I want to comment on the sadness of what this article, and especially its comments, represent:
1) The tendency to parse the scriptures for any practice that can be made into a command.
2) The tendency to then attempt to claim that practice has been a litmus test of orthodoxy throughout church history, and thus should be the same today.
3) The tendency to elevate such practice and reinterpet all other things (e.g. size of church) in light of the new-found command.
4) Complete and utter blindness when gently corrected (e.g. why is "table" commanded, but "reclined" not, when they are in the same verse?)
I'm am so thankful that I've matured enough in my understanding of who God is to understand that this level of "care" for his worship is really about straining gnats and swallowing camels. I remember, with sadness, the time in my life that I knew all the checkboxes, and many of the checkboxes within the checkboxes that set the truly elite on a separate tier reserved for the RPW purists.
That said, I do understand why this is such an important debate for RPs. I believe RP pastors want to have a large following. They have the best theology and of course the best spiritual gifting, so why don't they have lots of members? Well, things like "the table" can easily explain that away. A pastor cannot have more than about 50 people in his congregation before they have to step down from the pinnacle of "pure" communion. So "obviously" it is not that the RPCNA is a legalistic, cult-like church where most Christians would smell the aroma of brimstone and stay far away. It's not even that the RPCNA fills a niche within Christianity where those who desire a small, tight-knit congregation can find a good fit. No, of course, it's because the RPCNA is faithfully parsing the scriptures to find the precise model for the "pure" church, and that most pure expression of the Christian faith can only be done in a congregation that can fit around a table.
Sunday, November 5, 2023
When the Regulative Principle of Worship becomes an idol...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
48 comments:
Regardless of the "example of Christ and the apostles" and the "historical testimony", I have no doubt that the main reason for RP churches doing this is his first bullet point under the "practical reasons": "The table aids a Session of elders in guarding the Sacrament against those who would participate in an unworthy manner." Having a physical table means that communicants have to come out from the pews to it. This makes those who remain in the pews conspicuous to the entire congregation, and encourages the congregation to look down on them, perpetuating a mentality of superiority and divisiveness.
What surprised me is that Orlando allows communicants and non-communicants to physically come to the table. So, it's not so easy to guard the table. I've experienced both "going up" and remaining, but when we went up to a table or first rows of pews, it was only the communicant members who were invited forward.
The one time I remember session control not working as planned was at a "remaining" church where someone grabbed the elements out of the plate even when they were not offered.
One thing about the "historical testimony" is that it appears that Rutherford and Gillespie were not above fabrications. The "table" is yet another instance where the Scottish delegates were voted down at Westminster, and yet somehow twisted the truth to justify their own positions when the returned to the homeland. The other instance I know of is the ruling elders. They believe that elders were "presbyters" in the Biblical sense, and that opinion was voted down at Westminster, yet, they returned to Scotland promoting what became "Classical Presbyterianism" - the two-office elder. Westminster held that what we call elders are lay leaders, not ordained church officials.
Good post and great points on the tendencies the cited article represents.
It was not the only reason, but the RPCNA’s view and practice of the Lord’s Supper was one of the reasons we left. (Many reasons)
- The practice of the Lord’s Supper is more important than so many of the other man made doctrines the RPCNA makes an idol of, therefore should be practiced weekly.
- The practice of hyper Authoritarianism in fencing the table is out of bounds compared to the guidance on this topic from the Bible.
No surprise that the RPCNA gets this one wrong as well.
NAPARC churches represent less than one tenth of one percent of Christians worldwide. Yet they arrogantly think they got it all figured out and all their ducks in a row. Such a toxic environment. So glad to not be in the NAPARC cult any longer.
Indeed an idol. The institutional church itself has become an idol, largely untethered from its Rock, namely the object of our so called faith Christ Himself. As one talks with the vast majority of “Christians” it doesn’t take long to clearly realize that for the most part their “faith” is primarily in the (c)hurch and the (c)hurches leaders. A far cry from the Biblical model.
Common-cup, wine-only, table-required, what else can we add to the list? Even though I still think the regulative principle is biblical, I think it ought to be held as a principle OF worship, not a principle TO worship.
