RPCNA has a misogyny problem, harassment and spiritual abuse for women who leave

Some ex-RP people put this together in the last few weeks. We were sharing our experience of leaving the RP church. As we talked about our stories and the stories of those we know, a sickening pattern emerged. Every male in the discussion as well as others I knew were generally given their form, and few of the forms had the ominous "outside the church there is no ordinary means of salvation." Generally no follow up texts, e-mails or calls came from the church.

Women, however, had a completely different experience. They pretty much all got the warning on the form, and not only that, they were repeatedly called, texted and e-mailed (harassed) between the time they sent their notice to the church and the time the church "allowed" them to leave.

A former OPC member said that her previous pastor and elder knew she worked at Starbucks, and started meeting each other regularly for coffee when she left the church.

I think there is a sick and twisted doctrine behind this and, while I endured a bit of it, I think when it comes to women, the RP leadership has decided to double down. When I informed my church I was leaving, a couple of elders asked to meet with me. I had no real issues at that point. One tried to enumerate my sins and suggest he would be happy to work on them with me (hard pass!). The other, however, talked about how we had similar concerns and how we could jointly be a positive influence for change. What he said afterwords, though, was shocking and disgusting. He said that he saw making membership vows to be a "marriage", and that the church should "give me away" to my new church, like a father gives away a bride to a spouse. (Don't think women would sign up for being given away by their ex-husbands!!!) Others who left have also been subjected to this line of reasoning.

That's why I think women are so much more harassed then men. Maybe the dots don't connect so nicely when when the church wants to give away men, but when it's WOMEN, it must feel to these men like their daughters are eloping. How dare they! In that way, they feel like they really need to push for a proper "wedding", even if it requires harassment and abusive pressure. That's how many women have described the leaving process:

1. Immediately, the resources of the Session are devoted to winning the person back. That might be constant texts, knocks on doors, e-mails, visits from other members talking about how important they are, etc.
2. Fear and legalism. People are told (erroneously) that they must leave the church "the right way" - that their membership vows are permanently binding. That they must meet with the Session and "request" to leave or transfer.
3. They're told that they must inform the Session where they intend to go. (Don't do this!) Women have said that their RP pastor contacted or met with the pastor of their new church and poisoned the well.
4. Some have been threatened with discipline if they don't follow "the process" (the process is whatever hoops the Session decides they must go through, BTW)
5. I know some families that were manipulated into shaming their daughters/sisters. I think the fact this is a common tactic creates a familial pressure within the RPCNA, and part of the reason this blog is currently anonymous - for me and my family's sake.

This harassment is not just aimed at people who have left Christianity, but many who have reported harassment have remained Christian and just wanted to leave their abusive churches.

Disenculturation vs. Deconstruction

A little bit of a rabbit trail led me to this article, which is surprisingly good given the source.

 https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/deconstruct-culture-not-faith/

I think this gets to the root of the disagreement in the last comment thread. RPs, NAPARC, and much of US Evangelicalism is trapped in a cultural context that includes the gospel, but has wrapped the gospel in a layer of cultural moralism.

As I pointed out, in the 1800's, churches in the US split over the issue of slavery. We look back at that time and wonder why Christians thought it was good and right to own slaves. It was because the cultural context of the slave states justified slavery and racial oppression. Abolitionists had to read past the Bible verses on slavery and ask, "does the Bible really justify and encourage slavery, or is the Bible merely discussing how Israelites/Christians operate in a cultural context of slavery?" It's a real question and just throwing out prooftexts doesn't get to the heart of the matter.

That's why I think it is entirely valid to question the Biblical perspective on things like I have mentioned. The Bible already questions and refines its own conclusions. When the Pharisees questioned Jesus on divorce, he said, "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery." Many sermons take this as the final statement on divorce, but then Paul says something different: "Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace." Even the WCF recognizes that desertion is grounds for divorce, and that a wife divorced due to desertion does not sin (commit adultery) if she remarries.

In the same vein, God allows and even seemingly recommends polygamy (kinsman redeemer) in the Old Testament, but then Jesus says, "the two shall become one flesh" as if to say that polygamy was never God's intent, and Paul underscores that later to say that an elder must be the "husband of one wife" (pastors say 'one woman man'). So, Israel, Abraham, David ... and others are examples in faith that Paul would exclude from being elders in the church.

So, now when we look at the Bible, we need to not only understand our own cultural lens that we use to interpret, but we also need to understand the cultural lens of the people the scriptures were written to. In a sense, simple, yet complicated. We can understand "love your neighbor as yourself", but Paul points out that "don't muzzle an ox while she is threshing" isn't as much about farming as it is about allowing people to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

So, all these things you want to accuse me of heresy about...