My first step out of legalism was being introduced to a different God.

Some who read my blog are still in the RP church and some have left. I left the RP church for somewhat selfish reasons. I had this thought that I had gifts to be used for the church, but the RP church steadfastly rejected everything I had to offer. I wanted to find a church where people felt freedom to express their joy in worship and where leadership wasn't a group of people who had to maintain their superiority over the commoners.

What I found was far more. Yes, I found a group of people who expressed freedom and joy in worship, but I was introduced to a different God. It took me leaving Psalmody to find that the Psalms, for RPs seem to be checking some sort of box. How does David get to complain to God when we must approach God with our prayers arranged? How does David get to say that God has forsaken and abandoned him when RPs would be afraid of being struck by lightning at such heresy?

My first brush with the God who is willing to hear my complaints was a sermon series on Ruth. The pastor talked about how Naomi modeled strong spirituality when she acknowledged her bitterness and brought it before God. That was not what I heard from RP pulpits. Those pastors said that Naomi was spiritually weak and on the verge of apostasy because she was bitter. Over time, I learned of a God who wasn't an iron-fisted narcissist, smiting those who dared bring petty grievances and low-minded complaints before his holy, royal throne. I learned of a God who wanted to be near us when we were happy, near us when we were sad and near us when we were so angry we wanted to punch a hole in a wall. And not just about the "stuff", but even when we were angry or happy or said with HIM!

Honestly, my first response was anger. I was angry that he allowed me to grow up in a church and home that abused me in his name. I was angry that my family and friends willingly chose to be domineered by church leaders to keep their relationships and worship style. I was sad that there was a huge gulf between the people I grew up with and those I met through the church that will probably never be fixed in this life.

Over time, though, I realized how much this hateful caricature of God is so central to abusive and narcissistic Christianity. Our leaders cannot be compassionate because their God is not compassionate. Our leaders cannot overlook petty grievances because their God cannot overlook petty grievances. They cannot join hands with other Christians who see things even slightly differently because their God cannot overlook even the slightest error. It also affects how RPs approach doctrine. In a sense, because God is narcissistic and abusive, there is the opposite consideration than Ockham's razor. Instead of the simplest explanation being the correct one, it's more like the explanation that is the biggest stretch ends up being the one the theologians latch onto. For example, it isn't enough to to agree on the essentials of communion. First, the elements must be scrutinized. Is non-fermented grape juice really obeying God? What about leavened bread? Then the participants must be divided. Is it available to all Christians or only NAPARC members? Finally, even the circumstances become elements. Is it okay for members to be served in their pews or must they come to a table? This might be passed off as "best practice", but those who have taken stands on the various issues are really saying that other practice is tainted by disobedience and bearing some amount of brow furrowing by our creator. Is that really the God we serve? The God of furrowed brows? The Father I serve is the one who ran to me when I was far off and welcomed me back as a son even though I smelled of pig manure. The RP God would never do that. Only the pure can come, and even then, one drop of unfermented wine is enough to be rejected.

I can't say that my relationship with God the Father has been miraculously fixed, but I at least conceptually understand that he is not the abusive father the RP church portrayed him to be. I can look to Jesus and see that Jesus doesn't act in the way that the RP God acts, and if Jesus is in perfect harmony with the Father, how could he act in opposition? If Jesus touches the unclean, how does the Father reject them? If Jesus defends the adulteress, how does the Father condemn her? It doesn't make sense! A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Said plainly, Jesus did not act the way God the Father is portrayed by RPs. When Jesus talks about the Father, he combines justice with compassion and mercy. The God of the Sabbath does not hold the Regulative Principle above the disciples' need to eat. Jesus shows warmth to those who are given the cold shoulder in society, and he is often cold towards those who are honored.

How to Human

Hi all! Over the weekend, I read a completely different book, How to Human by Carlos Whittaker. It's a secular book, of sorts, but Carlos is unabashedly Christian and relates a lot of his lessons back to who Jesus was and Christian principles.