I will choose to see some amount of silver lining in the fact that Mr. Eshelman isn't advocating the ideal found in the Free Presbyterian and some Dutch Reformed churches (and perhaps in various RP churches, though none where I've ever communed) of never presuming yourself worthy to come to the table until you've reached some kind of extra-strength spiritual communion with God -- which results in communion once or twice a year in total and no communion for you (most likely) until you've been a member for years and years and are at least into middle age.
Besides all that, I think the comment under the article is actually better-thought-out than the article itself, by which I probably mean that it's more broad-minded and willing to acknowledge nuance, even though it's written a little more scatteredly.
I'm working through reading the Bible in a more conversational translation and trying to understand God the Father through the eyes of a loving and gracious father, not a harsh, narcissistic, judging disciplinarian. It's definitely given me a vastly different perspective on the religiosity and scruples of the NAPARC churches. While I believe that we should worship God in the pattern he's set forth, I don't think we need to parse the Bible to find the one and only one perfect liturgy that all must follow or be doomed to Hell. At some point, "religion" becomes more important than us or our relationship with God, and that is what I think Jesus is getting at when he said, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Galatians also hints that when we elevate law (religion) as a means of righteousness, we are ignoring that Jesus died so that the law would not come between us and him. In other words, religious scrupulosity drives us further from Jesus, not towards him.
I remember appreciating while I was in the RPCNA that the communion table was actually fenced (as opposed to other churches where they say they fence the table and what they really mean is they stick up warning signs around the table). Is it necessarily wrong, or is it only wrong when combined with hyper-authoritarian elders?
The story is told that in the early days of (what would become) Calvary Chapel (Chuck Smith's principally west coast denomination, started in the Jesus Movement of the 1970s, I think), during a retreat in the mountains the participants suddenly thought that it would be a good idea to celebrate the Lord's Supper. But they didn't have any bread or wine (or grape juice), so they ended up celebrating the Lord's Supper with Doritos and Coke. I can't imagine ever wanting to do that myself, but there's something in me that really admires them for that, even though (or perhaps particularly because) so many Prebyterians would give them so much grief for it.
Fencing was up to sessions. I've been to RPCNA churches where "fencing" was putting a card in the offering plate with your name, church membership and whether you assent to a couple of questions.
I think there is fencing in the sense that excommunicated members should not be allowed to participate, but in the RPCNA, I think the culture is that people feel like the session is there to judge and they fear that they'll be called out of something is amiss.
My ex-RP hackles have been raised, but I'm not sure where I really stand on what is a "requirement" for communion.
I specifically said “a hyper authoritarian” fencing was wrong and not biblical. My understanding of scripture would have a reasonable Biblical fencing being pretty simple……are you a believer and is there persistent sin in your life that wisdom would dictate a refraining from participating, etc. 90% of the time the fact is that is going to be between that believer and God, (unless there is some blatant public grievous sin) not a bureaucratic and often corrupt committee of busy bodies (elders) making one jump through their man made hoops. But there is rub isn’t it, that view doesn’t go over well with the hard line Presbyterian control freak leaders who love to have their nose in everything.
The whole idea that we the people/flock are more protected due to a plurality of elders is a crock.
I think the problem is that much of Evangelical Christendom has a flawed view of what "elder" means. I think all of us would benefit from wise counsel from someone who has lived a life of faith, kindness and love. I don't think we benefit from a 25-year-old fresh out of seminary kid who has passed a couple of exams and has all sorts of grandiose aspirations for what he will accomplish through us. Neither do I think we benefit from the kinds of sycophant elders who surround those seminary kids to whip those who don't fall in line with the grandiose aspirations. They wear wool coats, but their teeth are sharp.
Clarification: persistent unrepentant sin. Obviously being sinless is not a requirement in order to come to the table. Just the opposite.
Another point: I know some here don’t like my persistent use of the term, but I know not a more accurate description……🙂 the practice of coming forward out of seats to be approved by the priests up front is not as ideal as the practice of fellow believers passing it to one another in the congregation. The RPCNA priest model (though they will deny) is just flat out more Sacerdotal. Again by very definition of the word Sacerdotal, it is not a at all a stretch to use that word to describe what is indeed happening in the vast majority of NAPARC churches.
