We good Reformed people recognize that Christian Science is a cult that mistakenly believes that all sickness is a result of our lack of faith, and that if we believed the "right things", we could escape sickness.
Students of Christian Science are learning through their daily study of the Bible and the Christian Science textbook that sickness is not a stubborn reality which must be endured because it cannot be cured. Sickness is only an erroneous concept of God's perfect handiwork;
Source
We should compare that to the teaching of Biblical Counseling, which is prevalent in Reformed circles
Also, as a counselor listens to the pain of sexual assault, it is easy to get so wrapped up in a counselee’s pain, and this may mean you sidestep the topic of your counselee’s failures. Now don’t hear me wrong. The sexually violated woman is never, repeat never, at fault for her abuser’s sin against her. Yet in response to the trauma of sexual violation, she may also sin.
Reframe her story. She is no longer a victim. In Christ she is a victor.
An essential part of defaming her story has three parts and is based on Ephesians 4:22-24:
Discarding old patterns of ungodly thinking
Thought reconstruction
Adopting new patterns of godly thinking Source
The similarities are pretty striking. To first understand why they are so similar. The Biblical Counseling word "victim" must be examined. Let's reframe this story from mental/emotional to physical. Let's say the "violation" is instead a car accident caused by a drunk driver that leaves the woman wheelchair-bound. So, the rhetoric is now:
"The paraplegic woman is not, repeat not, at fault for the accident caused by the drunk driver [true]. Yet, in response to the trauma of having her legs amputated, she may also sin [true]. Reframe her story, she is no longer paraplegic. In Christ she is able-bodied. [uhhh. Hmmm.]"
So, we see that the spiritual and temporal get mixed in much the same way as with Christian Science. Yes, God created a world without sickness, just as he created a world without trauma and victims. YET! The world isn't there today. Just as someone can be born with missing limbs, someone can lose limbs. Some are born with mental distress and some become mentally distressed by a natural response to abuse.
We know, when considering this physically, that a victim of a drunk driver may require extensive surgery, followed by months, if not years of physical and occupational therapy. Obviously some accident victims will never fully recover in this life.
So, why does the church and Biblical Counseling insist on a six week mental/emotional recovery program? Why does the church and Biblical Counseling insist that modern psychology, counseling and psychiatry are detrimental, and that Christians should never be state-licensed mental health professionals?
In a sense, the Christian Scientists are more theologically consistent. They believe the body AND mind to be reversibly damaged, whereas, Evangelicals believe that only the mind is reversibly damaged. In other words, both faiths believe that the solution to a broken mind is faith. I wonder what they believe about Alzheimer's and senility - if that's a lack of faith or part of a broken body, but the evidence is pretty clear that something is different between the body and mind.
For the body, Evangelicals believe that medical treatment is necessary, good, and helpful. It's good to take medicine because medicine can help things. High blood pressure can be corrected, cancer can be fought, drugs can alleviate pain and make life better. For the mind, however, any drug, despite how studied and widespread is just covering over some sort of sin. A psychiatrist might prescribe anti-anxiety medicine to help a sexually violated woman deal with flashbacks and crippling fear, but the Biblical Counselor would simply call that "sin" (not a natural psychological response to trauma) and if it isn't fixed in six weeks then the person isn't leaning enough into Jesus's "victory".
In the same way, Evangelicals would think nothing of a member who has torn an ACL signing up for a year of physical therapy to strengthen the joint after surgery. They wouldn't blink an eye at a member with a back injury having to have regular injections for the rest of their lives. Yet, the idea that it might take years of counseling or therapy to recover from a severe trauma like sexual violation, or complex trauma like growing up in an abusive home, is considered scornful. The idea that someone with Bipolar Disorder might have to take medication for the rest of their lives is considered a lack of faith.
I would also say that just as a person's body would be harmed by the church refusing to recognize a medical condition, the same is true for the mind. What would happen if a church told a member with a broken ankle that they were sinning if they didn't play volleyball for the church league that weekend? Wouldn't that be cruel and irresponsible? But churches and Biblical Counselors (as seen above) tell abuse victims to "reframe" their mental state. What does that mean? It seems that it means acting as if the abuse never happened, just like playing volleyball on a broken ankle. It often plays out like this - the church gets the abuser to repent, and then pressures the victim to forgive and act as if nothing happened. If the victim doesn't feel safe being in the same room during worship, that's not forgiving. If the victim files a restraining order, that's not forgiving. If the victim won't submit to joint counseling, that's not forgiving. Just like a broken bone, if the victim isn't good as new in six weeks there's probably something wrong with her.