It was a very encouraging book and he helpfully talks about some of what I think have become Evangelical hangups. I'll highlight a few that hit me:

1. Seeing someone / engaging with someone does not mean that we agree with them. I was in a men's study recently, and one of the leader's thought-provoking questions was, "A gay co-worker invites you to his same-sex wedding. Do you go or not? Why?" The leader's view was that participation was approval.

Whittaker uses the example of Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch to point out the lesson that we can and should engage with people who have unknown or even known-to-be-different views. 

There will be some chariots that you won't agree with a single bumper sticker those chariots have on them. You may agree with everything those chariots stand for. That's great. I would hope that you have strong convictions. But, don't for a second think that disqualifies you from getting in the chariot. You are getting in the chariot to let the person in it know that you see them, not that you agree with them. (p. 93)

I see this reflected in Jesus's interactions with people, which Carlos points out in other chapters. He touched the leper. He allowed a woman of ill repute (according to the Pharisees) to anoint him with perfume. He stood by the woman caught in adultery. These were all situations where the religious leaders were pointedly declaring that engagement with the sinful was approval of sin, but Jesus disagreed.

2. Our work vs. the work of the Holy Spirit. This was one of the first lessons I learned after leaving the RP church, and definitely not early enough as I burned some friendships and strained family relationships trying to do that work in them.

Because I'm a follower of Jesus, it's my responsibility to ferociously pour His love on my friends and my foes. It's not my responsibility to convict them. That is the role of the Holy Spirit. Comment-section debates won't convince a heart to change. Thirty-second video clips where your side "destroys" the other team won't convince a heart to change. Those may make us feel better but won't ever move their hearts toward change. So, is that love? Does it bring joy? Encourage peace? Go through that list of the fruit of the Spirit from Galatians and compare it to how we so often are. Does it line up? Probably not. Not like it should.

We must love those we disagree with in order to let them know they matter. That they are seen. That's the actual goal. That's what will help us all human better. That's why when you see a "Christian" online calling other humans names meant to wound them, it should make you cringe -- even if you agree with their point of view. (And if it doesn't make you cringe, there are deeper problems.) Now, just because it's the Holy Spirit's role to convict doesn't mean we don't have convictions. It just means that when we take on His role ourselves, with our human nature, it's far easier to fall into the trap of demeaning someone made in the image of God by throwing cheap and easy insults. (pp. 203-204)

Coming out of a church tradition where people took upon themselves (cough 'apologetics') the role of the Holy Spirit, it was easy to fall into the trap of being similarly, I suppose, anti-apologetic. So I spent my first few months as an ex-RP politely(?) bashing everything I found objectionable. It took so much trauma to get myself to the point where I could walk out that I needed a way to process that trauma, and, unfortunately, I didn't have a counselor to dump that on. I ended up processing my RP trauma on my RP friends, who unchecked that box (friend, not RP).

3. Study and Follow Jesus. It might seem trite, but I appreciate that Carlos, who points out that he dropped out of college and has no seminary training, over and over shows us a simple and clear understanding of who Jesus was and what he was here for. I think we Reformed Evangelicals have figured out how to reimage Jesus into what we want, not who he is. Jesus turned his cheek, but really... turning our cheek is weakness. Jesus stood by the adulterer, but really... we should shame adulterers. Jesus welcomed and cherished children, but really... we should parentify and adultify them as soon as possible so they can be useful, and before then, ignore them.

4. Be, See, Free. Maybe this is just a sales pitch, but these are the major headings of the books. How do we re-acquaint ourselves with what it means to be human? How do we see the humanity in others beyond stereotypes and biases? How do we use our humanity and our gifts to free others from bondage (more social justice than proselytizing)?

It's difficult because Whittaker is probably the most extroverted person I've ever read, and as a massive introvert, it's hard to imagine just going up to someone in the ways he does. He asked if he could livestream a hotel housekeeper singing her heart out, and asked a street musician if he could film him, so that others could enjoy their gifts. But, I definitely appreciate his love for people and his willingness to engage with them in a way that demonstrates that they are seen and loved.

Can we stop saying that women want to be objectified and raped?