Not trying to just through out a pretentious $64 theological word, it’s just the best most accurate description of what is happening in this and so many other examples of theological practice is the more hyper authoritarian environments.
Not to mention that when that specific term is used toward elders and pastor types it hits em where they live and they know it and will try to quickly change the subject. It’s almost like deep down inside they know it is not a good look.
guard the table? what nonsense. there was no guard at the Lord's table, Judas was there, and there was no session. the things they hold the most high in this church are the things they have invented.
That's a great point. I thought about that at one time - that Jesus served Judas communion, knowing that he was not a believer. The implication is very pertinent for "guarding". If the elder sins when the table is not guarded, then didn't Jesus sin by serving Judas communion?
Yes, very valid point! So obvious, yet amazing how institutional (c)hurch tradition just kicks in and completely takes over with virtually unquestioned adherence. When we look at the actual text from scripture on this topic at best a softer reasonable oversight may at times be in order, but reality is outside of unusual circumstances, an individual’s own conscience before God needs to be the “fence”,
not power tripping busy bodies.
As is so often the case in NAPARC, when one looks at the actual text, in context, what we see is that so very many of the hardline traditions within NAPARC are merely the doctrines of men.
has anyone ever posed these questions to them to hear their rationale?
I got the impression with other pastors that there were "very few" members who actually wanted to understand and dig into the theology, who didn't also want to go to seminary and be a pastor. So the converse of that is that many/most members really don't want to engage the theology, which is why those who question the theology apparently consume the available resources that could be dedicated to controlling those who don't question.
The sermons I've heard on fencing the table are generally based on a few verses: "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; (Acts 20:28-29)" "Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you. (Heb 13:17)" "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. (1 Cor 11:27)"
Logic is essentially:
1) We are responsible for the souls of our members
2) We are responsible for protecting our members from false believers
2) Communion is a soul matter, therefore
3) We must protect our members from non-believers taking communion.
The disagreement I have is that "wolf" is not a simple unbeliever. A wolf is someone who is abusive to the flock, not a mere unbeliever pretending to be a believer, so in that respect, "fencing" is not a mandate for elders.
They have theology- they do not have Christ. They are not tight knit, that is an illusion. More to come about that. On that note, I recommend a Netflix documentary about this cult already. It is not enough we have escaped by the grace of God; we must warn others before their families are forever damaged by the heinous and brutal spiritual, physical, and emotional, and mental abuses of this wicked denomination. I can't bear to keep talking about this for years while others are suffering anymore. Please join me in praying about what needs to be done. This denomination is using our Lord's name to carry out their continued sin on Christ's Bride- His Bride!! How will the Husband deal with these people for assaulting His Bride! Churches for years have hidden abuses to protect abusers and the 'ministry,' not understanding that they are doing the opposite than protecting the reputation of Christ! Do we want to wow the world with our steadfast dedication? We do it by exposing the sin, and saying very loudly and clearly: THIS IS NOT CHRIST!! DO NOT BE FOOLED!!
I visited a CC church after leaving the cult. At first it was very refreshing but after just a few Sundays it was clear they are steeped in easy-believism. It was actually fairly overt and disturbing. I've been reading about them since then, and find that they are mostly like this but there are some more detached bodies spread out that have more sound theology- and no less of joy. I don't know if it's okay to swap out the elements, but I am sure that there is absolutely no biblical anything to restrict who comes to the table. Grace is given by Christ at His pleasure, and communion itself is an ordinance and a memorium but not at all a means of grace. 100 people can come to the table, and 99 of them 'bad,' and yet this is between him and God. There is nothing a pastor or elders can do to prevent God's grace given to whom He chooses, and nothing to be lost to the pastor or elders if an unconfessed sinner sits at the table and they do nothing to stop it. This is all about control, and God is going to deal with these men for their perversion of His table for their own ends. By controlling communion and saying it's a means of grace, you gain serious control of people- but control of people is about external behavior that the group can monitor, not about the heart. When people can live under the threat of having to sit out communion, their shame apparent to all, it motivates a change in this external behavior. It does not, however, change the heart. Further, when people believe they won't receive grace if they're suspended for a season, they are further controlled. none of this is biblical and I fear for these men and those who support them on the day of judgement. Communion is a rehearsal- an honored memorial and a commandment/ordinance. It is not more than this, and our Lord warned about adding or taking away. The RP churches add, and easy believism churches take away. They are the ditches in Pilgrim's Progress. They are the 2 ditches we continually find ourselves in sway. Once I realized this, I understood better just how the road is so narrow.
