected at presbytery's last meeting. The Constitution allows for two paths toward exit - transfer to another denomination and dissolution. The underlying issue was what happened to the IRPC church building that was held in trust by the Presbytery.

Since that meeting, IRPC voted again to leave vs. transfer, so apparently GLG Presbytery decided that dissolution was the chosen path. I doubt IRPC will be able to keep their building at this point.

Former IRPC Elders (Keith Magill, Ben Larson, David Carr):

These men pled guilty of their charges, were suspended from their offices for a year, and an oversight committee was assigned to bring reconciliation and restoration. Apparently, these men, as part of the IRPC church rebellion, declared that they were "unable to work with the committee".

Synod voted to depose these men from their office. They are no longer ordained officers in the RPCNA.

Jared Olivetti:

Jared also stopped working with his committee, and rejected his discipline (suspension from communion) by accepting communion late last year at IRPC. Synod voted to excommunicate Jared.

IRPC Elders who served communion to Jared:

Another complaint came because IRPC's session voted to serve communion to Jared. These men were rebuked at the Presbytery level. A complaint against this action (that it was not sufficient discipline against clear insubordination) was sustained by Synod.

IRPC Next Steps:

A reliable source told me that IRPC voted to leave and reorganize under the name "Redeeming Grace" (why, oh why, do abusive churches seem so attracted to the word grace??!!) with former pastor James Faris as the moderator of their session. I'm wondering if their goal is to split the friendly churches off of the RPCNA to form a new denomination.

Just to recap, Jared's relative raped a bunch of kids. The church leadership circled the wagons around Jared while pretending that he had been recused from oversight of the situation. The leadership then downplayed the rapes as "normal teenage hormones" - re-victimizing the victims, failed to report the crimes to the authorities, and subsequently refused any counsel from presbytery. The leadership's complete disregard for what was right led to a huge expose in the Indy Star and disgrace for IRPC, the presbytery and denomination. Now they want to recast the church as "grace" - the opposite of what they displayed to the victims and their families. Instead, it's always about what the leadership wants for themselves, not for their congregation. It's a doubling down on the abuse. Not only will they abuse the victims, but when those in leadership face accountability, they demand grace, or else walk away. How brainwashed do you need to be to stick with a church that obviously cares only about protecting its leaders?

The Patriarchal Empire Strikes Back

 Not sure how familiar people are with the RCUS - another NAPARC denomination that is about 1/5th the size of the RPCNA. They are a "Three forms of unity" church, which holds to the Heidelberg Confession, Belgic Confession and Canons of Dort, which I understand to be along the same lines as the Westminster Confession.
Sam Powell was a pastor in the RCUS, brought up on charges for teaching "false doctrine", and because the RCUS doesn't appear to have the same procedural protections as the RPCNA does, Sam was found guilty of unspecified charges and told to repent. The Clerk could not tell him what he was supposed to repent of. The whole situation is just a witch trial and kangaroo court. He's essentially the RCUS equivalent of Bruce Hemphill, except that Bruce Hemphill was given specific charges.
Sam talks about the situation in this article: https://myonlycomfort.com/2023/03/22/heres-what-happened/
It comes down to his position on this overture that came into the PCA:

Overture 15: “Men who describe themselves as homosexual, even those who describe themselves as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy by refraining from homosexual conduct, are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America.”

Now, I've discussed this before. Sam's response is in this article: https://myonlycomfort.com/2022/06/24/a-sad-day/ which, I think, rightly puts the emphasis back on the position of the church.

56. What dost thou believe concerning the “forgiveness of sins”?

That God, for the sake of Christ’s satisfaction, will no more remember my sins, nor the sinful nature with which I have to struggle all my life long; but graciously imputes to me the righteousness of Christ, that I may nevermore come into condemnation.

Essentially, he's saying the same thing. We will ALWAYS struggle with the flesh. Our struggle with the flesh can take on many different forms, some struggle with greed, some struggle with lust, some struggle with anger, some struggle with sexual sins. What would we say about a pastor who is happily married, has never looked at porn, has never had an affair or dated a woman who is not his wife, but then gets up in front of the congregation and says he "struggles with lust" - well, since that's exactly the premise of "Every Man's Battle", and many churches promote that book, we assume that "struggles with lust" is not a disqualification for pastors.

So, Sam Powell got brought up on charges because the patriarchs of his denomination believe that not all sinful natures are created equal. Some flesh is just too evil for God to work with. Some desires are just unforgivable. If that were the case, don't you think that greed, lust and anger are also unforgivable? Jesus said the person who is angry has committed murder in his heart. The person who has lust has committed adultery. Murder and Adultery are also capital crimes in the OT, so why is same-sex-attraction on a different level than anger and lust? There's no reason, and I would argue that his accusers (e.g. Stephen Carr) have done more than had lustful and angry thoughts. Their whole approach to women in the Geneva Commons has been lustful, angry and greedy. Actions, not thoughts. So, for these men to claim moral superiority over any potential pastor because of sinful flesh which has never seen the light of day, demonstrates exactly where their hearts are - far from Jesus who died so that men could conquer sinful flesh.

Church membership, Biblical or not?

