There was a recent thread on one of the posts. I'm not sure what led to the comment, but I felt like given the direction the thread took, I was being called out for being "cynical" about the RP church, and that somehow having "hope" that the RPCNA can reform would dictate a more positive attitude.
When I left the RPCNA, I actually believed that the fundamental teachings were correct, the procedures were correct, maybe incomplete, and the primary problem was a new culture of authoritarianism. I was wrong. I believe that when the fundamental teachings of the RP church are distilled, there is a narcissistic god and the "new culture of authoritarianism" was really reframing the church culture through the lens of a micromanaging, narcissistic god.
"Hope", though is a codeword. The battered wife is told to return to her husband and "hope" and pray that God will change him. The battered sheep is told to submit to his session and his church and "hope" that the culture will change. I don't think it's cynical for the wife to divorce her husband and still hope and pray that he changes, nor is it cynical for the sheep to leave an abusive church and still pray for reform. So, what are options for people who are in the RPCNA hoping for change?
Stay and fight or stay and be a light?
Reform can happen many ways. I think the least helpful way to bring about reform is to stick it out and hope for the best. God chose prophets, gave them Spiritual gifts to proclaim his message, but what was their commission? Hosea was told to marry a prostitute because her unfaithfulness to him mirrored Israel's unfaithfulness to God. Jeremiah was told to preach the destruction of Judah, and what would happen with the leaders? "They will fight against you, but they will not overcome you, for I am with you to deliver you". Yes, occasionally, these prophets brought reform, but mostly they were ignored or rejected. I do believe that God calls many to be his voice in churches that have forsaken him, but I don't think that is the call of every believer in the RPCNA.
I knew I wasn't a "stay and fight" kind of person, but I did have the idea that I could stay and be a light. The issue with this for born-RPers is that being a light in the midst of darkness still requires a strong identity in Jesus. I didn't have that because I grew up in the RPCNA where my identity was cleverly co-opted into what my session told me it was. So, I'm trying to challenge my session and other church members about authoritarianism in the church, and at the same time my identity is being crushed by leaders who I've been groomed to believe more than my own conscience.
Vote with your feet?
Leaving is often shamed by those who choose to stay and claim that they are fighting, but it has a lot of Biblical support: "For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand outside. I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God Than dwell in the tents of wickedness." or "Any place that does not receive you or listen to you, as you go out from there, shake the dust off the soles of your feet for a testimony against them." or 'Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.'"
It requires wisdom to walk out of a church. I certainly did not have wisdom beyond a notion that God had given me gifts to use in service to his kingdom and the church I was attending was rejecting my use of those gifts. That was the kernel of truth that freed me from the RPCNA, but since I've left, I've seen so much more how the RP church is hurting the faithful by peddling a harsh, judgmental and narcissistic god in the name of the gospel. I believe the divide in the church isn't over whether the pastor ministers or teaches ministry, but whether the pastor preaches a narcissistic god who abuses us for his glory, or preaches a loving God who stands with us against abuse.
When is hope futile?
I think there is a parable that is very accurate here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_drowning_man - the essence is that a man wants God to save him from drowning, but he refuses the "ordinary means" - a canoe, a boat and a helicopter - and instead, presumably, expects something miraculous. When the man dies and confronts God, God says, "what did you want? I sent you two boats and a helicopter!"
What I mean by this is that when we want God to reform our church, maybe God responds by showing us a different "our church" vs. reforming the church we are physically present in. I have grown far more in my non-RP church than I did in the RP church, in far less time. My gifts are welcomed and appreciated, and when I'm overwhelmed, I can step back and get a response of thankfulness and not shame. I would love to have hope that the RPCNA will reform, but the further removed I am from the toxic culture, the deeper I recognize that toxic culture pervades. It will take a miracle. Call me cynical, but I see the RPCNA with the pedal to the floor headed towards authoritarianism and toxicity.