1.They are responsible for souls of members, but their use of unbiblical and often illicit means shows their motive isn't looking after souls, but the denomination.
2.They are responsible for teaching only what the Bible says about false believers, and using only biblical means to this end. Because they are not doing this, but instead using abusive means and unbiblical tenets to support them, thereby exposing their motive isn't about protecting them from false believers, but protecting them against those who disagree and awaken the sleeping soul stuck in the mire of legality and authoritarianism.
3. Communion is an ordinance and commandment, like over 1,000 others- where is their emphasis? All the other words of Jesus are ignored here, and this one taken grossly out of context and used to manipulate, control, and spiritually abuse the members for the benefit of the leaders.
4. They are not protecting members from others taking communion wrongly- if so, they (leaders) would many of them exempt themselves from this holy ordinance, being devils! They are the rot on their churches!
The language around the handling of "means of grace" is not compelling to me. This isn't "magic" and the church has held that over centuries that the efficacy of the sacraments are not tied to the belief of those administering them. The "means of grace" language wants to somehow claw that back to say that somehow the eldership of the church are required for the sacraments to confer grace. You can't have it both ways.
As for the two ditches, I believe that is the point of Paul's letters to Corinth and Galatia. The Corinthian church represents the ditch of weaponized grace, churches where any expectation of righteousness is answered with cries of legalism. The Galatian church, on the other hand, is the church where the leaders are forcing their own standards of righteousness as part of the gospel, and then glorying in the flesh of the members who do what they're told. It's obvious that the RPCNA is the spiritual descendant of the Galatian church, where members are fed a gospel, but then given buckets full of extra burdens only to satisfy the desires of the leadership to have control.
I don't think the RPCNA has garnered enough attention to warrant a Netflix documentary. Even the IRPC fiasco was more of a sidenote in the news cycle. They are experts at staying under the radar.
I also don't think we can protect people from the RPCNA. We can vote with our feet, maintain an open connection and provide help for those recovering. There are many who are trapped by a doctrine or a practice or blood relations who will never leave. I think there are also many who are not really bought into all the doctrine or legalism, but feel warm and cozy.
Netflix did a documentary about the RPCNA? Or is this referring to the associations with Bill Gothard that brought us Happy Shiny People?
I think the person is recommending that Netflix make a documentary on the RPCNA.
they are not sacraments- that was an invention of the Catholic Church that most reformers gave up on reforming. many original reformers protested about it and knew it wasn't biblical.
agree 100% on the ditches
yes, recommending on. I know they're experts at staying under radar, but it's time for that to end. Netflix or not, the truth is coming out. how that happens yet I'm not sure. I think we can help the people who are trapped, but doing this requires a concerted effort, and effort to help others is deficient everywhere. I think a good start would be an established group for safety, healing, and support for those leaving. I don't have a great feeling about the open connection while people are still in, because the information in those communications is most often getting back to the leaders. but I am exploring this option with safeguards in place.
Maybe we can ditch the heavily loaded lingo. Baptism and Communion are two things Christians do that are meant to be symbols of aspects of salvation. They replaced circumcision, which was done shortly after birth, and the passover which was a yearly feast, both of which were clearly commanded.
