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.
84 comments:
Great write up. I would also add that the elitism propagated in the RPCNA is also one of the biggest issues. I believe it is absolutely corroding the sheep. My heart hurts for the women and children who can’t get out. Although you may not notice at first, a long exposure to religious elitism, as experienced in the RPCNA, is very unhealthy for the mind and soul.
My heart hurts for them, too. It's spiritual pride, and pride is straight from the pit.
May the Lord purify his Church! Judgment begins at the house of God!
Why did people complain about their consciences being bound? What is the context of that?
Here's a summary - https://www.9marks.org/article/binding-consciences-why-we-do-it-how-we-do-it-and-why-its-so-dangerous/
The church binds consciences constantly. When I became a member of the RPCNA, I had to agree to "Do you promise to submit in the Lord to the teaching and government of this church as being based upon the Scriptures and described in substance in the Constitution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America?" Essentially, I had to agree that the church constitution was not contradictory to God's plan for the church and that I would submit to it and those in authority over me.
When I hear pastors and elders talk of "binding the conscience", I believe it is "you are making me do something I don't think you have the right to make me do." So, the same people that tell their congregants, "You must obey us as long as we aren't telling you to do something wrong," turn around and say, "you cannot command anything that is not scripturally warranted to command." Notice these are two different things.
So, it's essentially the abuser claiming victim status when dealt the same hand from their abusers.
The issue of binding conscience came up a lot in the discussions around alcohol - first Vow 8 (can the church REQUIRE leaders to abstain from alcohol), then content of the cup (how do we deal with the various consciences when it comes to communion) These are both difficult discussions and often it came to binding of conscience. Pastors who refused to participate in a communion service based on the content of the cup, and church members who were threatened with discipline should they not partake in a certain content of the cup.
I believe that the church should be extremely careful about requiring anything beyond what scripture commands. For example, I think congregational officers were a good idea, but they were required, and some churches rightly felt that they shouldn't be required to have any officers other than elders and deacons. Of course, the churches that were most adamant against congregational officers were the ones who were most likely to abuse their flock and not listen, which is why a yearly congregational meeting and officers were a good idea. I've participated in a session-controlled congregational meeting, and it was obvious they weren't there to listen to anyone other than each other.
When I asked about their constitution, they told me it was “just church history.” Not kidding. They lie to get you to vow, then the masks really come off…along with the terrible surprises. They will bind my conscience in nothing! Only Christ my Lord!!
And that whole communion debate- ridiculous! Just another excuse to piddle away time on false exercises of piety and devotion. And now that the churches don’t put people on pyres anymore, there’s no excuse why we aren’t reforming this idolatrous doctrine. Catholic Church through and through- only now there are many popes, and we indulge them with our silence (agreement) as they teach us heresy!
That's sad. Even as a lifelong baptized member, I still had to go through a membership class where the pastor went through the membership vows, explained what they meant and what we were agreeing to. We were encouraged to read the Constitution and ask about anything we weren't sure about.
The history of the contentious debates is that the post-Reformation church splintered on doctrinal issues. When you believe "SIN!!!!" whenever someone doesn't hold to the same jot/tittle of the doctrine than you, then good Reformed people feel that they must break fellowship because they are otherwise encouraging or participating in sin.
I'm thankful that my current church, although Reformed, takes a very strong stance on what is worthy of breaking fellowship and what is not clear and we can allow multiple practices on. That isn't always going to work in practice (e.g. we serve non-fermented wine and leavened bread) but it's a far superior place than having wars over the minutiae.
It comes from a lack of humility. I can have strong beliefs on whatever, but when it comes to your beliefs, it's extremely arrogant for me to say that my scriptural interpretation is superior to yours, especially in matters the church has debated for centuries and matters that really have no eternal significance. I have no doubt that baptism makes no eternal difference for covenant children. Although I personally want to acknowledge the covenant for my children, it's heretical to say that baptism/non-baptism (a work) will save or condemn my child. And, then, excommunicating parents who chose or don't choose that acknowledgment, are they really saying that said work/belief prohibits people from Heaven? If you take that to the logical conclusion, the RPCNA has made a doctrinal statement that all Baptists are going to Hell. Wow, that's some arrogance!
I was asked if I had any questions at the meeting. But you can’t ask what you don’t know you need to ask. Who wants to believe such people would hide these things? The person I asked said it was church history, then walked away. Anyone without much education or whose second language is English is going to miss a lot…until you’re in deep water and don’t know how you got there.
Where is the membership class given? Does everyone take it the same way in the class?
I would say that it is a traditional expectation that prospective members are given an understanding of the basic church beliefs and overview of the membership vows before they are allowed to join. For larger churches, I believe it is more programmed and regular - 1-2x per year and announced. For smaller churches, I think the pastor generally takes adherents (people who have been attending regularly for a few months) aside as asks them if they're interested in considering membership.