The RP Witness article is beyond a paywall, so I can't respond directly, but you can find the article here: https://rpwitness.org/trunk/page/article/your-covenant-and-the-new-covenant

A similar article that I'll respond to more directly is here: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/is-church-membership-really-required/ the argument is very similar to John Edgar's argument in the RP Witness.

Remember, the primary Evangelical tools of cognitive dissonance are equivocation and false dichotomy. With that, let's dig in:

The argument of church membership being mandatory is not whether we should or should belong to the "body of Christ" that is, the invisible church, the collection of all believers. The question is whether Christians are commanded to make vows to a local organization called the church. For example, in the RPCNA, you cannot make a profession of faith without also joining the church where you are making that profession. It is a reason why I did not profess faith when I felt a personal connection to Jesus beyond being raised to belief - I did not want to join my parents' church.

Israel is the church and the church is Israel - when Reformed theologians look at the church, they see an unbroken connection between the OT and NT church. Moses was a Christian just as Cornelius was the heir of Abraham. In the OT, the Jewish leaders confused ethnic Israel with salvation, just as the modern-day church has struggled with the connection between membership and salvation (remember Doug Wilson's "Federal Vision"). For both OT and NT, membership in the church was either by birth and acceptance of the covenant - what Rick Gamble would call "age-appropriate faith", or by accepting the sign of the covenant (circumcision or baptism) as a new believer.

So, let's understand that the "congregation" of Israel was never some individual isolated community, but was a nation, an ethnicity*, and a religion. I will say that the ethnicity itself is fluid. Deut. 23:3 says "No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the Lord; none of their descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall ever enter the assembly of the Lord," now, remember that Ruth was a Moabite, meaning that her grandson, David would be a second-generation Moabite, yet David was definitely part of the 'assembly of the Lord'. So, it seems the conclusion is that Ruth became Jewish by accepting the covenant (your people will be my people and your God will be my God (Ruth 1:16).

It's therefore important to understand that the ecclesiology in the OT and NT have to match. It took a number of families to form a synagogue, and there was no guarantee that there would be enough people when the Jews were scattered to form these synagogues everywhere they might migrate, yet, they were still children of Abraham. In the same way, we send missionaries to foreign countries to establish churches, yes, but even if a church doesn't get established we wouldn't force a few converts to move somewhere else to join a local body.

The synagogue is an example of the local church, and the local church is an example of the synagogue - our modern church adopted the synagogue model, which was pervasive in the first century. I believe that there is evidence that the synagogue is not inspired as the model of the church. Jesus taught in the synagogues, and Paul's practice was to preach first at the synagogues (e.g. Acts 17:1-2). So, there's definitely the idea that the synagogue was a good place to share the gospel. However, many of the people Jesus converted, like Jesus himself, were rejected by the synagogue. For example, John 9:22 says, "the Jews had already agreed that if anyone confessed Him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue", so that synagogue was definitely not a "church". John 12:42 says that the Pharisees made people afraid to confess belief in Jesus, lest they be kicked out.

In some ways, Jesus and Paul acknowledge the importance of the local church / synagogue to Judaism/Christianity, but they also don't make it a matter of faith. The church should keep this in mind. What happened to the blind man who was kicked out of the synagogue? Did he lose his salvation as the RPCNA "outside of the church there is no ordinary means of salvation" would suggest? The Bible makes no such argument, in fact, the blind man worships Jesus and chooses Jesus over the Pharisees.

So, it's obviously going to be better to be in a local body of like-minded people who want to serve Jesus but we need to take another look at the synagogue. How many synagogues accepted Jesus? Perhaps one, the synagogue at Berea, but that is even in question, because the Jews from Thessalonica came and stirred up the synagogue against Paul. The track record is extremely poor for synagogues being places truly looking for the coming messiah! What if the same holds for the local church? That would be tragic, and I think we are looking at an Evangelical tragedy.

The visible church is ultimately a collection of like-minded people serving God, not a hierarchy or a boot camp - I want to be careful here. First, Jesus did not threaten those who would leave. In fact, it seems like he almost invited people to leave. After Jesus preaches a difficult sermon, comparing himself to manna, many of his disciples leave. He does not threaten or pursue him. He seems sad, and he asks the disciples, "you do not want to go away also, do you?" (John 6:67) Peter's response is the response of the Christian in a local church today, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life." Jesus also says, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me" (John 10:27) and "A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers."

So, first, we establish that those of the flock follow the voice of Jesus. I believe they also follow Jesus's voice when heard through those who are faithful to Jesus, whether brother or sister, deacon, elder or pastor. When people do not follow the leadership, there are two main possibilities, the sheep don't hear the leaders talking with the voice of Jesus, or the leaders are speaking with the voice of Jesus, but the people are not sheep. There can be other mixtures of truth and error, of course.

So, when we talk about elders, there seems to be more of an organic nature to elders than the modern church portrays. Elders are people who are older in the faith, who have a life that demonstrates faithfulness and love towards the brethren. They do not need the force of membership vows or church courts or arbitration clauses, because they speak with the voice of Jesus and the sheep listen and heed. That's the bulk of it. I do believe that there needs to be a mechanism of accountability for all Christians, although mainly to protect the church from wolves - spiritual, emotional, physical and sexual abusers. The church needs to be able to say, be careful of Frank - he's emotionally abusive. Frank will most likely walk out the door, so they may need to tell other churches the same. I don't know quite how that works. What we see in practice, however, is that the main thing elders should be doing, holding each other accountable, is the last thing they want to do in the modern church. Instead we have the Catholic church moving abusive priests from church to church, the Southern Baptist Church moving abusive pastors from church to church, and the more conservative churches trying their best to hide abuse, protect abusers and trap the abused.