Maybe the church needs to recognize that the mind, just like the body, suffers under the curse, and just like bodies can be born disabled or harmed later in life, the mind is similar, and just as the church accepts much of modern medical treatment for the body, they should recognize that there are valid medical treatments for the mind.
30 comments:
Biblical Counseling in this sense isn't quite DARVO, but it's close. The resource I cited and a few others I've read always involve turning the tables on the victim. For example, Paul Tripp says that an abused wife may come to you, but always be listening for her "part" in the abuse.
So, in addition to the flawed assumption that somehow people can rationalize their way out of trauma through some form of denial (I'm not a victim, I'm a victor! said over and over), there is a flawed assumption that any response to trauma that isn't singing and dancing is a sinful response. This is a necessary ingredient of how the church re-victimizes victims because although everyone recognizes that a black eye and bruising are going to be painful and hurt if touched, somehow it's okay for people to poke and prod at emotional and mental bruises and retrigger trauma. If the victim responds in pain, well, that's gotta be sin. I think that is what the author means by "it is easy to get so wrapped up in a counselee’s pain, and this may mean you sidestep the topic of your counselee’s failures." In other words, a counselor has failed their counselee if they show compassion towards their pain without immediately pointing out the sinful (lack of singing/dancing) response.
Adams discusses that forgiveness for any offense (including incest and abuse) should come quickly. If it isn’t, the counselor should look for the reasons why. Biblical counselors often reverse offender and victim when forgiveness (which means total restoration of the relationship to the way it was before including no fear of reoffense) doesn’t quickly occur. Many who have walked through biblical counseling especially when abuse is present will testify it IS the last part of DARVO. They don’t deny, but once words are spoken consequences are gone. It’s why the Immanuel people are right when they say the RPCNA has acted differently in their case. The RPCNA has, they just shockingly got it right!!!
I wasn't sure if that was specifically Biblical Counseling or just how the Evangelical church has interpreted forgiveness, but whatever, it's really damaging when the church flips the tables on the victim.
There was a quote about how Paul is used in the forgiveness narrative after being part of Stephen's stoning. BC/Evangelicals want to claim that the church forgave Paul and restored him but when he was converted, he took three years in the desert and then over ten years preaching to the Gentiles before he returned to Jerusalem. It was certainly not the cheap grace churches are offering abusers today.
The story of Natalie Greenfield is exactly this. She was sexually abused, and her abuser was offered cheap grace while she was still hurting and she was told that she was unrepentant. When he stood trial, she was alone and the two pastors sat with her abuser and defended him, so much so that he wasn't even put on the sex crimes list.. He ended up marrying, abusing his wife and now he's in jail. And you wonder how much of that destruction of what's right would have been avoided if he hadn't been offered cheap grace for his first offense.
I wonder if Adams was himself an abuser. His teaching on "forgiveness" is very enabling.
Seems like this stuff is really pervasive: https://opc.org/os.html?article_id=129
"Instead, we are required to forgive those who sin against us because vengeance belongs to the Lord. Put another way, we are to forgive those who sin against us not because they have repented, but because God will judge them (Gen. 50:19). When you begin conditioning your forgiveness upon the repentance of those who offend you, you are sinning against the throne of God, trying to assume to yourself his place. You are playing God. But you are not allowed to pick up his gavel. That is why you must forgive others. You do not have the right to withhold forgiveness. You are just a sinner like everyone else. If someone offends you, get over it, because you deserve worse. You take care of being grateful and humble, and let God take care of being offended and judgmental."
of course it's a different standard for leaders:
"The only Christians who condition forgiveness upon repentance are church elders as they preside in an official capacity over matters of church discipline."
What about: "But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves."
There is an inordinate amount of scripture twisting around forgiveness. One tiny verse about forgiveness outweighs the rest of scripture. Does God forgive those who do not repent? If not, then why would God require of us what he is unwilling to do himself. I think it comes down to the fact that churches don't want to deal with unrepentant sinners (as long as they don't sin against leaders, of course!) better to just sweep sin under the rug and beat people over the head with misinterpretations of scripture when they complain that the sin is unresolved.