There could be a variety of reasons. One is that they simply may not be very comfortable with approaching outsiders. The RPCNA has a community and a culture of its own, and if you aren't already a part of it then those who are might see you as an outsider at best, and maybe lesser or even unwelcome. Another possibility is that you just haven't been there long enough for a membership class to roll around on the calendar. Or maybe the elders are so busy with their duties that they haven't gotten around to you. Or maybe they're waiting for you to make the first move.
But (and keep in mind I'm quite biased) perhaps this is a good thing, and a subtle hint (either from them or from the Lord) that this isn't the place for you? Let me ask you, is this really somewhere you want to join after reading all you've read on this blog? Do you sense love, joy and peace in the Lord there?
No, I don’t sense love, joy, or peace. Sigh 😔 Tbh I’m profoundly confused by their overall heart postures. I’ve really invested a lot of myself and given a lot to them, but people who have come after me have long since joined and been welcomed ‘warmly’ (whatever that means). Are the membership clases only given in groups, or are they ever done individually? I just thought I just be missing something. Your question is valid, and I’ve began to realize I won’t be invited to join, and even more, I don’t have peace in my heart if I did join. Maybe I’m delaying the inevitable. I’ve been trying to work up the courage to talk about it and just ask, because one of them said something once they could only know if they dug into my background before I was a Christian- and to clear it up here it wasn’t anything involving harm to any person but myself. I did get a job offer out of state I’ve been on the fence about, and my heart has been moving in that direction, as I realized my interest all this time may have been in error. It’s hard to say to myself I may have been wrong all this time. Can’t find some stuff they teach in the Bible. Please pray for me 🙏
The RPCNA churches can be extremely clique-ish. Perhaps there's something about you (could be appearance, doctrine, church background, race, education, personal history, sins...) that doesn't meet their expectation of what a good RPCer is. Or maybe it's something so much more mundane. But whatever it is, does it really matter? If you're not going to have peace in your heart about joining, why would you want to? And if you wouldn't have peace there, how could this church ever be a place where you would feel comfortable bringing a fellow Christian, let alone an unbeliever? Ultimately, this is why I left: a friend pointed out that my RPCNA church was a place where I'd never want to bring anyone, because I knew that the church would treat them the same way they treated me.
The RPCNA is very analytical about everything, and the doctrine and life have been worked out (mainly in the minds of the leaders) to where they know the state of everyone's heart by the box they fit in. In other words, if you don't neatly fit into their idea of a prospective member, then you simply aren't a prospective member, so they aren't going to treat you like one.
Just like I said where it's okay for middle school and high school students to have questions and doubts about the doctrine, but by the time a lifelong member has graduated college, the time for doubting is over and there is a new box - the lifelong cheerleader box. When I wasn't cleanly in the lifelong cheerleader box, I got quietly pushed to the side.
I think it's likely that's what has happened to you. You don't fit cleanly into whatever box they expect you to be in, so they assume that your heart/spirit are not in the right place. They may not have the time or energy to invest in someone they think is just not going to provide return for their labor.
Very well put.
I have seen a session claim to know what's in a person's heart. They didn't suspect - they knew definitively, and that drove them to behave in a manner I thought was quite unjustified. It's like they have a playbook: if person X does Y, then that must mean Z. Never mind a hundred other possible explanations. Never mind that person X denies it, and that people more familiar with person X support X's interpretation. X did Y, therefore Z. "Man looks on the outward appearance." - 1 Samuel 16:7.
Don’t they realize all of these things you guys mentioned are a million miles away from Christ?? This is 1000% cult tho. Seriously none of what you’re saying is compatible with Christianity. This is deep personal deception on a level I’ve never seen before. How can any born again person abide with any of these things?? Their god is their RP religion if this is true. Also, if this is true, it means they’re in serious trouble with God! That’s frightening!!
…ok guys, I’m going to start working through some things that have been troubling me since I started attending. Thanks for putting some honest questions to me to help me start getting real with myself. I feel like I’ve been in a confusing wormhole for months now and haven’t had a real conversation with a human in as much time. I think I have praying to do and need to get real with myself of how I’ve ended up here. I wish there was a support group for people trying to find a solid church, and helping each other to work through it. I think I’m going to pull away slowly, but I feel more certain the membership is off the table at this point. I think I’ve been avoiding the inevitable.
Part of me says keep looking until I find the perfect church, and the other part of me says that we'd end up with highly divided churches of like-minded people. I'm not sure that is a good thing. I would rather have a church of people who are very different - different races, different cultures, different desires, who all see God differently and challenge me to do the same.
I think the problem with the RP church is too much of a good thing - they want to know God in detail, just that that detail is derived from a white, intellectual, mostly introspective viewpoint. At some point, they cross a threshold and it becomes about only being willing to see righteousness from a certain perspective. It's not a bad perspective, it's just not the only one. The abuse happens when they try to force the white, western, intellectual, middle-class lifestyle on everyone in the name of Jesus.