I also want to say that like-minded means followers of Jesus. There should be no other bounds. Many of the doctrines we fight over are of no eternal significance, so why not hold your own beliefs, but agree to partner with people from diverse backgrounds? Am I more effective as a Christian if my church is scattered all over town and I visit only those friends, or am I more effective if I join with a church that is less theologically in agreement, but has members nearby where we can fellowship and invite neighbors?

To equip against the Evangelical arguments, what we will expect to see is first, an equivocation between membership in the invisible church and membership in a particular visible church, and second, we will see a false dichotomy where membership = salvation and not being a member is damnation.

The RP church in a nutshell - from Jesus

 This passage stuck out to me yesterday at church:

You examine the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is those very Scriptures that testify about Me; and yet you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. I do not receive glory from people; but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you accept glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? (John 5:39-44)

The last sentence is exactly where the RPCNA is right now. The RP leadership is a bunch of people seeking the admiration and approval of... each other! Maybe some are deluded into thinking they're serving God but that's not what's happening in practice. 

I overheard an elder at his own relative's funeral talking to another elder. "Hey, it's probably not the best time, but I really want to know what everyone thought about the Presbytery report I wrote." I was pretty shocked, to say the least.

The rest is just spiritually abusive. A bunch of people that are trying to win each others' approval, but then trying to convince the flock that they are really 100% devoted to serving Jesus. So, when they parade their buddy in front of the congregation and nominate him as the next elder. It's about serving Jesus. When they remind people they need to unquestioningly obey elders, it's in the name of Jesus. When they bemoan people leaving the church, it's all because they loved them to the best of their ability and not because they were faithfully tithing while members.

As I said before, not every elder is an abusive wolf, but the system is maintained by and for abusive wolves. When the wolves want the ends, the means are not a concern, but when the wolves are unhappy with the ends, the means must be critically assessed. The people who write complaints about presbyteries "binding their consciences" are the ones who gleefully tell people what they must and must not do from the pulpits.

To look at Odom's paper in light of this. The RPCNA handling of IRPC did not achieve Odom's ends, therefore the means are suspect. He attempts to expose procedural errors the GLG made. However, when talking about how the elders of IRPC handled the case, the means must be flat out ignored because they were trying to attain (by his estimation) the right ends. When you unravel the IRPC fiasco, it's just a bunch of powerful good old boys protecting each other. Faris, Olivetti, Magill, Larson, Odom, Perrin, all trying to win points with each other. I'm sure there are others in that network. Faris listed a bunch of names who approved of the "grace" offered to Olivetti by serving him communion.

Potential abuser alert: James Odom / Sparta RPC jumps on the IRPC bandwagon

 I guess it shouldn't be surprising that abusers protect other abusers. It seems best thing for a wolf to do if he wants unfettered access to chew on sheep is to make sure that he uses his power to make it as difficult as possible for the church to take action against other wolves.

As an example, former SBC Pastor Johnny Hunt was one of the most vocal supporters of Ravi Zacharias, and it turns out both were sexually exploiting women.

It seems that Mr. Odom is requesting the Great Lakes-Gulf Presbytery to reimagine justice and the presbyterian system so that his compatriot Jared Olivetti can be welcomed back to the fold and freed from the meddlesome Synod. I want to tackle three primary arguments of Odom's paper, which is available here: https://peacepurityprogresscom.files.wordpress.com/2023/02/glg-23-9-final.pdf

First argument: All involved are victims, therefore a victim-centric approach must weigh all their desires. 

While the original Immanuel Judicial Commission openly claimed to be operating under partiality toward “victims,” (“victim-centered approach, IJC Report, Page 2) they excluded from their definition most of the victims above, some of the most harmed, including the parents, grandparents and families of physical victims within the Session, the family of the sinning member, and the Immanuel Congregation itself, labeling as “victims” only the few (4, and included their immediate family members) who sought the GLG 23-9 imposition of harsh penalties against the Session for sinfully mishandling the matter. (Odom: 1-2)

We've heard of sin leveling, now we are introduced to victim leveling. First, Odom defines "victim" as everyone who was hurt by any of the sinful actions, which are:

abuser -> sexual abuse victims [state/church/family]

abuser -> all relatives of the abuser (Jared!), the session and the congregation [church/family]

Jared & Session -> sexual abuse victims [state/church]

Jared & Session -> all members of the congregation [state/church]

"All [including Jared and the Session!] of these individuals and families were severely harmed" (Odom 1) 

 Hopefully it's crystal clear that each of these categories of victims differ in severity and sphere of authority. Because they differ in sphere, they aren't applicable to other spheres. For example, Jared is a victim to the betrayal of the abuser, both as his pastor [church] and relative [family], but that does not put an obligation on the church to include Jared in discussions about how he further abused the sexual abuse victims and the congregation. It makes little sense to combine the abuse the sexual abuse victims and their families suffered from Jared and the Session in with the abuse that the congregation suffered. As such, the needs of the abuse victims are likely so much more significant than the needs of the congregation that a "victim-centered approach" focusing on the most significantly harmed is appropriate.