 I don't understand why Doug Wilson is still considered relevant within Reformed circles, but the echoes of what he says still resonate in articles I've read. Keep in mind that Wilson's "Federal Vision" theology has been declared heretical (i.e. people who subscribe to FV cannot simultaneously hold the early creeds that defined Christianity)

RPs should also understand that Wilson has called them 'haters of the Word of God':

the drums of war were being beaten by the abolitionists, [RPCNA is historically abolitionist] who were in turn driven by a zealous hatred of the Word of God.

Maybe that line of Wilson's reasoning hasn't been spread throughout western Evangelicalism, but this line certainly has:

There are at least three things to be taken away from this. The first is that Paul is not offering Christian sexlessness over against pagan sexuality. He says that Christians must learn how to possess their own bodies in this way, not in that way. The way we are to avoid is the sexuality of atheism.

Second, we are to know what we are rejecting—i.e. the passion of lust as exhibited by those who do not know God. That means we need to know the contrast. Now the world’s approach to sex is demented, but it is a demented caricature of certain creational realities. This means that men and women are convex and concave in their desires. Men want to possess and women want to be possessed. Men want to want and women want to be wanted. Men want baubles and women want to be baubles.

The third point is that to reject God’s pattern here is not to despise men, but rather to despise God. You might defraud your brother in this, but it God you are despising. (source)

Also:

When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.

But we cannot make gravity disappear just because we dislike it, and in the same way we find that our banished authority and submission comes back to us in pathological forms. This is what lies behind sexual "bondage and submission games," along with very common rape fantasies. Men dream of being rapists, and women find themselves wistfully reading novels in which someone ravishes the "soon to be made willing" heroine. (source)

Part of understanding our culture within a Christian worldview is understanding that creation has been subjected to corruption and futility. Just because my natural response to offense is to get revenge doesn't make revenge right. Revenge is not gravity in the sense that God built revenge into the fabric of his good creation. Justice, yes, but revenge is potentially a sinful distortion of justice.

In the same way, even if I concede that Wilson's argument correctly acknowledges the current state of affairs, he is extrapolating the heart of God from the created reality. It's hard to make a parallel argument to point out the logical flaws, but it would go something like this:

Godly discipline MUST be spanking. We can't pretend that instruction, natural consequences, or other discipline techniques can possibly work, because children self-discipline through self-harm - hair pulling, cutting, banging their head against a wall. Men dream of being violent against their children, and children read books where the hero learns resilience through abusive parenting.

The fallacy in both arguments is first assuming that what we desire in entertainment has some underlying wholesome basis. Do people watch MMA because some aspect of MMA is holy and good? I doubt it. Wilson would likely this by arguing Total Depravity, but it's core to his argument. Second does the fact that women read romance novels involving rape mean that the rape is essential or core to their desires? Not at all! I don't think women read romance novels because they contain rape. That's Wilson reading his own pornified view of women into some statistic. I didn't watch Captain America because I wanted to see a teenage twerp get beaten and abused by his army peers. I watched it because I wanted to see how his true character survived through evil and adversity.  Maybe women read romance novels with rape because they want to see how strong women react to and rise above the evil and adversity. I'm not sure that Wilson is even correct that women are drawn to romance novels where a woman is raped by her future romantic partner. It's very much like him (and James Dobson*, for that matter) to create his theory out of whole cloth by projecting what he wants women to be like into his accounts. I guess one way to promote rape culture is to imagine that women naturally want to be ravaged by some alpha male and then put that to pen and paper with a couple of verses and a pastor's sheepskin to make it appear Biblical and authentic.
(* The oft-repeated idea that men 'need' sex at least every 72 hours has been meticulously traced to a statement James Dobson made, and it appears that his statement had no scientific backing: https://baremarriage.com/2024/03/72-hour-rule-isnt-real-evangelicals-convinced-women-have-sex/)

Wilson's argument is truly evil, though. Women want to be possessed? Really? Women want to be baubles? (i.e. Women want to be objectified) Really?

I think this is in line with his arguments about slavery. Somehow he portrays the slavery of the south as a magnanimous system. Slaves were "taken care of" and owners were good, charitable Christians. That's why they hired taskmasters with whips and raped their slaves, because that's what black people want - to be whipped and raped.