Yes, exactly. The really crazy thing is that you don't see it until you've been hurt by the system yourself. You see people suddenly stop coming to the church without any real explanation, and you think to yourself that they just don't see what God's doing in and through the church, or they just weren't up to the high standard; and they will never find another church nearby that will have God-approved worship. But it never occurs to you to question the elders God has ordained over you and their God-given wisdom.
So I'm totally fine with you dismissing my complaints as scaremongering from a disenchanted unregenerate, but if you're starting to see problems then for your own sake take some time to think on it and investigate BEFORE you make a home there, because once you're in it can be ever so much more difficult to get out.
I’ve seen issues since the beginning. I don’t expect perfection and didn’t understand their magnitude is what it was. And yes of course there are some things I didn’t see. But the questions have been mounting since day one. Sometimes it takes time to be willing to accept things. What do you mean unregenerate? Is that what they called you? Or are you not a Christian? Sometimes people call us unregenerate if we don’t agree with all their viewpoints. I will not be pursuing menbership. But as for getting out, all one has to do is walk out the door and never go back. Anything else is scaremongering from the (c)hurch, and I don’t receive that kind of fear anyway. Fear is a tool of Satan, not God.
I walked away, but as someone who was a member, walking away can come with quite a cost. One of those costs is that even those who were your friends suspect or even openly question or deny your salvation because you've broken your vows of submission to the elders. That's what I meant by "unregenerate".
From the little you've shared, Anon, it seems like you've got some good instincts. Continue seeking first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and be assured that He will lead you to the right church, and that many other good and needful things besides will be added to you.
"I believe that the church should be extremely careful about requiring anything beyond what scripture commands."
This.
Thank you for your encouragement, black sheep:)
I find much of what you write here to resonate. I am no longer a member of the RPCNA. But I saw much of this come into play during a dispute with Elders of the local church, of which I was a member in good standing.
The dispute regarded a matter of conscience. They agreed it was a matter of conscience, all the while dictating what the congregation must do. It was all regarding a certain virus you may have heard of.
I complained to presbytery and overall got a fair hearing there. But even at the end much of the leadership of the denomination was circling the wagons to protect their own.
“A certain virus you may have heard of” lol. I love a little humor thrown in;)
May I ask what they were dictating to the congregation to do? I was always confused where they stood on all of it, because I also heard from a couple of people they agreed it was a matter of conscience, but a couple of core members would make comments to the effect that I just misunderstood the issue, thereby kind of really saying, ‘conscience or no conscience, we think you should just do XYZ.’
I was thankful what my church chose - they believed that the government had the responsibility to protect health and that we should honor it. As long as the mask mandate and social distancing were in effect, they told members that they were expected to obey them. Some left over that. When the mask mandates were lifted, they lifted the restrictions and others were upset by that and left, but the church didn't change positions - they believed it was their responsibility to honor the state.
My RP relatives and their churches thumbed their noses at the mandates and I think they've all had it at least once. So far, I've escaped, as far as I know. I was upset that the same mega-authoritarian "obey your leaders" RP Elders were very "you can't tell me what to do" when it came to the government trying to protect people. It was sad to watch, and I know there were some current and former RPs who died from COVID.
The government trying to protect people?! Ha! I’m no anti-vaxxer or any of these things, but that’s some straight up koolaid right there! Our government cares nothing for us…and to be honest, neither no most churches or nominal ‘Christians.’ Jesus cares, folks, Jesus…and those who truly follow Him (He knows who they are). It’s one thing to stand on whatever you believe about following rules, but let’s reject immediately this pretentious nonsense that our government wants to really spare us from anything. Out govt is a group of people who can’t get along, don’t want to get along, and are mostly evil on all sides. Our govt WEAPONIZED COVID. Covid is real, so is any other sickness- but just look what evil men will do with it. The RP church hasn’t a leg to stand on without the people they have groomed forever supporting them (it’s why most sermons are sprinkled with grooming tactics developed by psychology, the business world, the security intelligence world, and oh yeah, people like Göring…thus so also does our govt get away with things by the same syophantry upholding them. Are we slaves or free?
Yes, government is a mixed bag of evil people, good people and mostly people who want to have a steady job and bring home a paycheck. Maybe "care" is strong, but even the evil parents provide food, shelter and clothing for their children, and whether or not the government "cares" for its citizens, and even if the COVID response was a mixed bag of good intent and trying to increase the scope and control of government, I think it's unjust to say that government weaponized COVID purely for evil reasons.
Let's walk for a minute down the journey. Ignoring "care", the government wants more control over people and it wants more people to control. Any authoritarian system wants that. More control = more power and more ability to make one's mark on the world, and more people = more money coming in (tithes, taxes). Coupled together, you have more people to extend your reach.
So, now COVID appears. The government must now choose. If left unabated, people die, which means less people and less money coming in for a long time. If contained, it means less money short term, but hopefully the money earned by the people saved > money lost by social distancing. Also, it gives time to understand and learn.
It makes no sense for a government to purposefully hamstring itself economically because that is a reduction in power, unless they think they have something bigger to gain long term. I have yet to see any plot unfurl that shows how we are more controlled by our government, or other governments that chose similar or even more severe restrictions. Am I missing something?
