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.
55 comments:
I really need to talk to someone but this is a public thread (and probably monitored). Is there a way to talk privately? Thank you for your answer to my question.
I read your answer on another thread. I completely understand. I plan to converse more openly once my brother and his family are ‘safely’ out. What is ‘safely,’ by the way? I read the recommended advice on TWW. Is it simply a matter of him sending a certified letter and that’s it? Are there any legal repercussions?
Just the certified letter. If the church tries to initiate discipline or force contact with your brother, they are subjecting themselves to a lawsuit.
Yes, I created a gmail account, batteredrpsheep@gmail.com. You can use it to contact me directly. You can create a fake gmail account if you want to remain anonymous when contacting me.
I'll preface this with "I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice", but my understanding is that the courts have upheld freedom of association as a Constitutional right, and with many of the rights, there is an equal and opposite right. i.e. "Freedom OF religion" also means "Freedom FROM religion". So, freedom of association means freedom from association. The TWW article says that church has been held as an association, and thus church discipline is something we voluntarily submit to when we associate with a church. Therefore if we dis-associate with a church, we are dis-associating with their discipline. The certified letter (I'd recommend waiting until receiving the signed confirmation before taking any action) says, in no uncertain terms, that your brother no longer subjects himself to the discipline of the church.
I'd recommend being professional, yet unwielding, in any further responses. For example, "You received my certified letter. I'm going to record/document this call as it is most likely evidence of a violation of my Constitutional rights". It doesn't need to be recorded, but take notes - who called, when was the call, screen shots of caller id, etc., just in case the church doesn't get it.
Many lawyers will discuss your case free of charge before asking for money. I was looking at a lawsuit in SC and their bar had a system where I paid something like $50 upfront for a 30 minute legal consultation.
Thank you for your help. My brother isn't under church discipline, and he's keeping his reasons quiet until their departure. So since he's not under their discipline, wouldn't he just send the first letter, stating that he's no longer a member of the church, and that's it? It's the letter with all the details that is suggested for a person under discipline (the TWW has 2 letter examples). He wants to send the letter and says he'll ignore any calls or texts or anything. He's on social media technically but he never uses it really, so there's no other way people can bother him unless they come to his house, and then he could just not open the door and wait for it to pass?
What do you mean you were looking at a lawsuit? The church was trying to sue you for leaving?
thank you, I will!
Not related to church at all. I had a contractor take my money and run.
oh my, I'm so sorry!
Hello, I attempted to get out by using the suggested letter you are referencing. They did not honor the letter at all. Communication ensued from then trying to meet up, saying they are still my authority, I need to explain myself, I have to transfer my membership to a church, etc. Essentially, they were not having it, it was clear that they were only going to let me leave on their terms. Here is my advice, when they try to contact you, keep responding with something like, “As of xx/xx/xxx I was no longer a member of your church. I am not under your authority. Blessings” They will likely even place you under discipline, but don’t concede.
Eventually I got a notice that they withdrew me from membership.
I'd recommend paying an attorney to send a cease-and-desist letter reminding them that they are violating your Constitutional rights and churches have had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages for doing just that. In other news, they can claim that the church is separate from the state, but they are a 501c3 organization and incorporated under the laws of the state because 501c3 makes donations tax-deductible and incorporation provides limited liability protection.
I think TWW recommends sending a second letter (the one if you are under discipline), which spells out what they can be sued for (harassment, defamation, etc.)
When we were members, we learned the purpose of the membership vows was actually to protect the church from legal action arising from claims of abuse. There is a biblical basis for biblical leadership and church discipline, but 9Marks churches have twisted this to their advantage, far exceeding any biblical exercise. They are crafty with their defense of their abuse, and some are even sadistic. Repent, Pharisees! Woe to you who abuse the flock and point them to yourselves as their salvation!!
I'm going to write an article on church membership, but waiting for a bit to gather my thoughts.
While I don’t think I would go so far as to say if one is an official member of a church it is a sin, I would absolutely say there is no clear cut (only if twisting the scriptures) Biblical mandate that a Christian must be an official member of a church or denomination.
It is no surprise that “church membership” is a key sacerdotal lynchpin which power tripping church leaders and their sycophants use to manipulate individuals and families. So much so that Hebrews 13:17 is often totally mis-used/abused as proof that a key to salvation is membership in the (c)hurch. However, actual concrete or sound exegesis of scripture reveals zero requirement for (c)hurch membership.