Wilson needs to get his head out of porn and slave rape literature.

Women today operate in a patriarchal culture. That is the point of Genesis 3. "He will rule over you". The male rule in Genesis 3 is not a benevolent rule. We see soon that Lamech takes two wives. Why? Benevolence, or sexual gratification? Thomas Jefferson raped his slaves. Benevolence or sexual gratification? So, the pornified, objectified view of women in our culture is not God-created gravity, but a sinful distortion.

So, how do women respond to this culture? I think there are two basic approaches, fight, or accept and profit. Women who fight this culture have a lifetime of suffering ahead of them. Aimee Byrd and Beth Moore come to mind. These women at first, accepted the patriarchal Evangelical culture, but in their journey at some point, they realized that Evangelical patriarchy was sinful and fought it. They were abused and sidelined by their churches. The other approach is what I would call the cheerleader approach. Women accept some level of the pornified culture because they can use it to their advantage. I know cheerleaders, and they see cheerleading as a sport, just like band members see marching band as a way to compete in music. However, society looks at a football game, and the cheerleaders and band are just a side-show to the important thing, which is a competition of alpha males.

Madonna / Britney Spears / Lady Gaga also are figureheads for this approach. In their prime, they encouraged and profited from a pornified view of women. I doubt these women wanted to be raped. This was not fantasy of theirs, but a way to make a good living off of patriarchy. Porn stars are the same. I doubt their hearts desire is to engage in sex acts so that men can gratify themselves, but they can profit from the sinful desire of men.

Circling back to Wilson, he paints a sickening view of God, and those who want to portray women in the same light also paint a sickening view of God. Women don't want men to "rule over" them. Male rule is not the created order, but a result of the Fall. God does not respect patriarchy. If God respected patriarchy, then why did God talk with Manoah's wife first before Manoah, and why did Gabriel talk with Mary first before Joseph?

Narcissism and Legalism - why they are so hard to differentiate in religious systems

A recent post reminded me how much legalistic religious systems struggle with spiritual abusers and other narcissists. He claims that they are "cut from the same cloth" and offers how they are similar.

Similar roots of legalism and narcissism

The root of narcissism seems to come down to striving to maintain a 'perfect' external image, but being caught in a shame loop of the internal life not matching that image. Narcissists will first try to hide the shame, but when caught, they may externalize that internal shame by deflecting it towards others. "I wouldn't have raged if you hadn't..." or "You didn't explain why I needed to be home on time and that's why I went partying with my friends instead of visiting with your parents." Narcissists also poison any potential allies of those they are abusing so that an abused wife or child won't be believed if they seek help. "Oh, your father warned me that you like to make up malicious lies about him."

In the same way, legalistic church systems have to deal with the discrepancy between the aura of perfection and what actually happens within the doors. The celebrity pastor who is loved by all might be sending inappropriate texts to women in his congregation. The church is then caught with internal "shame" in the same way. Maybe they try to silence women who come forward by accusing them of gossip, or calling them a tool of Satan to destroy the pastor's ministry. If these women go to the press, again, they are labeled tools of Satan. The church is told that Satan is attacking the pastor, and DARVO is used as a tool to protect the poor minister.

Within a legalistic system, even accusations of sin take on a life of their own for similar reasons. Each individual wants to appear righteous. Some have described it as a "mask" that we wear. When someone is confronted with the shame of some sin, the same defense mechanisms can come into play. Maybe we deny it, or maybe we deflect it by charging other people of worse sins.

The post, and other articles I've read, point to the solution. First of all, legalistic systems arise because we judge by some relativistic standard. We want our sins to be no big deal and others' sins to be serious and significant. Yet, we know that all sin is deserving of condemnation, AND, we know that all sin can be forgiven and restored through Jesus. In our legalistic systems, we refuse to see people how Jesus sees them and instead we want to apply essentially the ridiculous standard that "us" is better than "them" and "might makes right" - those in spiritual authority should be judged less harshly due to their position.

Instead of inviting real people and their real problems to church, we say, "Welcome to the RPCNA, here's your mask! If you take the mask off we will reject you!"