Rev Quigley is known to be like this, a wolf. abusive of his congregations particularly financially, coercing loans from members and not repaying.
Things like this seem like epidemics with the bigger RP names. So sad that it happens.
is Quigley the pastor referenced in the book 'Toxic Faith?'
Could you provide more info? If it's Arterburn/Felton, I'd be surprised if Quigley would be talked about at all, since they seem congregational/baptist. I would also say that Arterburn may not be the best choice to write about Toxic Faith, since "Every Man's Battle" is toxic in its own right. It portrays all men as struggling with lust/porn and puts it on women to cover up / wives to provide them sex as the solution, which has been very toxic for women. Purity culture / Obligation sex is a horrible message for women.
I'm done with Presbyterianism for this reason (among others). I've seen a pastor quit a small country church because he got an advanced degree and now wanted to make more money. And I've seen another pastor neglect people in his congregation because he's too busy working to be a big-shot at the regional and national level. The men are in it for themselves and don't care about anyone else, and the system encourages it.
Phil 2:20-21 I have no one like [Timothy], who will be genuinely concerned for your welfare. For they all seek their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ.
I used to buy the idea that Presbyterianism provided protection for members and accountability for pastors, but in practice, the accountability is only to the doctrinal standards. It's okay for a pastor to be an abusive wolf as long as he doesn't preach against the WCF or Testimony. Even pastors that don't believe those things and preach against it are unlikely to be held accountable. For example, Christian Nationalism made waves a while ago and my pastor was preaching that the OT law ( cities of refuge, bride price, etc. ) had not been abrogated, which is directly opposed to the WCF, but when I challenged him, he said it was a "moral civil law" - implying that it was a new category not addressed by WCF and thus he was still in compliance. In reading Synod decisions there's a lot of "we must protect the authority of the session at all costs" even if it means the session gets to exclude the means of grace from a member with a weak conscience.
That is the author. I noticed a few things throughout the book that were questionable. However, the toxicities he described in the book are shockingly 100% existent in the RPCNA. I was floored. By the end, my conclusion is that the guy had definitely been through something toxic and had made some great strides. It was apparent though he hadn’t healed fully and is still carrying some baggage that’s affecting him still. I didn’t read Every Men’s Battle but that’s sad if that was his thought process there. I think we should stick to what Paul says about staying apart for a time if necessary but then coming back together. Just sticking with the scripture. I don’t think more sex from a wife is the solution (though it’s not a bad thing in itself as long as willing), as the issue with struggling men is something in their own hearts and no one else’s fault or responsibility.
In the beginning of the book I mentioned he talks about an unnamed pastor who requested a loan but had no intentions on paying it back (the pastor had a history of this). I know a pastor in my city who did this to a few folks and never paid the loans back.
Black Sheep you are right. This is happening in many denominations now though to be fair. I definitely get your point though and what you said IS happening. It’s what happens when men with talent are promoted and not men of character. They had weak characters to begin with. Our RP pastor was not only going this route but had (egosyntonic) mental health issues and 2 side addictions that no one was addressing either.
It's hard to identify men of character when the mainline path to the pastorate is a Bible degree undergrad and three years of seminary. Maybe this person has a wife, maybe a toddler, probably never had a full-time job. A few presbytery interviews and this guy is voted the spiritual leader of a congregation. There is simply no time for anyone to distinguish whether this person has any character. It's just like where everyone trusts the state medical licensing boards so that whomever treats your life or death medical condition is assumed to know what they are doing, a pastor is presbytery-licensed to be of good moral character, until proven otherwise. Even then, in both cases, it takes a lot of proof to disqualify.
There is time. Seminary should be picking up on it, without getting into detail of all the ways they can do this. But then, how can the blind lead the blind (much less pick up on deep character flaws)? A manipulator can definitely hide for years, but even if a person isn't got to this point, there are always clues to the cracks in the character. People in their lives either lack discernment and godly character themselves, or they see it and are choosing to ignore it (usually rationalization with a root of self-protection). A person with no time to do right isn't walking in the fruit of patience, either.
Typically, the abusers know who they can abuse. They treat their superiors (professors, pastors) well and probably know which of their peers they can use vs. which ones will open doors for them. The chinks in the abuser armor show up in how they treat those they deem beneath them, which is unlikely to be seen by those in authority. But there is also a narcissistic element to the system where people only want to hear what the elders think, and lowly member who was treated poorly isn't going to be heard. I was at an election where the session refused to allow any discussion on the candidate they wanted. They even wanted an up/down vote on him, which I told them was a violation of the law and order of the church. After parading him in front of the congregation in various high-visibility roles, and strongly implying which candidates they wanted on the slate, they stated "the nominations should come from the congregation."
"I was at an election where the session refused to allow any discussion on the candidate they wanted. They even wanted an up/down vote on him, which I told them was a violation of the law and order of the church."