Would RPCNA have gotten it right had the news outlets and authorities not gotten involved?
"Does God forgive those who do not repent? If not, then why would God require of us what he is unwilling to do himself?" I have long pondered this question (if the person isn't repentant).
I think it's doubtful, but the timeline is complicated, the presbytery investigation, which recommended charges against the IRPC elders, was launched about a year before the IndyStar article appeared. It could have easily been covered up without press involvement, so I don't really know. I would say, reading the presbytery report that there was a victim parent who was pushing and pushing and that may have been the motivating factor as much as the media. For example, this parent found out that Jared had not filed a report with the state as agreed, and then pressured him to file accurately.
Did no one call the police or authorities?
This is what the Presbytery commission reported: https://peacepurityprogresscom.files.wordpress.com/2023/01/ijc-report-to-glg.pdf
-----
04.21: A victim came forward to their father and reported being abused by M0. F2 came to the father of
M0 to report that abuse had taken place. This extent of the abuse ceased on March 8, 2020, by God’s grace,
due to the cessation of in-person gatherings at the church building in line with COVID-19 precautions.
04.22: The fathers of F2 and M0 met. They committed to each other to call reports into DCS, wept together,
and prayed. It has been confirmed that DCS reports concerning M0 were made that day.
On 09.01: ... Both families reported to DCS about the abuse mutually involving both parties. However, the DCS
report issued an “unsubstantiated” status to this case involving M0 and F2.
On 11.24: ... The main questions in the meeting were over a lack of justice due to the unsubstantiated DCS report.
Consensus was not reached at this meeting over (1) whether M0’s father complied with DCS, and (2)
whether the Pastor did all that he could have done to love and advocate for the victims that M0 abused.
-----
So the question remains whether the pastor/father complied with legal requirements in his initial statement to DCS, which resulted in the case being given a status of "unsubstantiated". Since the question is over the confession, my thought is that the abuser confessed verbally and this was not reported to DCS until after the 9/1 meeting, resulting in the claim being unsubstantiated.
Is the claim still unsubstantiated?
In the report, “In addition, we call upon the churches and members of Presbytery who are becoming aware of this situation to practice grace, mercy, and patience.”. Did you read this part? They don’t push for grace and stuff when it’s them going after someone they want to squash (for real or false reasons, as both exist). When they want grace, they push for grace, when they want to squash someone, it’s an all out witch-hunt.
No, the IndyStar report said abuser was convicted as a minor in juvenile court.
It's grace for the leaders and the book for the members - typical Evangelicalism. The church gets asked to forgive and move on when a leader sins, but when a fellow member sins, the church gets to parade around their "marks of the true church" i.e. church discipline.
:,( Tbh the feeling I have is people who behave this way don’t really fear God, and are deceived about their own sin. It can happen to all of us, I know, so def not judging.
Btw in this vein kind of, I was listening to a pastor years ago talking about witchcraft in the churches and he said about how many leaders or others in churches use any means necessary to get people to do what they want/behave or not behave in certain ways, to control them, etc and he said people who do this don’t know what they’re doing often. He talked about the control tactics and manipulation and other means (I guess anyone) can use to get a certain outcome with people. Manipulate, dominate, intimidate he mentioned those words I think. There is some serious stuff going on in the RP church in this way, and it’s so crafty and subtle. I speculate these tactics may be used in trying to convince people to not push for justice/help for abuse and for also pressuring people with an unbiblical (or unbalanced and very faulty) take on forgiveness. My experience with the manipulation and control was that it initially creates a world of confusion/dissonance, and there’s def intimidation/fear being used. I think if we’re really walking with God, we don’t need to be using tactics or any acrobatics or whatever to force outcomes.
IMO, it's the unholy combo of Authoritarianism (it's on the elders to control the church) and Legalism (the measure of righteousness is our external behavior)
At the church level, the leaders see any breaking of the peace as a challenge to their qualifications, and thus they try to sweep sin under the rug or crush it rather than work towards reconciliation. The RPCNA especially falls victim to this because they believe the church is the pinnacle of all churches, and thus the leadership must be the best of all leaders, so there is so much caught up in damage control in order to keep the outside of the dish nice and shiny.