When it comes to the Church, Historically as Protestants it has always been the accepted position.......”Christians are members of the universal body of Christ not because of identification with the institution of the Church, but through identification with Christ directly through faith.” Rom 12:5, 1 Tim 2:5, 1Cor 12:12-27, Eph 3:6, Eph 5:23, Col 1:18. I would submit that whatever degree any denomination or church has deviated from this position, it is they who have become an isolated small sect of sorts.
In NAPARC, but especially the RPCNA there exists a systemic deep-seated problem related to the tightly clung to sacerdotalism, hyper-presbyterianism and an over-realized ecclesiology which gives leaders an over-inflated view of their office. "For there is only one mediator between God and mankind, the man Jesus Christ." 1 Timothy 2:5 Ultimately, it makes NAPARC elders very poor councilors, in fact dangerous.
I agree 100%. The vows then take things to another degree of unbiblical mandate.
I think vows are putting the cart before the horse. Husbands and wives make vows to each other, but it's expected that those vows come after a long season of getting to know each other. Even then, there are annulments when one partner has misrepresented his/herself. Having grown up RP, I had a pretty good idea what I was getting into, although not much comparison to non-abusive churches. That said, I think many vow to join without really going through the process of understanding, and often it's a form of love-bombing - the patience and attention of members and leadership that becomes absent after vows are made. As such, I believe that "annulments" should be expected when there is the unmasking process that tends to happen soon after membership.
I hear you and reasonable points you make. Nonetheless, I just do not see/read (other than gymnastics with the text) a mandate from scripture on pledging allegiance to a church. Interesting that the most staunch defenders the institutions are the one’s who also claim they staunchly are all about Soli Scriptura. Not at all saying that is your point, just adding an observation that there is certainly a taking away with the left had that which was given with the right. To your point, a love bomb bait and switch.
On the tired “go to” mantra from those who put stock and trade in a too high a view of the institutional church, namely….”well the Bible speaks of the analogy between Christ being husband and the Church being His bride”, my response is twofold.
1.The husband in that analogy is God almighty, the bride is very much fallen and sinful. Yet in the institutional (c)hurch somehow all too often it is as if total depravity does not at all apply to the church or its leaders. Oh sure lip service is given that “we are just fallen men leading you as under shepherd’s” but not always practical played out that way. Hence this web site and many other points of view similar. The Bible analogy given in God’s word is one the more emphasize love, relationship, tenderness, etc. Not authority. Yet for the cronies and priests of Institutionalism, authority is always to emphasis. Again, scripture twisting.
2. The Bible analogy from the text is clearly giving an emphasis of the spiritual Church, not the visible church. Point being, not to discount the visible local church, but the clear emphasis of that analogy is one of personal relationship, not authority driving everything back to institutional leaders.
I love local church bodies. However, by NAPARC standards I would be considered “liberal” on this topic. Important to have believers in fellowship with, but I see No Biblical mandate which clearly states that cannot be a home church or a variety of non traditional/ non institutional ways to go about it.
One would be hard pressed to make a case that the early church looked so much like ours. Just the opposite, it looked like a small church pot luck, prayer meeting, fellowship in homes. I am not hard core “home church”, not my point here.
I don't see any scriptural support beyond making a profession of faith to join the general church. I'm saying that imagining a good church system, the vow is essentially the public confirmation of what has been demonstrated over time. The vow doesn't really need to be tested and verified and elevated above those who took it. My wife and I live honorably towards each other, and we've never really had to start any conversation with, "but you vowed..."
When we look at what happens at church, it's completely one-sided. I took a bunch of vows towards the church, the leadership, members and God, and nothing happens in return. The members and leaders do not vow, in return, anything towards me.
So, there's no scripture warrant to vow membership, the vows obligate the member and not the church, and, in practice, the vows are weaponized against the soft-hearted to trap them in abuse. The hard-hearted walk away or become a nuisance.
Even when my children were baptized, the congregation took vows to help me parent. The main "help" I got was other members telling me how to parent my children, i.e. "you need to spank your kid because...".
I took my "unruly" kids to my current church and they couldn't sit still. I was pretty frustrated and embarrassed by the end of the service. An older lady behind us, after the service said, "I'm so happy to see children in the service. Your children seem so excited to be here!" It wasn't said sarcastically and it really lifted a burden. They don't have membership, but why would I leave?
Off topic a bit, but whatever happened with the families who left the Grand Rapids RPCNA church?
Not really sure. I know there was a URC church in the Grand Rapids area that was similar theologically.
I wish there was in fact a way to annul the membership. I'm very sad about the whole thing, really. It's been terribly painful.