This is how the PCA does it (minus a complete ban on discussion, I think). The session or search committee vets the candidate(s) in advance, presents him/them to the congregation, the congregation votes up or down, and majority vote rules.
I personally think the RP supermajority rule is a better choice (although I don't see why a yes/no vote with a 67% or 75% requirement would be that big of a problem in principle), but I also understand why 50% can also make sense.
From an RP perspective, the point of the election is based on Acts 6 where the apostles say, "choose for yourself". I don't necessarily think there is a Biblical mandate, but I find it troubling when authoritarian churches try to control things. On one hand, the elders feel that they cannot have an election unless there is someone they deem qualified, and on the other hand, if there is someone they deem qualified, then they feel they should get that person in office ASAP. I think in a church that is not so authoritarian, leadership isn't so much a life-or-death decision. My elders serve me communion and a couple occasionally preach, my pastor teaches less clear doctrine from a "here is what I believe and why", not "thus saith the LORD!"
"The chinks in the abuser armor show up in how they treat those they deem beneath them, which is unlikely to be seen by those in authority." How can this be? Those in authority will be directly witnessing the 'discipline' these wolves wield on their targets. No one in authority can not see the treatment. There is a specific pattern of behavior that leads up to the finale: it's predictable, defensible with the usual rp gymnastics, and every step has been carefully calculated. The abuse isn't just by one man, it's sanctioned by his court and set in the silence of a fearful body of followers. If the people they see beneath them are their family members, that can be hidden, but not always and not completely. There are clues that we dismiss all the time. There are also different personalities/makeups of abusers. Not every wolf is a wolf at home. Some types need a stable home life to counter the chaos in their minds and that they create in their congregations. In fact, a stable home life enables this type. That's not to knock a healthy home life by any means though. Just saying that if such a man isn't challenged at home in any meaningful way for shortcomings, and if his wife and kids tow the line consistently, he has all the more energy to devote to his obsession. My wife never crosses me in public, but in private she doesn't hold back and it's made me a better man. We know families that don't have the benefit of honesty behind the scenes, and without honesty there is no growth.
By the way I agree that abusers know who they can abuse. It's this same ability that allows them to select the elders most likely to support them in all they do.
I'm saying in a healthy church it's still going to be hard to screen for abusive leaders, because abusers will understand how the system can be gamed. They will be on their best behavior to get into a position where they can use their trusted relationship to get past peoples boundaries.
The RP church is a different story. The selection process is oriented towards putting abusive men in power, and they wave off the abuse because the sheep need to be herded and it's part of the system that the sheep dogs will need to bite a few sheep to get them moving. Even then, there are going to be wolves who go above and beyond the typical RP abusive behavior. IRPC has been an example of the next level of wolf abuse, where the elders expect complete autonomy in their handling of church discipline without question. Their general Presbytery/Synod defense has been some flavor of "how dare you hold us accountable, we're ELDERS!"
Yes, and circle their wagons to oppose elders who are most likely to listen to their victims and act on their behalf. Again at IRPC, I think the elders were shocked, and even went on the warpath against the "victim-centric approach" the Presbytery took in approaching the matter.
It's amazing how Roman Catholic that attitude is, rather than what you'd expect from a protestant. They think they deserve to be elders, and that makes them better than others.
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=107232323432199
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=108231945466189
I would say that there is still hope that the RPCNA can reform.
I'm sensitive to the problem of authoritarian churches needing to be checked, and I suppose handing over the right of nomination to the congregation would serve that goal. But I feel like the supermajority requirement serves that goal as well.
In the PCA, pre-nominations can come from the congregation, but if the session finds a man unfit or unready, then he won't be presented to the congregation for a vote. In the RPCNA, nominations can come from anywhere, but even if the congregation votes in supermajority fashion for a man, the session needn't ordain anyone they find to be unfit or unready (including, presumably, for the reason that he won't reinforce their authoritarian tendencies).
To me, these feel like 2 sides of the same coin: in both cases, the congregation and the session both have to approve of the candidate. The biggest difference, as I see it, is that requiring a supermajority of congregational support gives the congregation greater opportunity to constrain the session -- though it doesn't guarantee that the congregation will always make use of this opportunity.
The apparent fiasco of what happened at the GLG's latest meeting regarding Ben Manring seems to be a rather bald example of what happens when "if there is someone they deem qualified, then they feel they should get that person in office ASAP."
Caveat: I don't know any details beyond what is revealed by an inspection of the public record, so it's possible that this actually wasn't a fiasco but justice being rightly served. (Given my knowledge of past history and the testimonies I read here, I seriously doubt this, but the session's defense against the appeal isn't in the public record, so it's hard to be 100% sure.)
I'm not sure what your point is: https://web.archive.org/web/20180109101031/https://gentlereformation.com/2017/12/06/dealing-with-sexual-abuse-as-the-church/
Quotes from Jared's article, now consider how these align with HIS handling of the IRPC matter:
"The wicked are enabled by unchecked power and authority – When people are put into positions of authority and power without true and strong accountability over them, wickedness is enabled."