As an analogy, let's say a man is shot in a crowded theater. Odom would say "everyone in the theater is a victim and deserves to be considered". Now, let's say that everyone who wasn't shot said, "keep the movie playing because we don't want the police and ambulance bothering our movie watching" while the gun shot victim says "NO! Stop the movie and call 911. I'm hurt!". Should the desires of the many less affected outweigh the desires of the few most affected? Seriously??

And the thought of Jared as a victim needing the church's attention. Unbelievable! Yes, he was betrayed by his relative, but what does Presbytery have to do with that? From the church perspective, Jared is 0% victim and 100% abuser. End of story.

Second argument: repentance was weaponized

That is, defining “repentance” outside of its recommendation in a parliamentary proceeding practically forced the unheard of penalty of self-suspension of all elders, prior to a trial...(Odom 2)

I do agree with the technicality, but this seems like a red herring. Odom's overall conclusions seem to be that (1) Jared should be able to take communion even though Synod suspended him, and (2) the elders who resigned or were removed from office should not have been, because, I assume that was what the congregation wanted.

So, let's imagine two different, parlimentarily correct paths. Would Odom have been pleased?
1. The IJC tells the men that they are believe they should be charged, but they will drop charges if the men resign (repentance has not been weaponized). The two who resigned resign and the other two get charged and tried, most likely convicted and removed from office. The result is the same, and I suspect Odom would not be pleased.

2. The IJC presents the case to the men, who then repent. The IJC subsequently presses charges and the men are tried and removed from office. The result is the same and I suspect Odom would not be pleased.

My point is that Odom is unhappy that the men were removed from office. The means by which they were removed from office is a clever ploy to harp on, but not the ultimate aim of the letter.

Third argument: because everyone is a victim, let's focus on the victims who want what I want!

Rather than hearing the cries for mercy of the innocent victims of Immanuel Congregation in the original matter, the higher courts prioritized stiff sanctions higher than those harmed by the Session's sins in the first place. (Odom 3)

The Magill and Larson Family in particular, victims in every conceivable way, have behaved with great honor to Christ in this matter, and nonetheless had their own reputations incorrectly tarnished as a result of our actions. We should ask their forgiveness.  (Odom 3)

The continued harm to the Pastor and his family as a result of the sin will most certainly continually drive him to his knees in private and public humiliation before the LORD and the culture. (Odom 3)

Not having the context of "higher than those harmed", I'm assuming that Odom is talking about what the congregation wanted and not what the sexual abuse victims and their families wanted. So, here's what stands out. Odom completely ignores the sexual abuse victims and their families. It's like, yeah, they suffered, but look at all the poor congregation who want their former Pastor and Elders back. Maybe instead we need to consider what Synod said. Their actions were so sinful that they (the Elders) should not be in office, and Jared has disqualified himself from ministry. So what if the congregation wants Barabbas! Synod says, NO! You don't get Barabbas. He's not qualified to be an elder. His crimes against the church mean that he isn't going to lead you in the right direction.

Let's consider this for a second. Odom, one of the most authoritarian, patriarchal presbyterians is standing up and saying, "but the CONGREGATION VOTED!!!!" I'd bet $1000 he would vote against congregational officers, but here, the democracy has spoken! Unbelievable.

Magill and Larson. Okay, they're victims. Great, but now he's going to un-level the victimization in their benefit. So the four victims who wanted sanctions against the session - they're not important, but Magill and Larson who lied to the victims, lied to the congregation and generally used their spiritual office to cover-up the offenses and protect their pastor, we should really feel sad about them. How twisted is that?

Now, let these words seep in. Deeply. "The continued harm to the Pastor and his family" - you mean the FORMER PASTOR and his family. I think this means exactly what he said. He believes Jared Olivetti is still rightfully the pastor of IRPC.

Let's understand "harm" for a second. If I run into a wall and hit my head, I wouldn't say that I was "harmed" by the wall. Maybe hurt. "Harm" is deliberate and undeserved. So, the fact that Jared is continually reminded that he broke the law by failing to report sexual abuse, reminded that he broke the church rules by interfering with an investigation he recused himself from, and reminded that those offenses were serious enough to put his eternal state in jeopardy, seems more deserved than undeserved. Paul doesn't shy away from the past, saying "It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost. (1 Tim 1:15)", so neither should it be considered necessarily harmful. It's very concerning to me that Jared seems so ready to move on from his crimes, despite the fact that even HIS victims are still hurting from HIS abuse. It seems to me evidence that he has not repented.

What's next after leaving the RP Church?

 Hi all! I got a great question about whether I was able to find a Biblical church after the RPCNA. I wanted to share the process I went through and some takeaways after a few years of being in the survivor community.

The first thing is understanding what you're leaving and why. There are a lot of great things about the RPCNA that are unique. I loved the Psalms and I miss them. Hymns have the verbal depth, often with theological issues, but they avoid the emotional depth of the Psalms, and praise songs for the most part are theologically neutral, but that is because they don't offer any depth. They also don't seem to acknowledge or work through the emotional turmoil we all face. I found that it was easier to go from Psalms to praise songs for that reason.