Attracting spiritually abusive members and leaders

A legalist or narcissist walks into a legalistic church and instantly recognizes the system in play. Maybe they have different approaches. The narcissist wants to use the legalistic system to protect himself from scrutiny, while the legalist just recognizes that they can put on the same old mask and stay in comfort.

This is troubling because the legalistic system is already designed to protect the wolves. Legalistic churches will clamp down on any truth-telling, calling it gossip. Then, because "sin" is such an offensive thing to accuse someone of, there will be immediate scrutinizing of any accusations. The wolves know that they just have to play the game for a little while to get on the session, and then the boundless resources of the church will circle round to protect them.

It's easy to imagine a situation like Keith Magill. First, he illegally hid sexual abuse committed by a member by failing to call CPS and not telling other session members. When this is uncovered, no apparent action is taken against him, other than a letter from his former church. Then he is part of the coverup. And I say coverup because in Indiana a pastor is required to IMMEDIATELY inform CPS of suspected abuse. A school principal's conviction was upheld when he delayed reporting by four hours - https://www.in.gov/icsb/files/Duty-to-Report.pdf It's not surprising in a legalistic and narcissistic religious system to see person after person following the DARVO process to protect the powerful and portray whistleblowers and concerned members as tools of Satan.

Gossip is not "negative stories"

 My working definition of gossip is "telling someone else's story without permission." This is a powerful definition for two reasons. First, it means that telling someone else's good news without permission is still gossip. We have experienced multiple instances where someone had good news, like a pregnancy, an engagement, or even a new job. Told their closest friends and family and then, before they could tell others, the news spread like wildfire and they were heartbroken. Some in our family wisely say something like, "We have this news. Please don't share this outside the family until we can tell the church on Sunday."

On the flip side, accusations of "tattling" are often confusing and destructive. If a kid gets bullied in school and goes to the teacher, many teachers will accuse the kid of tattling. I think this accusation is more of an "I don't want to deal with this, go away" shaming and silencing technique. If Johnny brings a knife to school, and Billy tells the teacher, is this somehow sinful?

I heard this became an issue for an RPCNA church. Members were talking to their elders about experiences they had with a leader. The elders decided that "negative stories" about leaders was just gossip, so they mostly ignored the stories. Members were leaving and the session kept hearing the same so-called "gossip".

At some point, the elders had this revelation. If a bunch of people are telling us the same thing about a leader, then maybe the problem is with the leader and not the members. Seemingly, they are still struggling with the "gossip" of the matter, but they really should not be.

That's why churches need to have good definitions. If a pastor punches me and I tell an elder, that's not gossip. If a pastor punches me and I tell another member. That's not gossip.

I can hear the counterpoint, and I've heard it in sermons. What if the member takes some sin to anyone in the congregation that will listen? It's still not gossip. Maybe it's overreacting, but in today's church, perhaps overreacting is better than silencing.

• What about the little kid who is asked to get in the car of some random church member? Is it gossip to tell someone?
• What about the teenage girl who was touched inappropriately? Gossip?
• What about someone who is told by an individual elder that the session is upset with him? Gossip?

I keep coming back to this thought. What is the point of damage control when everything the church tries to cover up will be exposed on judgment day? It suggests to me that these people are less concerned about judgment day and more concerned about their reputation in the world.

** EDIT **

I also want to make a point about actions. Perhaps what you do in a session with a medical practitioner or with an attorney is protected by privacy rights. When I act externally, those actions are not protected by privacy, and often not even in my own home - if I'm acting out against my children or spouse.

So, if I verbally abuse someone. I have no right to silence that someone from telling anyone they choose. Neither do I think the church has the right to silence them. The Bible may ask them to question their motive. Are they telling someone to seek help, are they telling someone to seek justice, or are telling someone as a form of retaliation and escalation. I think we need wisdom to discern, but the church should certainly not quash any person talking about harm done to them as some sort of malicious gossip.