I really like this CS-BC parallel.
"Maybe the church needs to recognize that the mind, just like the body, suffers under the curse, and just like bodies can be born disabled or harmed later in life, the mind is similar, and just as the church accepts much of modern medical treatment for the body, they should recognize that there are valid medical treatments for the mind."
I feel like part of the cause of this is a misguided theology of human nature (I guess that would be "a misguided anthropology"), in which spirit and body are treated as effectively separate from each other and the mind belongs entirely to the spirit, which is in turn entirely restored in Christ. At least, I've often gotten that feeling from some of the biblical counseling stuff I've read. This viewpoint completely ignores two fairly basic truths: 1st, each of us is a UNION of spirit AND body, and 2nd, the brain, which is an important element of what we think of as our minds, is an organ of the BODY.
Tack on the 6-week program side of it, and you've also got a whole lot of ignoring the truth that God's healing of our spirits AND bodies goes on HIS timetable, and that He has neither published that timetable (edit: those timetables -- since He tailors a different one to each of us) nor instructed us to make up a one-size-fits-all version ourselves.
I think we ARE called to forgive, repentance or no from the sinner. But my understanding, and I think the Bible's teaching, of "forgive" fits under the dictionary definition that is cited in Rev. Ferry's piece from the OPC website ("stop feeling angry or resentful toward someone for an offense, flaw, or mistake").
It does NOT encompass the "go beyond forgiveness" extra pieces that Rev. Ferry puts on top of them ("You must replace ... with feelings of kindness, affection, and love. And then perform acts in keeping with your forgiving heart."). Rev. Ferry seems to be insisting that if you have suffered sin, it is your job to always go ASAP to full restoration and reconciliation, no matter what the sinner's posture is.
If you CHOOSE to do this absent any meaningful sign(s) of repentance, then you CAN do you, of course. But it is NOT a command of God, and it is often NOT a wise course of action. At all events, it is NOT something that should be advised -- much less mandated -- by men who are called to be shepherds of Christ's sheep.
Troublingly, because full restoration is too often misunderstood as a NECESSARY accompaniment of forgiveness, people are accused of sin when they put away hatred and bitterness without also putting away boundaries and self-defense.
Many Christians, Reformed and otherwise, do understand the difference between forgiveness and restoration (that's how I learned about it), but many, also Reformed and otherwise, VERY frustratingly don't.
Yes, I agree. I hesitate to call that forgiveness because I think the word has been too linked with the concept that the debt has been paid in full. I think the first step, that is necessary, is uncoupling yourself from continued harm or excuse. I don't get to say "my life can't go on because my abuser hasn't repented." I can say, vengeance is God's, but when forgiveness means full restoration, that may not happen in this life.
When I think about it that way, Jesus does model it - he didn't engage from a victim perspective even when he was wronged. I don't really have a great perspective on this because I'm still trying to understand what the process of forgiveness and reconciliation means for me and whether I'm approaching my own abuse from a right and healthy perspective.
I think the dam has begun to break on this denomination and the long-held evil practices. What happened in Indiana wasn't an isolated 'MO.'
I'm so glad you mentioned that. I've been giving a lot of thought to how Jesus modeled everything- this included.
Definitely, it's been transformative for me to stop thinking of Jesus as some sort of idealized, detached deity, and as a real person who walked among us and set an example for how to live. Much of what I grew up with was explaining away everything Jesus did either by, "well, he is God and that's okay only for God", or "Yes, those are his words, but he really didn't mean THAT. In fact, what he really meant was the opposite of that."
"I don't really have a great perspective on this because I'm still trying to understand what the process of forgiveness and reconciliation means for me and whether I'm approaching my own abuse from a right and healthy perspective."
Well said. This is something for me/us to pray for you for. And if I can offer James 1:5 as an encouragement, take comfort in God's promise about giving you wisdom when you ask for it wholeheartedly: "[He] gives to all generously and does not reproach."
It's probably more of an encouragement now - I remember RP sermons about praying for wisdom/patience. It was always about how we ought to "be careful" praying for those because we all know how God teaches us wisdom and patience. Through trials. I'm thankful my understanding of God is such that I can pray that without expecting to be sorry I did. I have a sense that God wants reconciliation, but what I've been praying into is that he needs to bridge that gap. In my family's eyes, I'm the one that has wronged them by distancing myself, and my view is that I have to distance myself because being close invites accepting the family dynamics and consequent abuse.