25 comments:
Being the commenter that was the impetus behind this write-up, let me make something 100% clear. My comment was not a “stay in the RP” comment. It was not a “go back to the RP comment”. It was simply a “hope” comment. A maybe God is reforming comment. You can hold out hope from the outside, it doesn’t require being inside. Do with that what you will.
Are you cynical? Absolutely. Is cynicism inherently sinful? Nope. Neither is being jaded. But own it.
All that said, including my response to your response in the bread below, I’ll bow out from here. I’m not looking to be a distraction or engage in a long back and forth. If ever you have the inclination, reach out to Ryan sometime. He’s a pretty receptive dude.
I'm not sure what you mean by hope, then. Do I believe God can turn the RP church around? Absolutely! Do I believe the RP church is on a trajectory that is moving closer to God? Absolutely not! My hope is in God, not an institutional church.
Paul had different words for the Galatian church and the Corinthian church. The Corinthian church was, hey guys, you've got the gospel, but you are really messing up the practicality. The Galatian church was, you've got works, but you've lost the gospel. Change or die!
My problem with your use of "cynical" and "jaded" is quite justified. You now choose to "bow out", not engage. In other words, cynical and jaded are just words you use to justify putting me in the bucket of people you plug your ears to.
To be honest, that's what I've seen. The only people who get to comment on the RPCNA are the cheerleaders. The only people who last on the Geneva boards are the cheerleaders. Isn't that just like Judah, who only wanted to hear "peace, peace" from their prophets?
I'll engage as far as you like. I'm concerned about being a distraction from your overall purpose that I agree with. Pointing out issues in the RP Church is legit and needed. I don't want to take up excessive space here, is my concern. We need not hide from legitimate cynicism is my point. Or the reality of being jaded by our experience. We need to own these things because openness is a necessary requisite to growth.
I left after a friend pointed out that my RP church was not a place I could comfortably bring a sinner knowing they would be loved and ministered to.
Thanks! Sorry, I missed your reply until now. I don't think "cynical" and "jaded" are a healthy place. My concern, however, is that the abusers have developed a litany of silencing techniques against those who want to bring reform. Some examples:
- Your perspective is distorted because you have a victim mentality
- Blogging/protesting is sowing discord. You're a sinner if you don't take it through the proper channels (that we control and will use to silence you)
- You're bitter/cynical/jaded, only the pure in heart are able to speak objective truth about this matter
- You said harmful stuff about , whether it's true or not, you're being used by Satan to divide God's church.
- Poor is going through a difficult time. He needs to be left alone so that he can recover [from those who want him to be accountable] and return to his ministry.
If this wasn't your intent, then I'm sorry I accused you of taking a final parting shot.
Good post, solid points.
Assuming one has good motives and is using Spirit led wisdom the following holds true on this subject….
Voting with your feet works when the presupposition is “There is one mediator between God mankind, the Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Timothy 2:5
Prayerfully communicate and leave post haste, in good conscience.
However, if one’s presupposition is the unbiblical sacerdotal doctrine of men and of the corrupt institutional church, then in order to leave you must get permission from fallen, often corrupt men on a session, then get a letter of transfer, and the condescending hoops to jump through of the church you want to transfer to being approved, well that is a whole other ball of wax.
Hoops are for circus animals, not God’s people.
headed toward authoritarianism and toxicity? they've been there a LONG time.
as for scripture, 1 corinthians 5:11 was just one of many for me to flee. this denomination is absolutely steeped in idolatry, and are grossly immoral in the way they deal with people on the outside and with one another. It would take a miracle to see it reformed, but I don't think we'll see it. there are some very dark personalities involved, and the denominations refusal to discipline these individuals in any way is only leading them in the opposite direction from reform.
It's a fair point. I will say that I've been in different Presbyteries and some [GLG] are already well-steeped in it, but others were more dabbling in it. RPTS is definitely firmly entrenched since they have been calling GLG members to positions there for a couple of decades.