"The wicked are enabled by silence – When those who have the ability to bring light to wickedness refuse, the wicked are further enabled to fulfill their dark desires."
"Again, the American church – including the reformed church to be sure – proves this case. When we decide to handle abuse cases “in house” without bringing criminal acts to light, we enable the wicked. When we force abuse victims to forgive their abusers but let the abusers remain undisciplined, we enable the wicked. When we silence those who speak up about abuse, we enable the wicked. When will we learn?"
"The church ought also to be willing to go to great lengths to aid the victims in any spiritual and practical way possible."
"The church lives to honor Jesus Christ. And we need to do better. We need to be more willing to speak about these horrifying things. We need to love and care for the vulnerable in our midst. We need to hold our leaders more accountable and disentangle ourselves from hierarchical ministries and leaders surrounded only by yes-men."
I find it ironic that instead of writing an article holding Jared accountable for his hypocrisy in the handling of sexual abuse at IRPC, Gentle Reformation instead chose to remove the article. Why would they do that. What Jesus tends to say is that the Pharisees speak good words, but they don't practice what they preach, which is exactly what we see here.
I don’t think you are unsure of the point. Don’t mistake being unsure of the point with doubting it. Certainly, the RP church has quite the hole to dig out of. But, one man’s failure is not the rubric for judging another man’s ministry. Being jaded is not the same thing as not understanding.
This is not one man's failure, but a culture of protecting shepherds over the sheep. I think Synod recognized the issues at IRPC, but that is an isolated case. I could list off a bunch of Synod decisions that refused to hold leaders accountable.
How about the decision where, even though the RPCNA does not take a stand on wine vs. grape juice, a teetotaling member can be refused grape juice based on the leaders' views, and then counseled by session, presbytery and synod that they should change their view?
How about the appeal to the GLG against a session that was using church discipline to control the flow of PUBLIC information about a leading elder candidate? So, if I share a news article about an elder candidate that is pertinent to their public reputation, I'm violating the 9th commandment?
What about the case that led to the repeal of vow 8? The Alleghenies presbytery allowed the ordination of men who refused to take the vow. Synod said, those men have to take the vow or they need to be removed from office, and Alleghenies refused to do anything - "we can't decide". No discipline.
What about the fact that the men who were charged with counseling Bruce Hemphill on the RP view of women elders themselves took public exception to the ordination of women deacons?
This is not "one man's failure". This is just a public example of how the church operates, and presbyters in the GLG are still upset that any elder at IRPC was disciplined.
These are the words of Jesus. "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men."
"for they say things and do not do them" - in other words RP pastors can give wonderful sermons and they can write excellent blog posts, but what matters is their actions. If they preach protecting the victim, but do not protect the victim, they're hypocrites. If they preach accountability but refuse to be accountable and hold others accountable, they're hypocrites.
So, my point is that an excellent sermon (assuming it's excellent) does not represent a sea change in the RPCNA. Even if this one pastor is not a hypocrite, he is surrounded by a culture of hypocrisy, and likewise, being able to preach good sermons does not prove anything about the character of the pastor.
I will listen to the sermons, though, and possibly do a write-up.
I don't disagree with you. Good sermons do not a transformation make. I'm merely saying that, perhaps, there is hope. By all means, look for and expect more.
Yes
I liked the first sermon, although he neglects to talk about how the spiritual equality of believers works out practically. That's where the rubber meets the road. He can say all day that we are spiritually equal, but then when it comes to anything in the church everyone is ignored or silenced except for the leaders.
The second sermon seems divorced from the first, because the first says spiritual equality, but then he is making a distinction between immature and mature believers, so how does the maturity/immaturity work out in the life of the church, especially when he seems to discount spiritual experience in the first sermon.
The things that really bother me (I would have given them thumbs up for the most part) are at the very end. First he says, "You" are God's temple is meant to be taken collectively. I disagree entirely. We collectively are the bride of Christ, but the language of the temple is very individual. For example, three chapters later, Paul talks about prostitution in a way that has a very individual feel of the temple. Ryan may say that the temple language isn't meant to be exclusively individualistic, but that's not what he says. I don't know why he's going there, but the language of the collective vs. the individual is very problematic, especially in cultish churches where pastors are trying to suppress peoples' boundaries and consciences.
But, then, when he prays, he says, "because the world is really our community." I think that is opposed to what he just preached. The Corinthians were acting out of fleshly desires, acting "as if" the world was their community, but saying the world is our community is saying that people are not saved.
Just a quick response. I talked to Ryan about your questions/observations above. Here are his responses. I didn’t give him a ton of context, just asked them in general.
1. For your first point he would say, “correct, I haven’t gotten to the practical part, yet.” Paul sets stages in his epistles. He establishes truths and then applies them. 1 Corinthians 5 ff are the actual practical application (by negative example) of the general principles of chapters 1-4. Or, in his words to me, “be patient, I’m getting there.” Obviously I don’t expect you to listen to the whole series. I’m just pointing out he’s going there.