The other big, big thing about the RP church that I miss is the community. I watched a YouTube where an ex-pastor was on the one hand grieving the lack of community outside his evangelical church, but on the other side theorizing that the community was somehow toxic. Maybe his community was, and maybe the RPCNA community is, but I really think there is more good than bad. We don't want the church to take over our lives, but the Bible is so clear about the beauty, love and joy in true Christian community.

My first two recommendations when looking outside the RPCNA are: (1) Trust the Spirit, and (2) Trust your gut. Not surprisingly, the RPCNA downplays both, so it will be hard to get to a point where you can do that. When I left, the RPCNA church, I recognized a couple of things. First, I was being spiritually abused, and second, I, and other members, were being discouraged from any aspect of ministry within or outside the church. I knew before that I was being spiritually abused, but that didn't weigh heavily, until I felt a tug that this wasn't a place I could stay. If God gave me gifts to serve the church and the church told me my gifts were not welcome, they were not speaking with the voice of God.

Now to what I would advise. Every person and situation is unique, so, trust the Spirit and trust your gut before trying to squeeze your experience into my recommendations. This may or may not work for you!

Step 1: Prioritize Healing!

Maybe you were born and raised RP or maybe you spent a good number of years in the RP church. Either way, the toxicity of the RPCNA has affected so much of your life. I had to switch Bible translations, pray to Jesus (not the Father) and practice "deliberate ignorance" of my church's authority structure and decisions. I was able to step out of the RPCNA and step into another church quickly, albeit with some hesitation, but others who were more personally abused may need to step away completely for a time. Maybe you watch livestreams from your house, or skip church altogether before feeling ready to re-engage.

Step 2: Figure out what you're looking for and what you are likely to find.

I knew that I would be giving up the RP distinctives and worship practices. I was still Reformed and I wanted to find a Reformed church, or at least an Evangelical church. It helps to know some of the keywords. "Evangelical" specifically means that a church believes the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God. There is an Evangelical culture that is not generally good, but the word itself means something. Liberal, theologically, means that the Bible is a good book, but not inerrant, thus somehow the Holy Spirit uses scripture in a way that benefits us. Obviously there is a spectrum.

Church size is probably the first big question. A megachurch can be healing because you aren't under the microscope and they have programs that can help find community, but maybe finding a small church like the RP church will give that sense of community. I tried to find a church that was big enough to not feel singled out and yet small enough to be able to know people.

The next piece is to understand some of what is available by brand name. NAPARC is typically legalistic and Reformed, like the RPCNA. Like the RPCNA, you may find good pastors/congregations here and there, but the average is going to be conservative and legalistic. That includes the RPCNA, OPC, PCA, ARPC and a bunch of smaller denominations. The next less legalistic, but still Reformed tier is probably the EPC, CRC, ECO and ECC. Any church can be abusive, but these have a denominational structure, Reformed tradition, but have generally stepped away from the authoritarian traditions.

Another helpful thing, and probably in a different translation, is to re-read Corinthians and Galatians. My opinion is that these represent polar opposite spiritually abusive churches. The Corinthians church is the "bad liberal" church. They are so focused on grace (fake grace) that they praise those who are gracious with public sin and punish those who think the church should have standards. I think some of the mainline denominations have found their way to toxic liberalism. The Galatian church, on the other hand, is the de facto RP church. Toxic legalism. Yes, you believe in God, good, but now you have to uphold the requirements of the law. Maybe not circumcision, but that wasn't Paul's only point.

Step 3: Shop around and watch for red flags.

One verse that rings true for me is where Jesus asks the disciples, "Are you going to leave, too?" and Peter says, "Where would we go? You have the words of eternal life!" A true church doesn't need gimmicks, pressure tactics, love bombing or gaslighting to attract and keep members. They have the words of eternal life and they have members who love each other.

One thing that sold me on my new church was the freedom people had to worship. The RPCNA was a bunch of unhappy people singing beautiful Psalms "with fervor". Children were expected to be silent. I looked around and saw people happy to be there and happy to sing. When my children couldn't contain their energy and were acting up, we had people come up to us after the service and tell us how excited they were to see our children in the service. Not a hint of correction or discomfort. People come in late, people walk up to their friends and give them hugs, and there isn't that toxic sense of judgment.

Now for some red flags:

"Means of Grace" - when a church website highlights means of grace, it almost certainly means  an authoritarian and pastor-focused church, since the pastor (sigh) is the only one who can administer the means of grace (preaching and sacraments).

Preaching to the unsaved/Worm theology/Total Depravity - churches can and should talk about our sin, repentance and need for Jesus, but that should be a minor topic and not the focus of the whole sermon every sermon. You can't become a member of a church without acknowledging your need for a savior. What's important after being saved is discipleship and spiritual growth, which many churches ignore in favor of "keep your nose clean". Pastors should preach to the saved as much or more than preaching to the lost. Sermons should be encouraging, not discouraging, to the saved.