There is, but part of the problem seems to be that many RP churches don't understand or respect the law, so they continue to harass members who walk away in an "unapproved" way. We uphold freedom of religion and freedom of association as Constitutional principles, but that also means freedom from religion and freedom of disassociation.
Better to leave and subject yourself to a few months of pain to be free than to stay and suffer needlessly for years…
What happened at Grand Rapids RP that caused families to leave?
I remember there being an issue with their former pastor. I believe he had said something that didn't line up with the beliefs of the presbytery on a hot-button topic. It led to a committee or a commission and he ended up resigning.
I really don't have a lot of information about that, but I do know a member who was pretty upset about how the fringe pastors seem to get treated completely differently than the politically connected pastors. He complained, specifically, that Roy Blackwood had been on the board of IBLP/Gothard when they covered up allegations of abuse by Bill Gothard and his brother. When the allegations were being independently verified he thought Blackwood should have been charged for his part in the coverup.
Just found a report from GLG: https://rpglobalalliance.org/2022/11/21/presbytery-report-great-lakes-gulf-rpcna/
There's also a note in a previous report about a minister that left the denomination due to doctrinal issues; maybe that's related or maybe not.
Oh absolutely, I did leave. I’m not sad about departing, just that I couldn’t depart ‘better.’ I would have liked to part in peace and retain any contacts for possible friendship. I had no qualms with the people, just some of the leadership. Leaving was a tough choice that took many months before I took the plunge. I researched it for some time, and was shocked to realize it wouldn’t be pleasant to leave no matter what. There’s so much they withhold from potential members. I wish we could have talked and parted ways in peace; I would have liked to be friends, just not a member of their cult. I do believe it is a cult. I know that will offend some, and I’m sorry.
Love it. It's "gossip" for former members to call out poor leadership... But yes, that's what I remember. The pastor left due to a theological position he took that put him at odds with the presbytery. I'm not sure if that was the catalyst for members leaving. I heard some comments about the presbytery before they left, so I'm guessing the alleged gossip about leadership was in regards to how things were done at presbytery.
I can’t believe I just stumbled across this website. I left this church last year and my I’m being stalked. Has anyone here experienced this, or know of this kind of behavior from this church? We went to our police station to make a preliminary report. We were given some steps to take, but it would help to know if others experienced this also and what they did (or didn’t do).
I haven't heard of stalking, but lots of harassment, especially if the elders/pastor didn't feel all the RP exit interview boxes were checked.
They’ve driven by the house a lot, then saw then in the parking lot in public places. Harassment too. childish things and lots of manipulation in different ways. I can’t be the only one.
It's hard to know. Churches in the RPCNA range from standard conservative to cultish to even cults. It depends on the level of control that the leadership projects over the congregation. All the RP churches I attended seemed standard conservative, with maybe a touch of cultish. With the stories I've heard in certain corners, it seems the average is more cultish, with some experiences being high controlling. I would also say that the male experience is worlds apart from the female experience. The church is much more manipulative of women from what I understand.
But there are clearly illegal things going on, and no doubt being justified by means of theological gymnastics. There has to be a trusted circle that is aware of these tactics, and that makes them complicit in them. This denomination doesn’t just have an isolated case of elders protecting the pastor, it’s embedded in their culture and will therefore continue to happen. I’m a dude and single so not sure what the women’s experiences are. People there are very good at keeping their feelings under wraps- too good. When I see that kind of thing I don’t think they’re just good actors/actresses, I think they’re truly programmed/deceived and are acting from a genuine nature/posture/belief. People like this will never hold a narcissistic pastor to account, because they truly can’t see the problems. I do suspect a couple elders had reservations, but there’s something that holds them back. This denomination invests a LOT in integrating people they like into the denomination so they feel trapped. They ignore or find a way to discipline the ones they consider potential risks. They disciplined in my first year for asking a question. Their whole ‘community’ stuff all the time is part of that, and then there’s the exclusive distinctive stuff that appeals to the ego (being special or better) and also causes fear in people if they go aside from that way of worship.
Sorry about your experience. In a sense, it doesn't matter. Some parents abuse because they want to control. Mine abused because they thought it was the Christian way to raise a child. Either way, children get abused. In another sense, there are abusive RP pastors and there are RP pastors who abuse because that's what they learned from seminary or mentors or experience. There is some hope for the latter. For example, Nathan Eshelman seems abusive in practice, but he was a part of the group holding IRPC accountable. Maybe he'll realize what he's doing.