Beyond the ceremonial significance, the basic elements and the command to do it, I think we can easily fall into a trap when we go on a spiral of trying to understand what it means (okay) trying to refine our celebration of it (okay), but then trying to turn that into a precept for others to follow (not okay). I've grown to realize that each Christian is on their own journey with their own personality and unique experience, so we need to be careful not to force-feed our own preferences down other peoples' throats. I love the breadth of emotions in the Psalms, but others want to just experience "happy songs" in worship. I don't think either preference is wrong as long as both can be accommodated. I think our churches tend to be too culturally narrow. I shouldn't have to change churches when I'm experiencing joy and want to worship joyfully, and likewise I shouldn't have to change churches to feel supported if I lose my job and am going through hardships.
Make your proposed Netflix documentary as damning as you can, and before I left I would have watched it and said, "Well maybe that's going on in the RPCNA in general, but it's not happening in my local RP church" or "I see some signs of that in my local RP church, but growing in the Lord and will overcome".
As an RP Member in Good Standing, there are things going on around you that you just don't see, and if there are any criticisms you err on the side of trusting your elders. You don't believe any of it is even remotely possible until it happens to you.
Black Sheep, that's my take on it as well. The impression I had, growing up, of my leadership was that they were not theologically sophisticated, but they were good men with a good heart. Over time, the level of abuse I suffered and saw others suffer made me realize that "goodness" was not the defining characteristic. More like "reputation management".
But, I also noticed that every time some elder or session was caught in sin, they always portrayed the image of "we're just good guys that made an honest mistake." Keith freaking Magill of all people played that card.
So, you'll have a documentary of a bunch of RP leaders fessing up to "honest mistakes" and not get any traction, even if it's someone like Jared who wrote an article about how churches get abuse handling wrong and then proceeded to do precisely what his own words said not to do. Wouldn't make for great TV unless you can get them worked up about it.
My idea is to use a different approach that opens the eyes, because you're right, Black Sheep. I was a long-time member in good standing, and I noticed it. As a result I have some idea of how to reach this type of person. There are also a few in good standing who have real love and I know they see it, but they ignore it because they're trapped physically. The snare can be different for different people. Also, just because we don't see improvement right away, we can't underestimate the breakthroughs that will come in time. History has taught us this. People can either be consistent in telling the truth at personal cost, or consistent in avoiding helping other because they don't think it will be worth it. I already know these people will be helped in time, if only people will step forward in one way or another and get the truth out. This blog is part of that, you know. I know there's one family I know personally who were pulled back from the brink after the information in this blog. We need more efforts, and consistently. I refuse to not help people because of what I cannot see in the future. Lack of trust in god is how I got here, how many got here, and why most remain in the cult. It's time to trust God and do what's right. Jared is definitely another part of the truth getting out. You think because nothing completely changed that it never will? No, these things all add up and tip the scale at some point- they always do. I'm not interesting in getting people worked up, that's what corrupt politicians on both sides do. I'm interested in reaching them where God does.
I am very grateful for this blog. After "it" happened to me, I googled "rpcna legalism", and stumbled on this blog. I couldn't believe the problems with the RPCNA were so deep and widespread that there was an entire blog devoted to it. It gave me confidence that I wasn’t mistaken in my interpretation of what was happening to me, but it was part of a systematic problem with the RPCNA as a whole. But convincing someone who hasn’t noticed (or even seen) any red flags is a very different thing. It’s just too easy to shrug off the complaints as sour grapes until you see it for yourself. You can write as many blog posts as you want and send them around to all your friends in the RPCNA, force them to read them at gunpoint even, but the RPCNA elders always have the upper hand: they control the pulpit. You can accuse them of whatever you want, but they speak with the authority of God to the people every Sunday, and (deserved or not) they have the people’s respect and vows of obedience, and they know how to exploit these.
This isn’t to say that a true awakening isn’t possible in the RPCNA, but it means that it would have to be a marvelous work of God’s humbling and redeeming grace. I just don’t see that to be active right now, and I rather suspect that rather than grace it’s judgement that the Lord has planned on the RPCNA and the churches of this nation in the near future, even if it's just the judgement of obscurity.
When “it’ happened to me and I started seeing things, before I left I started getting excited. I thought these elders just didn’t see what they were like, and I was in a position to help them. The Lord was going to revive our local RPC!
