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