“Much of what I grew up with was explaining away everything Jesus did either by, "well, he is God and that's okay only for God", or "Yes, those are his words, but he really didn't mean THAT. In fact, what he really meant was the opposite of that."
This statement is so anti-God. I never had anyone say these exact words to me, but by their behavior I hypothesized it was their ‘theology’ on the matter. It’s sickening to have the intent of Christ blasphemed.
I’ve tried many times going back (slowly) after no-contact time, but the fam always inched back slowly with the same abuse, and when I removed myself from the abuse, they said it was me being controlling. I really think many people with narcissistic personas will not change ever without truly being born again. Being tender hearted makes us want and even crave that resolution with relationships, but you get to a point after decades and scores of untold disaster to your fam bc of it and while, yes, you grow, you’re also so ravaged by the chaos and confusion that enough is enough. We can give the statement, “I love you, but will no longer be in contact until there’s a demonstrated change.’ Also, I have recommended mediation by a third/uninterested party to aid communication with witnesses only. Gentle as doves, but wise as serpents. No more pearls before swine. No more consent given to hurt me with lies, confusion, false accusations, etc. the confusion part is the worst too- it’s psychological abuse.
I agree, Speckled Sheep
"I remember RP sermons about praying for wisdom/patience. It was always about how we ought to 'be careful' praying for those because we all know how God teaches us wisdom and patience. Through trials."
Ugh. Have we not read Proverbs 4:5-9? Proverbs 10:22? Or James 3:17-18? What about Cornelius's prayers being answered not by being persecuted out of the army but by being sent Peter to preach the gospel to his whole household? And when God does send trials, what about His reminder in 2 Corinthians 12:9 that His grace and providence is sufficient to see us through it to the PEACEFUL end he promises in Hebrews 12:11 (instead of just the "not joyful, but sorrowful" beginning of that verse)? What about that kind of encouragement?
I mean, I guess if you take the view that the only way to produce righteousness in your own children is to hit them, then you'll suppose the same of God. But what about recognition that God doesn't take a one-method-fits-all approach toward His children any more than we should toward ours?
I agree, Speckled Sheep (8/21). I think the way the RP church opines in this subject is tied to their hearts on the matter- and the motives that come from the heart. They spend inordinate amounts of time trying to convince people that suffering is the key to everything.
God does yea h us much through trials, but it’s not the only way he teaches us.The RP church spends their time focusing only on the trials part. They’re not the only ones. It’s a common rhetoric among people and groups who are toxic and abusive, they try to change people’s thinking over time about trials, so that when they abuse them, they’re less likely to hold them accountable. When people think God will bless them and help them but only through trials, they’re more likely to shut up and take it, believing their reward is in heaven. You see, manipulation is absolutely baked into the RP doctrine. They take a good chunk of truth, swirl it with their manipulation, and it’s easier for people to swallow. Again, trials are beneficial, but so are a lot of other ways God clearly uses, ways you well-identified. IMHO these men either don’t fear God bc they’re really unbelievers, or their consciences are seared to a crisp. They purposefully withhold love and justice and compassion, justifying its bc the trials will help us. What they’re doing is justifying their own lack of love. They don’t have love!!
Right on. I think the focus on suffering as a means of grace is grooming for when the church makes its members suffer. If members complain about unnecessary sacrifice for the church or how their lives are impacted, then the leaders can turn the tables on the members and say that they are not behaving like "true Christians(TM)".
I was chastised for questioning things that were harmful to me and my family, things that were procedurally incorrect and things that were more authoritarian than typical RP churches. I think the mentality was that members ought to suffer in silence.
yes, it has begun to break alright. correct, not isolated.
I realized recently that their focus on suffering isn't biblical- it's sadistic. pay attention to who in the rp church is touting suffering the most, coupled with the empathy is sin false teaching. we're not just dealing with narcissism.. Embracing suffering that we can't avoid and that is our share in Christ's passion is not at all the same as intentionally triggering, causing, and provoking suffering so we can bring on growth ourselves. this is what some rp elders/teaching elders are doing, and it's not just umbilical, it's sadistic. there's one for sure being watched right now because he seems to take pleasure in the suffering of others.
Post a Comment