Us vs. You preaching - The easiest way to figure out if a church is authoritarian is to listen to them talk about elder qualifications prior to an election. I weeded out a bunch of churches that way. Elders are those who have led faithful and exemplary lives and those who people would naturally flock to for counsel, but they are not meant to be superiors in the Western sense. So, beware of churches who make large distinctions between the leaders and members. We don't "obey" elders, elders aren't given infallibility when speaking to us. Elders aren't there to whip the flock into shape. When a pastor talks about "thus saith the Lord" when speaking from the pulpit.. These are all authoritarian words. My pastor talks about a conclusion that he's come to and why, but doesn't say it's the only correct interpretation.

Struggles and questions are okay - This is tough to decipher because many new attendees will get a period of grace for questioning and struggling, but do people get uncomfortable when others have real struggles? One example, a woman whose husband had brain cancer was giving her testimony, and she said, during the worship service, "I told God, if he takes my husband, we're done!" Her husband was still alive at that point, and I don't know what happened with her when he did die. That said, the pastor didn't "correct" her theology or whatever. He didn't dismiss her struggle despite having almost his whole sermon in front of him.

Politics from the pulpit - Pastors who talk about Republican platform planks or Democratic platform planks from the pulpit tend to be authoritarian. My pastor likes to talk both good and bad about both parties, and I can guess what party he belongs to, but he doesn't hint which way we should vote. People left our church because we obeyed the mask mandate and then people left the church when the mask mandate was lifted and we stopped requiring masks.

Love bombing / avoidance - I haven't really experienced this, but it's definitely a gut feel thing. If people are too friendly/fake and you're getting pulled hard into the community from the start, that's probably not a good sign. On the other hand, if people seem to be distancing themselves from you because you're new. It's probably easier to discern in a small church because at larger churches, they have little idea if this is your first week or fortieth.

Pressure to serve - I discovered this when I had to quit a volunteer position. I expected to be guilted back into service, but there was no objection whatsoever, just thankfulness for what I had done. I would say pressure at all, even. I can count on one hand the times that my pastor has used legalistic arguments in his sermons to pressure people, mainly because it sticks out like a sore thumb compared to his usual approach. We are encouraged to pray, not because Mother Prayresa prays 10h per day, but because we see examples of how peoples' prayers have been answered and, wouldn't we want that for ourselves? 

Obligation, not encouragement - this is somewhat the same as the last point. When grace is the center of our walk, we recognize that God wants what is good and right for us, and that it is also what brings us joy. We pray, not because it's commanded, but because through prayer we experience God's joyful presence. Yes, sometimes obedience is hard, but we are generally shown first that God is trustworthy before we are expected to act on it. Legalistic churches are often the opposite. We are expected to "give until it hurts", serve to exhaustion, pour ourselves out as a drink offering, as a demonstration of faith without the experience of fulness. My pastor describes the opposite. "My cup overflows" - God fills our cup so that we can pour it out.

Step 4: Put your toes in and test the waters

A church that practices the truth will let you stay for awhile without pressure. You can check out the classes, try out some volunteer opportunities, maybe invite the pastor out for coffee and chat, all without feeling like everyone is waiting for you to sign on the dotted line. They don't need some gimmick to get you in the door.

I guess that's about all I have at the moment. Jesus says "my sheep hear my voice", so listen! If you hear Jesus's voice through the preaching, that's a good sign. Jesus says that you are worthy and loved and that your life should be full of joy. When a pastor says you're not worthy and your not loved and that your life should be full of suffering for the sake of Jesus. He's probably not speaking with Jesus's voice.

Legalism and value

I remember watching a video series on church history. A pope early on had an apparent conundrum. If people are justified by faith alone, then there is no need for works, and if there is no need for works, then why would Christians do works? So, this pope introduced the idea that salvation was faith AND works. Luther protested against this and it divided the church. However, the Reformers ended up in the same conundrum, if people believe in Sola Fide, then will they work? So, they elevated works almost to the point of justification, but not quite. Christians must have works to demonstrate faith, and if they don't, their salvation is in question.

So, obviously, no Reformed church would say that a Christian's value is measured by the works they do, yet, somehow, Christians are measured by the works they do. Frustrating, to say the least! Not only that, but works become a scale by which the church values members.

The conclusion is that Christians end up in a state of cognitive dissonance. Their theology says that works don't contribute to their salvation, but the entire currency and value system of the church revolves around works. This is, I believe what Jesus was talking about when he said, "And they tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as their finger." (Matt 23:4), and when he offered an alternative: "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is comfortable, and My burden is light." (Matt 11:29-30)

So, we see this cognitive dissonance in many ways:

Grooming:

Pastors constantly praise current and past saints and their saintly deeds. There is often the implication that, if you want to be a good Christian, then you will emulate their standard. In true Pharisee fashion, this standard is all but impossible to attain even if we're compared against one person. However, the grooming process makes each step seem small. So, we need to spend four hours in prayer like Martin Luther, and we need to spend four hours serving others like Mother Teresa, and we need to spend four hours volunteering at church like sister Fanny, and we also need to spend two hours doing homework with kids and two hours with our spouse each day, and two hours reading and meditating scripture. When it's all summed up, we need 40+ hours per day to attain what is presented in bits and pieces as the standard.

So, again, we're "justified", but the implication is that it isn't enough, we need to be doing good works to advance the kingdom. In fact, we'll see that the works become a scale by which members can perceive their worth.