When you have a high-controlling church, there is an abusive system in place from top to bottom. Even intelligent people fall prey to the system because there is so much emphasis on which "box" they are supposed to fit in. I had difficulty when I somehow had graduated from one box to the next. For example, as a teen through early career member, it was okay to challenge doctrinal positions, but mid-career, that was NOT OKAY and I was guided to my new box of "only add your vehement agreement to the discussion."
What trusted circle? I don't think there's a conspiracy. It's an unholy alliance between the narcissistic abusers and those who enable and further their abuse. Plus those who want to fit in.
All of our experiences matter, for us and they matter to God. I was adopted and had decent parents who really wanted a child. They weren’t perfect but I don’t what it’s like to be abused by a parent. I’m sorry for your experience, it matters. I don’t recognize the name but I can look him up. I can say it’s often mistake in my experience to think someone may not be abusive because they’re doing something else good. I’ll put myself out here on this one, I and many guys have purposefully done good things for a woman or women at the same time we were doing something bad. In my case I was deliberately trying to throw a person off my scent. There’s a pastor in a state near me who allowed some kids to be abused in his church but still the news had an article that showed a screenshot or something and said the guy taught in a sermon against the very thing he was doing. Lots of people abuse in ignorance, but folks who are covering their tracks along the way are not this type. One more example I can think of is an old buddy of mine used to always invite people over and post it on Facebook that he was showing hospitality, but when you went over there was nothing hospitable and he seemed overall very deficient in love towards our friends and his family. So if you know somebody who you think might be abusive, I’d be careful to dismiss your gut so easily. I don’t think a trusted circle is a conspiracy lolz, an unholy alliance is actually a great definition. I’ve moved on, but these kinds of things stay with you and you gotta keep praying through it.
Do you know anything about forensic countermeasures? I almost choked when I reas this response. Evil people often use countermeasures to deflect from their crimes. You think some dudes ok because he’s holding someone accountable? Do you know anything about master manipulators? This dude is a ticking timebomb, and he’s 10 steps ahead of everyone, and he’s patient (not the biblical fruit, the kind you see with certain evil pathologies). He’s got half the people confused and afraid and half under his spell (manipulative tactics- he’s got an arsenal of them). His hand picked elders will not stop him any more than Justin’s did- and he won’t be so easily flushed out as Justin.
I agree with you that it happens, and I'm not saying that Eshelman is clear of evil simply because he called out evil people. It's just a layer of deception I've not experienced in the RP church. My experience is that the abusers find those who are most likely to side with them and then groom those people along the "pillar of the community" lines that Jimmy Hinton experienced with his pedophile father. I've read a lot about IRPC, but the timeline is murky. It's possible that your theory is correct and Eshelman was riding a wave of public opinion, but a lot of what I've heard and seen on Facebook is that he is getting a lot of angry comments from RPs who have bought the "leaders can do no wrong" line fed to them by the church.
That all said, I want to point out that there are subtle differences between abuse because the theology and culture of the RP church is abusive and abuse because leaders are choosing to abuse as a form of intimidation and control.
To put it personally, I want to believe that my father's abusive treatment of me was because he truly wanted the best for me and that was what the culture he grew up in and the theology he believed in said was the right way to do it. Maybe I'm stupid and wrong and he was just evil and manipulative, but I don't believe I am. I know an evil and manipulative parent and the difference is night and day.
Back to Eshelman, I don't have enough to say one way or the other whether evil or deluded, but his abusive behavior is already known to be traumatic and injurious to those under his pastoral care.
I mentioned patience. Dealing with some discontent is short-term. It’s the long term goal that’s before him. None of us is completely aware of every layer or facet of deception anywhere. Deception by nature is deceptive. If anyone knows anyone else is abusive, and they do nothing, they are equally to blame. Delusion is still a personal responsibility. We allow ourselves to be deluded by many means: laziness, the gain afforded to us by giving in to delusion, etc. Delusions are a process, and we consent at various checkpoints along the way. We allow our hearts to be hardened my a series of choices. Every hardened, evil person I know didn’t get that way overnight, but by a series of small choices spanning many years and even decades. If God is really with any person, that person will be given warnings (conscience) along the way. The more we ignore the warnings, the quieter they become until we no longer hear the voice of God.