The RPCNA Constitution also says it well (they don't practice this...) "When any church imposes sinful requirements for membership; when its constitution or creedal statements are fundamentally unscriptural; when its administration is corrupt; or when sound preaching and proper discipline are neglected, it is the duty of Christians to attempt its reformation. Then if such efforts prove ineffectual, it is their duty to separate from it, and to unite with a sound church."
I will go for the "administration is corrupt" clause. It's the closest to the "constitution or creedal statements are fundamentally scriptural, but the church refuses to follow them when it comes to their leaders."
where in the Bible does it say folks have a duty to attempt reformation?
It would be hard to make a convincing argument, since the Bible doesn't really have a concept of multiple denominations where you can pick or choose. So, then the question would be, does Matthew 18 apply individually, or corporately as well. If the leadership of the church is collectively in sin, do we have an obligation to seek repentance.
I would say, tentatively, yes, but I would also say that it is not our obligation to stay around and hope for the Holy Spirit to change hearts. Rather, shake the dust off and find a community that seeks peace. I wrote a letter to my session saying why I was leaving, with little hope that they would see their sin and change. When they deflected everything I mentioned and instead chose to assign blame to me (for questioning!) I knew it was time to shake the dust off and move on.
I would also claim that people leave for many reasons. I have theological differences with my current church, but they are not serious enough to say I need to reform them or break fellowship. I think many are abused and harmed by their churches and that is definitely a reason to walk out, and often needing to walk out without opening a can of worms that could lead to further abuse. Churches can be poor fits for certain stages of life. My current church is great for me, but my children stopped attending youth group because the leaders were not able to provide a safe space with their peers - an elder's child who was vocal that mental health diagnoses were "signs of a lack of faith". We would probably leave in that case if our kids agreed to try out other churches.
My pastor at least talks the good talk about resolving conflict in the church. He says he wants to be part of a denomination that will hold him accountable. He has sometimes agreed when I've challenged him on things in his sermons. So, I have hope that the church could reform if a serious issue came up, but I don't know with much certainty. There are definitely issues with him where I've hit a brick wall.
I do believe the leadership is collectively in sin, and grievous sin at that. I am willing to tell them. But there's no biblical precedent to stay; in fact, the precedent is to leave.
A church that's a poor fit for any stage of life is a poor fit, period. Christ is always a fit for all ages, all stages.
by the way, if we contact you privately at the email account below, is all of our communication 100% confidential at all times? I'm asking because it seems if you grew up in this you still have fam inside still? and I know firsthand they use unscrupulous tactics to gather information about dissenters inside and out. That said, be careful what you disclose also when people write, as you don't really know who's on the other end and I wouldn't be surprised if they have someone on the inside strategizing how to dismantle this effort you've got here and discipline the folks who write here who may still be on the inside. They set up committees for this and that, and they'd rather spend countless man hours chasing down dissenters than doing what Christ said to do.
My reasoning for being anonymous is mostly to protect my family members on the inside. I don't want them to be pressured to shut me up or reform me.
I was pretty tightly guarded on my identity at first, when I thought there was a chance of bringing reform, but as the years have passed, it's more of a "whatever happens happens".
Our communication is as confidential as I can make it. My account has no identifying information, but since it's e-mail, your address would be available. It would be easy for you to set up an anonymous GMail account (like I did) and then it's anonymous on both ends unless we decide to divulge our identities. I can say I understand the reason for anonymity, can promise not to divulge private info, but ultimately it's your choice how much you trust what I say.
I agree - it's just a really tricky situation. We've talked with the youth pastor and the staff leader about what happened. They agreed with us that it was an inappropriate thing to say, but the youth pastor lacks the wisdom to lovingly confront harmful speech in a way that makes it safe for people to be who they are. We expect that high schoolers are going to have stupid beliefs, and that confronting those beliefs has to be done in a way that doesn't feel like they are being driven away. I know very few people that could have handled that situation well. I probably would be too confrontational. They err on the side of being too soft, but that drives people away, too. There was a kid who was abusing a service dog, and it wasn't dealt with, so the family with the service dog left the church. That was the previous youth pastor...