This sort of silencing comes from the church wanting to be a whitewashed tomb and not a place of justice. If I abuse someone, the church listens to that someone, and the church brings justice - either repentenance and reconciliation or discipline on me, then the entire story is a story of justice. Why would the church not want to demonstrate justice? Because justice is also painful and messy. So, the church chooses to whitewash the abuse by re-victimizing the abused into silence. Now, however, the church has something to hide - the tomb - evidence that they care more about reputation than justice and they would rather be lazy than fight.

Sermon Review: Psalm 109 -> authoritarian spiritual abuse

Southside RPCNA is where Ben Manring questioned the qualifications of an elder candidate. This past Sunday (6/17), Pastor David Hanson preached a sermon on Psalm 109. It shocks me that a pastor can read exactly the opposite into a passage of scripture than what seems to be the intent, but, when it comes to taking pains to justify spiritual abuse, even the Bible takes the back seat.

I quote this Psalm in its entirety because you will need to read and re-read it to remove the spell of cognitive dissonance that Pastor Hanson wants to cast over his members and listeners.

Psalm 109 (NASB)

O God of my praise,
Do not be silent!
For they have opened the wicked and deceitful mouth against me;
They have spoken against me with a lying tongue.
They have also surrounded me with words of hatred,
And fought against me without cause.
In return for my love they act as my accusers;
But I am in prayer.
Thus they have repaid me evil for good
And hatred for my love.

Appoint a wicked man over him,
And let an accuser stand at his right hand.
When he is judged, let him come forth guilty,
And let his prayer become sin.
Let his days be few;
Let another take his office.
Let his children be fatherless
And his wife a widow.
Let his children wander about and beg;
And let them seek sustenance far from their ruined homes.
Let the creditor seize all that he has,
And let strangers plunder the product of his labor.
Let there be none to extend lovingkindness to him,
Nor any to be gracious to his fatherless children.
Let his posterity be cut off;
In a following generation let their name be blotted out.

Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the Lord,
And do not let the sin of his mother be blotted out.
Let them be before the Lord continually,
That He may cut off their memory from the earth;
Because he did not remember to show lovingkindness,
But persecuted the afflicted and needy man,
And the despondent in heart, to put them to death.
He also loved cursing, so it came to him;
And he did not delight in blessing, so it was far from him.
But he clothed himself with cursing as with his garment,
And it entered into his body like water
And like oil into his bones.
Let it be to him as a garment with which he covers himself,
And for a belt with which he constantly girds himself.
Let this be the reward of my accusers from the Lord,
And of those who speak evil against my soul.

But You, O God, the Lord, deal kindly with me for Your name’s sake;
Because Your lovingkindness is good, deliver me;
For I am afflicted and needy,
And my heart is wounded within me.
I am passing like a shadow when it lengthens;
I am shaken off like the locust.
My knees are weak from fasting,
And my flesh has grown lean, without fatness.
I also have become a reproach to them;
When they see me, they wag their head.

Help me, O Lord my God;
Save me according to Your lovingkindness.
And let them know that this is Your hand;
You, Lord, have done it.
Let them curse, but You bless;
When they arise, they shall be ashamed,
But Your servant shall be glad.
Let my accusers be clothed with dishonor,
And let them cover themselves with their own shame as with a robe.
With my mouth I will give thanks abundantly to the Lord;
And in the midst of many I will praise Him.
For He stands at the right hand of the needy,
To save him from those who judge his soul.

Hanson: Psalm 109 teaches us to distrust ourselves

After claiming that our sense of justice is inherently God-given "he will write the law on our hearts", Hanson then flips the script (is there some Reformed playbook?) and talks  about how our innate desire for justice is somehow evil. "We want to be legislature, judge and executioner." This is a false dichotomy. Our inherent sense of justice is not de facto vigilante justice. This is a horrible caricature, and perhaps it speaks more about the pastors' hearts who preach.

[8:55] Psalm 109 calls you and me actually to a certain distrust of ourselves in these matters and instead to a trust in the righteous courtroom of God. ... And so Psalm 109 is given so that we would not trust our own courtroom, but instead that we would have this model to trust the judge, the perfect judge. 