Yes, could be. What I feel about delusion is that it has to do with evidence and judgment. Let's say someone accuses my pastor of sexual abuse. If I say to myself, "my pastor would never do something like that!" I've chosen delusion. I hear that phrase all the time. "Joe is a pillar of the community. I've known Joe 30 years and he would never do something like that." That's a statement of delusion. I might say, well, I haven't heard enough to make a judgment, we should listen to what that person has to say / turn it over to the police / whatever, without making a judgment. I might (and I've done this) start watching the pastor critically to see if I've missed abusive language or red flags.
As to Eshelman... I don't want to be deluded, so I recognize there are a lot of red flags - articles he's written, sermons he's preached, but based on my experience, I have a difficult time discerning between wolves and sheep in a toxic system. You seem to be speaking from experience. I'm not arguing against you as much as stating my experience.
I would definitely refrain from judgment until facts surface. If I was making an accusation of someone, I would still expect others to do their own research or conduct their own investigation. People make false accusations all the time, and others make false denials all the time. Sin abounds in every environment, and we can be deluded in not believing a victim or in falsely believing such a person. All accusations must be taken seriously, but we should refrain from judgment while we gather evidence.
A toxic system is no better than an inanimate object without the people who run it. It’s my opinion that there are few innocents in a toxic system. Sure, the children are innocent, and many of the women- but not all. In this denomination the women are actually instrumental in carrying out the abuse on other women. Years ago I’d see all the women as innocent, but no more. There are so many resources now for women to break away and be free, but they choose to stay in fear and weakness and in their own delusion that they’re okay with God by obeying the (sinful) men. Every person who chooses a toxic system is guilty. Delusion is a choice. It’s only when people show courage and resist the abuse that they can help others. Every person who tolerates the evil in such a system is another peg holding it up. Abusive pastors and elders have a stronger judgment awaiting them if they don’t repent and turn from their sin. I was also deluded in the denomination too, and it took years for the spell to break. It was painful. I was so happy when I thought I was elite. When you have that as your identity for years, it’s tough when you realize it was never real. It’s like a crisis at first, who am I, what do I believe? Looking back and seeing the denomination itself was a group of people focused on upholding a small group of men no matter their whims, devilish pride, and lack of spiritual fruit. I was watching on Netflix recently a program on tyrants and cult leaders, and I was shocked to see that our RP leaders had every single trait.
I appreciate your comment. One bit I struggle with, and probably always will: "Years ago I’d see all the women as innocent, but no more."
I don't know why grooming works so well, but it's a painstaking process by which people's God-given boundaries are systematically broken down and destroyed. Some cults have brainwashing processes and others just have what I see in the RP church - an overwhelmingly toxic culture where people experience shame for what is healthy and normal.
Our American culture is shame-filled so the shame-centric grooming of churches like RP/NAPARC works very well because it doesn't seem different than what people experience in culture every day.
That's why I look at people like my father, who grew up in a toxic, shame-filled culture and found nothing different when he became a Christian and joined the RP church, and say they are victims more than abusers.
I really didn't recognize all this stuff until I was personally abused and said enough is enough. It was months, if not years, after I left that I started seeing the doctrinal errors and toxic culture. I just thought it was a few bad apples.
I’m studying this group right now and I can tell you they are 100% a cult. I think the reason they’ve flown under the radar is because cults, when discussed, usually exclude groups that are orthodox in their stated beliefs. When people think cult, they think of defectors from the core tenets. So what we have here with the RPCNA is an example of a cult that’s emerged from within orthodoxy, and that makes it all the harder to spot. Most outsiders who visit don’t stay long enough to pick up on it, and those who do don’t realize something might be off until they join and the real face of the cult emerges in subtle stages. When people do try to explore the red flags and confusion, they’re gaslit, distracted, and/or disciplined. Their very souls are abused.This takes an incredible amount of people to pull off, by the way- and the women are crucial to this. LE agencies and others realized years ago that women were their missing weapon, because they’re less-suspected, among other things. Without the women in this group, they would be much less effective in today’s age at carrying out their abuse and tyranny on God’s people. The things they’re doing in the name of God are so heinous.
I think also that NAPARC provides plausible deniability. When Jared/IRPC was served communion despite being excommunicated, it was a PCA minister who did that, not RP. There is a lot of overlap between the denominations, and while the PCA may have more reasonable churches and ministers, and might not even qualify as a "cult", the fact that they are allied with the RPCNA makes the RPCNA seem more reasonable.