2. Spiritually equal vs. infants/adults. I must confess I myself and a bit unsure how you see the two as opposed. Ryan was pretty clear in the first sermon that the way spiritual is being used in the context of chapter 2 is precisely NOT in terms of maturity/immaturity, but of the objective unifying factor of being of the Spirit. We are all people of the Spirit, sharing that same common status before God. In the second sermon he is equally clear that one’s understanding of the objective fact that they are in and of the Spirit, that all believers are, and it’s implications for life exist along a spectrum. But that existing along the spectrum, the degree to which we comprehend and apply that objective status, is not what make a us spiritual. It is the process of growing up. We are all of the Spirit, with equal standing and status before God. We are all at varying points in understanding and applying that reality in our lived experience. All believers are spiritual, but our living that reality is different. You seem to be conflating “spiritual” with “mature/adult”. Something he took great pains to discourage.
3. Temple language can be individual or corporate. 1 Peter 2 is an explicitly corporate description of the spiritual house (temple) of God, with individuals being stones in the collective house. In 1 Corinthians 3, temple is just as corporate as field and building. A more individual usage of the language later in the epistle does not somehow negate the very corporate language of chapter 2&3. The terminology can be used both ways. We are individually temples and collectively a temple. These aren’t mutually exclusive concepts.
4. Personally, while I understand your concern based upon what drives you, you’re missing his point and Paul’s in using collective language. We are all God’s temple and that means that builders need to build carefully with God’s wisdom lest we destroy it. Don’t idolize Paul and Apollos, you are all Gods temple. They aren’t somehow spiritually elevated above you. Indeed, they are servants who will give an account of how they build Gods building, how they build in his temple. The same is true of all leaders, and, indeed, of all Christians.
2. I guess I'm out of the exegetical framework where someone must spend 45 minutes preaching on a passage that says "All Christians are spiritual" even though there really isn't much application. My concern, which I hinted at, is that the RP church says, like in Animal Farm, "we're all equal, but some are more equal than others." So, for example men are more equal than women.
3. I agree, they are not mutually exclusive, so why does Ryan specifically exclude it? He says, "Because of what the church is. It's God's building. Specifically it's God's temple. 'Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you'. Don't individualize that, Christian. You're not meant to see that in individual terms. You are meant to see it in communal terms, in corporate terms. 'You are God's temple.' All of you are God's building, all of you are God's temple. Each local covenant community is a covenant community of the Spirit. God's Spirit dwells there. God's presence is in and among us as his people, not as his individual persons." I don't know how to listen to Ryan say that and think "well, he really means that we are corporately AND individually God's temple."
And, this leads me to a typical problem of RP pastors - compartmentalization. It's easy to come up with a compelling argument for something when the implications are ignored. Ryan can say we are not meant to see the temple in individual terms and then later say it is individual. Just like he has said that "all are spiritually equal" and will probably say "all should desire greater spiritual gifts", but then say when he comes around to it that women don't get those spiritual gifts that all should desire.
BTW: ^ is at 39:29 in the second sermon.
Because in this context, Paul is referring to the corporate body. Ryan is taking it within its context IN THE PASSAGE. Paul is using it corporately in the context. He may use it individually elsewhere. I don’t understand the confusion you have here. We can recognize the corporate implications in one passage and the individual implications in another. And both dimensions don’t have to exist in the same passage, one can deal with one aspect over the other.
The passage has context, but the sermon has a different context, which is what people are meant to understand about God's word. That's why if "corporate" and "individual" are both senses of the temple of God, then they should not be taught in a way that seems mutually exclusive.
When a pastor says, "God's presence is in and among us as his people, not as his individual persons." The English grammar of that statement is that "God's presence is not in and among us as his individual persons." That statement is mutually exclusive and incompatible with us being individually God's temple.
If that is not what Ryan meant, he can apologize for the statement and clarify it, but instead, you appear to be trying to do a typical move of justifying the mistake by trying to put it on the listener's misunderstanding. I only "hope" that it's a mistake.
The sermon is rooted in the context of the passage. In that context, Paul is dealing with the corporate application. In chapter 3 it is not the individual that is in mind, but the corporate. Ryan is not in error to point that out. I don’t think it’s a mistake. There’s nothing to justify. But, I will pass on to him that his statement can be taken to broaden out beyond the specifics of the passage. I’ll share his sermon to see if he’ll deal with that. Beyond that, I personally encourage you to point that out to him. He has encouraged his congregation to supply constructive criticism. I fully believe he would appreciate hearing how his words can be understood to mean something he hasn’t intended so he can adjust in the future.
To reiterate. It is perfectly legitimate to criticize from the outside. But it would be helpful to ministers seeking to be faithful to supply them with an outside perspective to help them in their service. Please, reach out to Ryan. Perhaps you can be a voice from the outside, with the experience from the inside, that can help him be a voice of gospel clarity.