Another path of grooming is the idea of works being thankfulness to God. The implication is that we give thanks to God by doing works. Of course, they're not the works God has put on our hearts, but the works the church thinks should be on our hearts. Maybe it's working in the nursery or serving meals or teaching Sunday school. Not that these aren't good things, but the implication is that if the church doesn't see your good works, then they don't count.

Advancement:

How do churches decide which members should be promoted into church leadership? It's works, of course! I don't know of a better solution, honestly, but the issue is what works we look for. Do we look for people of peace who have demonstrated wisdom and show a lack of burden, or do we look for people who are wearing themselves to the bone volunteering at church or bossing others around.

When the Bible talks of church leaders, elder "presbyter" is front-and-center. Presbyter means literally, "old guy", so for example when we talk about presbyopia, it's an eye condition that happens in older people. So, why do churches push 20-something pastors, and maybe 30-something "elders"? It's because the value system is geared towards working and not wisdom. The 20-something pastor has endless energy and can devote long hours to volunteer, prepare, preach and do all the "things" that a more senior pastor cannot.

In fact, this is getting worse. Out of RPTS, more and more pastors believe it's their job to "do the work of the ministry". In other words, we lay people sit around and watch the pastor do all the stuff. Wow! Now consider how that works into the value equation in a church like that? Are individual members valuable if the pastor is the only one ministering?

Discipline:

How do church decide appropriate discipline for leaders caught in sin? Let's say the pastor commits adultery with his secretary. Based on what scripture seems to say, he can no longer be a pastor. He can be a wonderful, forgiven member of the church, but leaders must meet the standards laid out for leaders. Instead, however, the church weighs "the good" against "the bad" (sound familiar), and since the pastor has been working so well for so long, the Bible doesn't matter. Instead, we put the good works and bad works on the scale and say that adultery is bad, but it doesn't outweigh the good. It could be abuse, porn addiction, sexual abuse of a minor, whatever. The good outweighs the bad and the pastor gets "forgiven" (despite never doing right by the victim!) and the church moves on satisfied that their pastor is still valuable.

Workaholism Vocation:

Unlike Jesus, the goal of the church is not to find peace and rest for souls. The church holds up the carrot of our eternal state being secured when we are justified, but then practically whips us with the stick of needing to prove to others that we are worthy of our justification. The church pushes vocation, which, again, is fine, but this is all done without the concept of rest. 

So, as someone who had a lot to offer the church and society, it has been a constant emotional battle. Rest - what Jesus offers us as Christians - is foreign to the experience of the Christian. Vacations or Weekends just become another form of work. We go from the work to-do list to the home to-do list to the church to-do list. When we retire, we replace the work to-do list with the volunteer to-do list, and those who don't figure out how to keep busy end up declining and dying. Is this because rest is bad, or is it because people feel worthless when they can't "work"?

I can know mentally that my value is already a settled thing. I'm adopted into the family of God and my eternal destination is secured, but still I can sit awake at night feeling despair as my energy and mental capacity start their slow decline. This isn't the place Christians should be! How does it make sense that I should have more to offer as an "old guy" and a young guy in the kingdom economy, but I watch the church fawn over people in that hot spot of not quite adolescent, but still not wise.

Twitter thread shares deep insight on abuse

This came across my screen today. I think it's worth reading her rationale and conclusions, but it is very similar to things I've been saying. Authoritarianism is elevating the hierarchy above people, and while it's especially the eldership that I find problematic, this is also happening with respect to husband/wife and father/children.

Her second point is the cornerstone of Biblical Counseling, where the victim and abuser are flipped. The abuser is, in a sense, one and done. They did harm, they repented of the harm and now everything is grand. Now the victim is the one living in a state of sin, bitterly mulling over wrongs and participating in (gasp) survivor blogs wallowing in self-pity. BC denies the physical effects of trauma on the brain and subsequent patterns of behavior, instead painting it as the sin of the victim.

The third part is the counterpoint to the second, and how IRPC has flipped the table on victim families. The sin of the Christian perpetrator can only be seen through the lens of mistakes. There's no pattern, no premeditation, only a brief error of judgment that can and should be repented of and now the church can move on - remember hierarchy (restoring the pastor back to power) is the primary goal here.

As a result, the church virtually denies abuse (a deliberate pattern of behavior to manipulate and control others) within her walls - as such would be antithetical to a brief error of judgment.

Laura has much more insight in her two threads, but I felt it was very applicable to the lines of reasoning here.

🧵Why Christians Have a Hard Time Believing it’s Actually Wrong to Sexually Abuse a Child, as Long as Another Christian Does It.

Okay, this is a hyperbolic title. I will be told this is a straw man. Fair! I do try to avoid extreme statements about religion because I do think

— Laura Robinson (@LauraRbnsn) February 12, 2023

1) Hierarchy is Health. Good relationships are about knowing and occupying your assigned spot based on age and gender. Most social problems are caused by people failing to comply with their assigned rank. Relationships where rank and role are honored are healthier. Relationships

— Laura Robinson (@LauraRbnsn) February 12, 2023

2) There Is No Trauma, Only Sin.
Depression, mental illness, and damage are manifestations of sin and the individual’s bad habits. They need to be repented of. They have no more power than people give them. Trauma and mental illness can be set aside like any bad habit.