Well, telling those elders what the problem was went up like a lead balloon. They didn’t need any help, and least of all from me. No, the Lord didn’t revive our local RPC, and I left. I tried to leave a little something in the backs of the minds of the remaining members, but clearly it wasn’t very effective. I have been able to help one or two who came to me afterwards (for which I rejoice!), but for the most part the church went on as it had.
I think it is a great goal to expose the RPCNA for what it is. My heart in this is to provide some grounding both on the way in and on the way out. Maybe someone stumbles upon this blog when they're deciding to join and it doesn't keep them from joining, but maybe it gives a little credence to the little voice in their head after the honeymoon period is over saying that something is wrong. More than that, though, this is a community where the beat up sheep get to tell their stories and reflect on the realities and difficulties of spiritual abuse and recovery.
Speckled Sheep,
There is no silver lining in him. He is a dangerous, duplicitous man. False humility is the tool being employed here. I could make a suggestion here: part of the solution is to STOP listening to just what is said, taking it at the value of its hearing alone. What is said should be commensurate with what is being done.This is all terrible pretense, and the tools employed are preemptive measures designed to cast doubt in the minds of those whose thinking would go the opposite way. They are designed to cause doubt. Doubt delays action, and over time it leads to complacency and spiritual death. I can’t tell you all the times I sat there, serious reservations washing over me like waves, and in the moments of self talk and reasoning said, in my internal dialogue, “ but he said this.” Enough. What has he done? What has he left undone? On and on. Stop letting this man and others fool you with their clever charades. They are adept at observing doubt in others, the nature of that doubt, and injecting purposeful statements or measures to the contrary. It’s not only that they want us to second guess ourselves; they want us to know others, having heard the statements, will not believe us if we bring a contradictory claim. Their kingdom is that of man, and will perish just the same.
Correction: Members do not make "vows of obedience", but "vows of submission" to the elders. Now, the latter is interpreted by the elders as being in essence the same as the former. However, I don't believe it is right (or Biblical) to obey someone who commands you in the name of God, "stay still so I can punch you in the nose repeatedly".
"What has he done? What has he left undone? On and on. Stop letting this man and others fool you with their clever charades."
I don't know the answers to these questions, so I don't know how/if I'm being fooled. I was in Orlando once, but he wasn't the pastor, and they weren't having Communion. You seem to have more personal experience, so I'm happy to be instructed.
"There is no silver lining in him. He is a dangerous, duplicitous man. False humility is the tool being employed here. I could make a suggestion here: part of the solution is to STOP listening to just what is said, taking it at the value of its hearing alone."
If I, somewhat abritrarily, score the FPC attitude at 2-3 out of 10, then I'd score the opinions expressed in the Eshelman piece at around 5-6 out of 10 -- not a great score, but better than one alternative I'm aware of. I would call this a "silver lining." You might not.
On the other hand, as I said above, I have no experience with Mr. Eshelman as a pastor, nor even as an acquaintance. If his full attitude about who should commune is more like the FPC's, then I don't have any deep-seated opposition to lowering the score and bringing the clouds back in.
What I've heard in the RPCNA is that submission is the next level of obedience. Obedience is "do what I tell you to do" and submission is "do what I want you to do".
Anonymous, have you thought about contacting Jen of Fundie Fridays? https://www.youtube.com/c/fundiefridays - she was featured in Shiny Happy People, and she has good ways of digging stuff up, plus a decent number of followers.
Speckled Sheep, this isn't about the issue in this topic, but the character behind it that is being missed (thereby throwing off big picture understanding of singular issues like this one).People are kept so busy and distracted they can't see the big picture, and they are too afraid to explore the many red flags.
I have not heard of her battered sheep.
Anonymous, most people don't look for the big picture. There is a discipling book that talks about the Kairos moment. Essentially, everything is fine on the exercise wheel, and then something happens that shocks you to the core. At that moment, you can try to go back to the wheel or you can take a step back and look at the big picture. For most people, the search for the big picture happens only in those moments.
On the other hand, I think people like Luther and Calvin were natives of the big picture and they realized how little things (red flags, perhaps) fit into a larger picture of spiritual abuse.