As I said, I don't think there is a precedent. The way I see it, there are three guiding principles. The first principle is that theology shouldn't divide us unless it's clear and important. I don't think mode or age of baptism is clear and I don't think it is important. I probably would not join a baptist church because I do feel strongly that baptism is a "one-and-done" thing. The second principle is that I should be at peace with all men to the best of my ability. That doesn't mean submitting to abusive leadership or heretical teaching. It means some level of attempt to call sin out and bring reconciliation. How far that goes is a personal, Spirit-led decision. When I realized that my session had "plugged their ears" to what I had to say, the Spirit led me to shake off the dust and move on. I didn't (as many RPs would argue) feel I needed to take my issue to Presbytery and Synod to be justified in leaving. The third is "I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God Than dwell in the tents of wickedness." - or shaking the dust and moving on. I think it's a God-given desire to be in a supportive and Christian church community, and while a very few people may feel called to witness to false religion, I don't see it as a "duty".
One person I know - I told them that the RP church that they are in is harming them. Their response was, "I know, but God calls us to the darkest places". Yeah, in the world, but not the church! The church should be a place of shelter and encouragement, not a living hell. It's hard to see the joy sucked out of people as they persist in abusive churches.
“I know, but God calls us to the darkest places..” is a major excuse. Agree 100% that doesn’t apply to the church!! People are really adept at making excuses for avoiding tough things that will cost them. Guess what? We are called to do things that will cost us everything! The RP church IS a living hell. It’s not just joy, it’s one’s very self. When my family left, my personality returned to me- my peace returned to me! I began laughing again, smiling again, my usual silliness returned (childlike humor). Years later I look younger now than I did then!! I was in my 30’s when I left and was looking like I was 50’s! When I look back at pictures from then I look like an old man! My health has improved, and I’m alive again!! I had no idea what was happening to me and the fam then! Will you lose a lot to leave? Yes. But if at very least a husband and wife are United, everything else can be restored! Remember folks, if we lose people for following Christ, they were never really our fam and friends! Our Lord asked, “Who are my mother and my brothers?…”. It takes trusting God to leave. You may not realize when you leave that you were lacking that trust, but it was the most major issue we were confronted with. As I broke down in tears after leaving, I lamented “I wasn’t trusting God!” (Want trusting Him in staying there). The men in the leadership want you to put your trust in THEM- in practice and reality!! Everything else is pretense!
it's important to note that 'the proper channels' are not biblical mandates (outside of Mat 18), and this endless maze of hoops they've created in this denomination are rules they've created and heeped on people: burdens they're not willing to take on themselves, but force them on others or else. their the legality in Pilgrim's Progress. as for the rest, I know it well. they themselves do not use the proper channels (Mat 18), and they make accusations continually based on no proof, no reason, just guesswork. the few things they do get right have often been obtained by methods other that actually talking to /asking the other person. It is true that people can have a victim mentality, that people do sow discord, that people do get bitter, and people do divide- but no one just knows for sure if this is at work in a situation just at face value. accusing anyone of anything should not be done lightly. we must remember who is the accuser of the brethren, and be cautious he hasn't infiltrated our hearts. one of the biggest probs in the church is people trying to put their own wicked thoughts on others without any cause, then taking that to the end of discipline if the person doesn't agree with the false accusation. the more proud a person is, the more often they seem to do this. pride is blinding
It's a two-class system. There is a set of rules for the laity and a different set of rules for the leaders. The leaders would claim that they are "spiritually gifted with discernment" (i.e. they can judge your heart without any evidence) - I've been in multiple situations where my questions or actions were completely misunderstood and misjudged. Members have to use Matt. 18 and go through the "proper channels". They cannot speak of things done against them, even if the offense is public. Leaders on the other hand can bring unfounded or hearsay accusations before Presbytery and they are taken as facts without question.