— Laura Robinson (@LauraRbnsn) February 12, 2023

3) People Like That Are the Only People Here.
Christians are a class of people whose behavior is rational, consciously motivated, and comprehensible to everyone. Christians make mistakes but are fundamentally trustworthy, like other Christians, and well

— Laura Robinson (@LauraRbnsn) February 12, 2023

meaning. Serious wrongdoing is usually caused by some kind of external agent, usually addiction or demonic forces. This state is temporary and easy to resolve. Only outside the church are people likely to be recklessly and chaotically dangerous.

— Laura Robinson (@LauraRbnsn) February 12, 2023

Part 2: Why Christians Struggle to Believe Abuse is Wrong (If Another Christian Does It)
(Read Part 1 below first).https://t.co/bYCGVbOX3o

So aside: My concern is with my own background: white American conservative evangelicals. If you want to know about other churches, ask

— Laura Robinson (@LauraRbnsn) February 12, 2023

Immanuel ignores RPCNA Synod discipline of Jared Olivetti

Interesting tidbit from Dr. Valerie Hobbs on twitter. Apparently, despite being deposed (removed from ordination) and suspended (removed from privilege of communion) by the Synod Judicial Commission, Jared Olivetti was served communion, and pastor Daniel Perrin was unapologetic about this. I wish this were just one bad apple, but I believe that the "structure" the RPCNA has created is reinforcing pastors who promote and use the government of the church to their ends when it comes to abusing their flock, but when the courts of the church take pastors to task for their sin, the highest court of the church carries no weight. Rev. James Faris, consider that you were ready to split the presbytery over this supposed martyr who now has his middle finger squarely in the face of the denomination. EDIT: Apparently James was in full approval based on the transcript here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_raGULwpqWc [1:49:40] The speech is veiled, but he participated in communion with a suspended member. And then overjoyedly talked about "grace" - quoted: "We know most of you. We just want you to know that we're really happy to be able to be here and celebrate God's grace with you today there are a number of other people who are really happy that you are celebrating God's Grace today in this way" Remember that "grace" is a codeword for what wolves get when they pretend repentance. Jared is not repentant. If he were repentant he would be supporting the work of the commission to restore unity and he would be the one acknowledging that his actions led to a lifetime of harm. Instead, he is using his influence to push himself back, front-and-center, into the life of his congregation. Make no mistake. These guys are Presbyterians only when the Presbytery beats their sheep for them. When Presbytery wants to hold them accountable for their actions, they suddenly become Congregationalists. 

Here is what follows the quoted excerpt: "but it came at a price. You see there are a couple of commissions from the denomination that are here to walk us through their restrictions on us and although we have rejected them, nevertheless, they're there and they are difficult. There is a particular commission that is helping Jared walk through his restrictions and one of the things that they did not want was for him to be celebrating the Lord's table, but the session, the four of us, having talked with Jared extensively believed that he should be there, believed that it was necessary for him to be there, and so we invited him to come to the table."

I guess I'm struggling. If these are COMMISSIONS of Synod, why does this church still exist? There is another faithful RPCNA that hasn't coddled pedophiles five miles away. Disband the congregation and transfer all of Immanuel's members to the new church. Then, deal with the elders who have demonstrated their insubordination to the church courts. This is a cancer that isn't going away, and the longer the cancer grows, the more emboldened the other abusive pastors and elders in the denomination will become.

Except ofc Rev Dan Perrin has *many* comments, which he's shared via privilege of the pulpit
Here's one, from 11 Dec:
"one of the significant things was that Jared was invited & participated in the Lord's table. Jared, I am so thankful for that"
≈33:30https://t.co/Xg4PURESgq

— Dr. Valerie Hobbs (@vhobbs5) January 21, 2023

Olivettis, Immanuel and RPCNA Synod face lawsuit

IndyStar published the story here: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2023/01/11/jared-olivetti-former-pastor-at-immanuel-reformed-presbyterian-church-now-faces-lawsuit/69797923007/

This is really intriguing. It appears to be a lawsuit on behalf of a child who was molested by the perpetrator. The lawsuit alleges that the Olivettis knew the perpetrator was molesting children, but still allowed the two to play together without notifying the parents or supervising. They also allegedly failed to report to the police.

The IRPC link is pretty obvious as well. If IRPC had reported, the child would potentially have been protected. Also, according to the Presbytery commission report, IRPC agreed (decided in a Session meeting?) that the perpetrator should not be allowed around children unsupervised, but that the elders failed to implement that plan. 

The Synod link is much more interesting, legally. From a money perspective, very little is held by the Olivettis and IRPC, unless they have insurance coverage. Synod, on the other hand, owns all of the church properties in the denomination, so they are an obvious target. The question, then, is whether Synod is legally liable. At first blush it would seem not, but, did Synod and the Presbytery create a culture where churches could cover up things like child abuse knowing there would be no oversight or repercussions. If that is the case, could they be held liable for allowing such a culture to pervade the church courts.

I have reason to believe that the RP "good ole' boy network" will come back to bite them. Cross-referencing the IRPC Session minutes with the Presbytery minutes, there might be good evidence that Presbytery did not exercise proper oversight - enough to make a case that they are financially liable for the costs to this family.