I’m sure it’s all very strategic. The degree of strategy I witnessed all those years amounted to a majority of time spent by the abusive leaders and their fawning sychophants. It’s not about Jesus anymore, but insulating their coveted positions, power, and institution. In the law enforcement community, guys like N would trigger an internal investigation along time ago (along with a psych eval for personality disturbance/disorder)- guys like this are flagged early on now for excessive use of force- total abuse of power. Once an officer tallies so many uses of force they are flagged. Everyone knows what he’s doing (in leadership), and he’s been informally counseled many times to no avail. His pride is larger than life, and he always skates through it because he’s a master manipulator. Definitely a master of plausible deniability, too- which is just another word for lying. Do they all know lying is also a sin? I’m just heartsick over the terrible sins going on in this church and others.
Question about leaving. Where is it written that if people leave they have to transfer to an approved church? basically where are the 'rules' written? also when someone joins a church should they read the bylaws, articles of incorp, constit.? is there anything else? i need a comprehensive picture of what research folks need bc i'd like to educate people so they don't end up in a trap like my parents did
It's only a question of which "form" applies. The DCG 1.11 states: "A member of the Church moving from one congregation to another congregation in the denomination shall be given a certificate of transfer of membership at his request. Notice shall also be given to the session of the congregation to which he desires transfer. A person leaving the membership of the Reformed Presbyterian Church shall also be given a certificate of transfer of membership including any qualifications the session has in its records." -- This is a transfer.
Without a transfer, members are removed from the rolls if membership is terminated this can happen a few ways:
BoD 4.2: "Where appropriate, the court may elect to remove members from church membership without formal censure, as follows: a. If a member does not attend or show other signs of interest in the church, ... b. If a member requests that he be removed from membership, his request may be granted. ... c. If a member cannot be located or contacted, he may be removed from the membership of the church."
So, a member request to transfer MUST be processed (unless the member is currently under discipline), and the form is just an acknowledgement of membership (Form 1-A). An "indifferent" or member requesting removal get form 2 (A or B) which have the offensive phrase: "We are deeply saddened that you have thereby separated yourself from the visible church, outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation."
The problem is that there is not a lot of consistency. I requested to be removed and I got a letter that was essentially Form 2 without the snip at the end. Some churches feel compelled to send the forms as-is, no matter what. Some churches feel (since the Constitution allows) that they get to discipline everything.
My recommendation is, unless you're transferring, follow the process outlined on The Wartburg Watch. In the United States participation in religion and thus religious discipline is voluntary, so "requesting" removal is still agreeing to participate in whatever the church decides to do to you. This is discussed nowhere in the RPCNA Constitution, for obvious reasons.
So there’s a difference between requesting removing and just sending the letter saying “I resign?” From what I understand from reading TWW today, once a person resigns, they are no longer subject to anything the church does. What is DCG? And is there a list somewhere of all the governing documents a prospective member needs to be aware of? Bottom line, people need to be informed in the consent they give.
Yes, there's a difference. One is working within the religious system, and the other is notifying that you are not working within the religious system. That is not spelled out in the RP Constitution since the church doesn't officially recognize that as a right, since they ARE the religious system.
DGC = Directory for Church Government, BoD = Book of Discipline. These are parts of the RPCNA Constitution, which you can request access to from the RPCNA publication board, Crown & Covenant. It used to be available by direct link, but now people have to sign a form to get access. I believe it's common practice for potential members to be given a Constitution as part of their membership class. The Constitution is the official standard, however, Synod decides things that are contrary to the Constitution as a matter of policy without amending the Constitution, so those decisions become part of the practice of the church. For example, Constitution talks about how Session meetings can take place and that no action is official unless taken at a regular meeting, but a church complained because if the elders met for a breakfast and wanted a meeting, it should be okay, and Synod agreed.
Got it, thanks. There are ‘parts’ that can be requested? Not all? Signing a form to get access is very typical of them, wanting ti know whose requesting access and making it more difficult. Providing a copy of the constitution is part of every memb. Class?
They are just sections of the Constitution. The Constitution comes as one pdf. I think giving prospective members a Constitution is typical practice, but not a rule. I never received one, but I also grew up in the church, so they probably assumed I knew all the rules already. The Constitution is broken down into essentially beliefs and practice. The testimony (RPT) is a commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, and then the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. The rest is essentially bylaws and policies, like how congregations are formed and who participates in meetings, quorums, etc. The Book of Discipline governs how church discipline is done - trials, witnesses, appeals, etc.
Thank you, that very helpful.
our sin, repentance and need for Jesus should be a major topic, not minor, but it should be so infused with the Gospel that the Gospel is what shines. the rp church does not allow the gospel to shine, because it's the Gospel that takes away its power.
Post a Comment