That’s just sick. Discernment is given as a gift at God’s pleasure, and although I believe not many hold this gift, most of those I do know with it are not even close to being in leadership roles. Israel killed its prophets, and most leaders in churches today do this in many ways.
As for the writer who’s talking to you about Cynicism, be careful with him. I recognize his writing approach. I have no way of knowing for sure, but if it’s who I think it is, be careful with engaging- he’s on the inside. Cynicism is often sinful. Don’t own something unless you know it’s true. RP is well known for setting traps to expose sin.
He's obviously on the inside. That doesn't bother me. As I said, I don't mind someone challenging me as cynical/bitter as long as it's not merely a tactic to end the debate with a "W". I think there are a lot of pitfalls in the recovery process from legalistic spiritual abuse. One of the pitfalls I fell into early on was adopting an "anti-legalistic legalism" - maybe my anger was directed the right way, but it was still legalistic in the sense of "anyone who does X is a wolf". I still believe "X" is sinful, but I also believe that real Christians can get caught up in a cultural sin. Do I believe some women are called and gifted to be pastors/elders? Yes. Do I believe all people who bar women from these offices are automatically wolves?" No! I'd be condemning my younger, less mature self.
I don’t see anything in the Bible that supports women as pastors or elders. I do see support for them as deacons. I can say I feel called to be an elephant, but if it’s not compatible with what God has said, it is my own feelings/ideas. I realize you disagree with this, and it’s not my intention to argue.
I didn’t realize it was a debate you were in, I just saw it as a conversation. If this blog is about debating though, that’s not for me. Just wanted to give a friendly warning about the possible writer, that’s all.
Talk about gymnastics. That’s some straight eisegesis right there. I don’t know if you’re jaded or whatever, but I know that when people are jarred by their experiences and it’s not dealt with in the heart, the heart can become fertile ground for the grievances of the world to set up camp and become intertwined with other beliefs. Being upset with people can lend a person to take on grievances others have with those same people. The RP church is living in grievous sin, but that doesn’t mean everything they teach is wrong. I didn’t leave because their core beliefs were wrong. I left because they only tout those beliefs for a pretentious leg to stand on…their real beliefs are clear in their actual behavior towards each other and others outside, and that behavior puts them oceans apart from Christ. A good starting point for anyone leaving an RP church would be to examine oneself to see if one is in fact really a Christian, and to spend time praying and seeking. The RP teaches folks they are elite. It’s a tactic to hook them and keep them. They have an arsenal of tactics. In reality, most people in there are likely not even Christian’s. They are people who have joined a club. And this is how Satan works man. Always several steps ahead. Satan corrupts these abusive leaders, and then people throw the baby out with the bath water. It’s the usual, he did this to me so what he’s saying isn’t biblical. That’s feeding right into Satan hand. Bad people say some right things. The issue isn’t all the things their saying. All of these agendas of the world ravaging the church right now are ALL satanic! God loves us and we can trust HIM!! We can trust His Word! He is FOR us!
"eisegesis" = fancy word that means what we all do. We all want the Bible to tell us what we're doing is the right thing. Okay, so what is your point?
As I said, slavery is a good example. Search the scriptures and find the proof that God is opposed to slavery. Is it therefore "eisegesis" that people like RPs in the 1800's claimed that God was opposed to slavery even though it is throughout scriptures?
"Bad people say some right things." "All of these agendas of the world?"... This is pretty vague. It was "the world" [IndyStar] that brought the Immanuel situation to light and applied pressure. Was their agenda evil? I can't say for sure, but it brought about good. What exactly is the world saying about women that is evil? Is it evil to bring attention to judges who let rapists off with wrist slaps? Is it evil to say that women are not typically treated with respect in the workplace? Is it evil to call out that women are paid less than men for the same work? I don't necessarily like the solutions they offer, but the questions are often very pertinent.
Post a Comment