Ryan is welcome to interact on the blog or contact me directly. I don't feel it's my responsibility to personally contact every pastor, RP or non-RP when I find their statements concerning. I e-mail my own pastor occasionally, sometimes on things in his message I find personally helpful, and sometimes on things that I feel could be taken the wrong way.
You (I'm assuming) posted the sermons as examples of good RP sermons, and they were mostly good, but I did find a few concerns I mentioned.
That's fair. Thank you for your gracious interaction.
Thanks, Speckled Sheep. Can you point me to the "public record" you're referring to?
https://peacepurityprogress.com/great-lakes-gulf-presbytery-rpcna/
Wow, thank you-had no idea. A cursory examination suggests more authoritarian tactics by yet another RPCNA session.
Also, in what seems to be usual custom, Nathan Eshelman (who served as Mr. Manring's counsel on the appeal), had a writeup on Facebook. Not official but also not containing any summary of the session's defense.
The full minutes are now published as well (https://glgpresbytery.org/uploads/2023-Fall/2023%20GLGP%20Official%20Fall%20Minutes%20+%20Reports.pdf), and they also don't give the session's defense beyond one line at the end of page 5: "A delegate asked if the defense contests the facts alleged in the appeal, and the defense affirmed that it does."
Further annoyingly for those of us who prefer instant gratification, the Presbytery voted to create a committee to write a rationale for its ruling, but according to page 6 of the minutes, "due to the late hour, the work of the three-man Verdict Rationale Committee, which has yet to be appointed, will have to wait."
I'm not sure what facts are relevant beyond Ben Manring's letter and the letters from the session. Here's what the Session's letter says: "In the email, you publicly brought into question the fitness of a man to serve as an elder, one who is a member in good standing and presently serving well as a deacon. For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. (1Timothy 3:13). "
So, I guess their argument is that this deacon could be running a brothel on the side, but as long as he's serving well as a deacon, it would be "uncharitable" to question his fitness. Sigh.
I would also argue that the process for most decisions would be to decide on the rationale and then send a committee to document it, rather than saying, "We vote to uphold" Then appoint a committee to decide why they voted to uphold.
Yep, agree. Very difficult for me to imagine a justifiable defense of:
1. Communicant member communicates public info in a polite and respectful way
2. Church discipline is the immediate response
If I were a commissioner having to rule on the appeal, I'd want to hear what exactly the Session's dispute with the facts is. Did Mr. Manring leave things out? Did he misrepresent or misstate things? Did he simply have a different interpretation?
I would have also wanted the Session to provide a WRITTEN rebuttal in advance of the meeting, since the Book of Discipline requires that "The decision of the higher court must be based solely on the records of
the lower court." Extracts of Session minutes are a good start, but they don't justify the Session's action on their own. Not even close. In fact, the written record of the case does a pretty convincing job of vindicating Mr. Manring. This should have been an easy vote to sustain the appeal and vacate the Session's ruling.
But never mind all that: oral arguments at the meeting of Presbytery will do just fine to clarify things, and I'm just a pedant for pointing out the official procedure. (I may also be off-base for trying to approach this from an objective point of view, instead of letting my personal feelings about the background situation help make my decision for me.)
"How about the appeal to the GLG against a session that was using church discipline to control the flow of PUBLIC information about a leading elder candidate?".. what case was this? whose the elder candidate/?
When Jared wrote this: ""The wicked are enabled by unchecked power and authority – When people are put into positions of authority and power without true and strong accountability over them, wickedness is enabled." and "The wicked are enabled by silence – When those who have the ability to bring light to wickedness refuse, the wicked are further enabled to fulfill their dark desires," he was using a preemptive tactic to insulate himself against the charges he saw looming. He most likely knew he couldn't contain the issue forever and was setting up a defense preemptively. If people have been indoctrinated to believe that Jared really believes those things he said, then they'll be less likely to point fingers of suspicion at him when the story breaks- in fact, their likely to defend him in spite of all evidence. this is a common RP tactic, and you're right, it's not just about the failing on one man.This is a pervasive tactic used by the leaders in the denom. who are higher on the sociopathic. the RP culture is all about protecting its existence, which means upholding the leaders at all costs. anything we do ceases to be about God the moment we use unrighteousness to deal with anything.
as for the commenter that wrote about doubting versus unsureness: by all means share this with the rp church, they need to hear it. they are quick to pursue a questioner with a vengeance when the person has something their unsure of, which is def not the same as doubting it. when they do this, they reveal their hand a bit, and its very telling. they reveal their vulnerable narcissism. and as long as people r steeped in narcissism, they cant be steeped in Christ.
Ben Manring was the one disciplined who complained and appealed against the Southside Indianapolis session.
wait...are letters sent to members about members who leave?
Not that I know of. I think that unless there is discipline involved, the elders would rather people not know that someone "left". It's more that we didn't see someone for a few weeks, then it became months and by the time we'd figured they left, it wasn't really worth asking if they did or why.
Post a Comment