Where I work, there are regular times of reflection dictated by our process. Most of the teams I worked on would regularly cancel them or only want to talk about things that were out of their control - customers, management, etc. because, I think, they really didn't want to address the things that we as a team did that were distracting or unhelpful.
In the RPCNA, for example, congregational meetings were a mandatory thing. A time of reflection. Most congregations I was in treated it as a checkbox. At least one congregation, the session specifically structured it to eliminate any feedback. Not a good congregation in many respects, but one took it very seriously. We dispensed with the reading of reports (because they were published weeks in advance) and we had time to allow members to make motions that would often lead to discussions and decisions about church direction. Interestingly enough, that congregation was one of the biggest proponents of eliminating congregational meetings - maybe the leaders did not like the feedback, but had to appear gracious to save face during meetings.
I will confess that my limited knowledge of Nathan Eshelman, his writings, and his actions, does not give me any kind of a deep grasp of his character. The little that I know of him and his writings has generally been positive, and I am always hesitant to assign guilt merely by association.
However, you clearly have a good deal more personal experience with him than I, and therefore your knowledge is clearly greater than mine. So on this matter, I think will abide by the adage that "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
I can say the same. I've had a few interactions, but I was never "under his authority" and I know that is a completely different experience for many who suffer from abuse.
Hi all. Interesting comment thread; it seems that I am late, as no one told me there was a party. 🙂
I am readily available to answer any questions that anyone may have. It seems "Anonymous" has a lot to say about my ministry. My principles of ministry includes both transparency and open communication--anyone from my congregation, past or present, will tell you that is true. Happy to answer any of your lingering questions. Just reach out! n.p.eshelman@gmail.com or 323.356.5717
Also, if you want to see a communion Table service, here's a link to our last communion service (start at about 1:10:00, give or take, and you can see it). https://www.youtube.com/live/48U3BrfeVag?feature=shared
And here's a sermon of mine that includes some thoughts on the table: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp...
Anyhow... happy to answer any questions so to avoid assaulting my character without knowing anything about me!
Warmly,
Nate
My concern with the culture established by the RPW is that our Christian liberty and joy are squashed by arguing what is "best". This can even be hedged by using phrases like this is not "required".
Unfortunately, when a person makes an argument from the Bible (or history), that some practice is objectively better or more pure, the consequence is that any other practice is then lesser.
Communion is a representation of both a vertical relationship and a subsequent horizontal relationship, with not a lot of commentary on the circumstances. I believe that each community of faith can stay faithful in the essentials while adapting the circumstances in a way that blesses their congregation. My church emphasizes the vertical relationship by having the elders give a personal blessing for each member when they come up to receive, and they emphasize the horizontal by asking members to wait to take the elements together. I personally find the individual blessing meaningful in my walk and that reinforces to me that God cares about me more deeply than just being some checkbox soul saved.
I believe the RPW is well-intentioned, but creates a culture where much of Satan's work is pre-cultivated "has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" [except the one "best" tree]
In the RP church, I was told to live a sacrificial life of suffering. Outside the RP church, I am told to live an abundant life of joy. I choose joy.
Are they going to revisit this issue? I know there is not universal agreement on the split-cup thing. I think different RP congregations do this differently from eachother, I'm not sure there is a unified decision on this yet (well, there was 14 years ago, back when they said no wine at all). I don't feel strongly one way or the other, I am just curious.
I would be surprised if they would revisit it. The cases I know about are Kokomo, IN, where the session chose to serve wine and a few members complained, with it going all the way to Synod, and a similar case in Las Vegas, NV, but there, I think, the church had been wine-only prior to coming into the RPCNA, and members seemed to be asking Synod to overrule.
I don't find this in the Kokomo decision, but what the Las Vegas decision says is that Synod has left the choice of what is in the cup to the local sessions. I know that Kokomo was counseled (I think at the Presbytery level) to split the cup, which they did. I think the further complaint was trying to remove wine altogether.
So, I would be surprised if this issue comes up before Synod again. The current (LV) ruling says that each session gets to decide, and I don't know of a situation that would arise that wouldn't just be referred to that decision.
Post a Comment