 [10:17] in verses 1-5 we a call here that entrusting your case means, and begins with, distrusting yourself. [He repeats this for emphasis]

I had to read and re-read verses 1-5 to find this sense of self-doubt. Still can't find it. In fact, Hanson has to conveniently ignore the self-doubt when he points to the ultimate fulfillment in Jesus. [43:00] Does Psalm 109 mean that Jesus distrusted himself? Of course not! So this entire point has to be held in cognitive dissonance. This Psalm is all about self-doubt for us, but not for Jesus.

If Hanson had to honestly engage with this text first from the perspective of Jesus, it would be obvious that he is adding to scripture his own evil desire to manipulate and control through self-doubt.

Hanson: Psalm 109 says our hurt is insignificant to God

[11:55] And notice here that what is described is an extreme evil. That the case that David has to deal with in the courtroom of his brain is not 'you know there was a meeting on Friday at work, and my boss blamed me for keeping the breakroom a mess when in fact it's my coworkers.' And therefore I'm going to pray and sing this way.

This is a tactic, like sin leveling. So, yes, David is angry at being hurt, but David was really hurt. Our little hurts just don't matter like this! The implication is that our little hurts don't matter to God, and if they don't matter to God, they don't matter to the church, and if they don't matter to the church, then you should accept it and move on.  

Hanson: Suck it up or you're sinning

[13:30] And right there in a nutshell, right there in one verse [Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice] Paul has summarized exactly what the courtroom of my brain and your brain says that when you have made all these false, wicked accusations against me. When you've drug my name through the mud, I am free and justified in my bitterness. I am free and justified if I decide to be angry and wrathful and burst out against you. I am free and justified if I choose to gossip against you.

Keeping on the theme of our little trauma being insignificant, Hanson goes on to explain that even if our trauma is big like David's, we still have to essentially suck it up. The quote may sound insignificant, but we have to understand that "anger" and "gossip" are redefined and weaponized in the RPCNA.

Let's say my child is raped by an RP pastor. If I confront the pastor, I'm just being "angry". If I talk to other members about it, I'm "angry" and a "gossip". If I go to the police. "angry". The press, "angry". He says over and over "repay evil with evil", but he never really describes a just process for resolving conflict. In fact, pretty much every approach is poisoned into some form of evil. Not surprising where he decides to take it.

Hanson: Justice is between you and God alone

[17:40] Distrusting your own courtroom and entrusting your case to God means, verse 1, that we come to God alone. Notice David's disposition here. What is the court of appeal? It's not his own court, and it's also not the court of public opinion. Most of us are ethical enough to say that it would be wrong for me to do something malicious in turn. You said something unkind to me, therefore I'm going to race out to the parking lot and key your car. I think most of us are clear that that is not the biblical response. But we will struggle a lot more with you said something unkind to me that is completely out of line and I'm going to make sure that at least six other people in the congregation know about it. But David here takes the matter to the Lord and the Lord alone.

Again, what is potentially a valid response to trauma gets blown out of proportion and turned into some sort of checkbox for wrongs. But, what if I go to a trusted friend and ask for their help in responding? This is a false dichotomy and it's so broad that you could drive a Mack truck through it. What if someone tells me they're going to shoot me as soon as I exit the building? Seriously, don't tell anyone?!

This is the same sort of gaslighting we see time and time again in the RPCNA. The purpose is deliberate. DON'T TRUST YOURSELF. Don't stand up or speak out. Preserve the peace at all costs, even if you drive yourself to a mental breakdown!

Hanson: David isn't asking for specific judgment, just general principles

[25:21] And actually what's happening here in verses 6-20 is that David is just praying God's law back to God. God I am being grossly mistreated here. Here is my case, and by the way, here is what you have promised in your law will happen to those who deal this way. You have outlined that this is your justice.

[33:20] Lord you repay them according to your standard of righteousness, your standard of justice. So entrusting our case to the Lord means not trusting ourselves, first of all, and secondly means trusting God's standard of right and wrong. God's standard of perfect justice.

Hanson completely ignores the language of verses 6-20 and turns it on its head. The "imperative" part of speech means "the form of a verb that is usually used for giving orders". David is saying to God, do this! do this! Yes, David is, in the Spirit prophetically speaking what will happen to his accuser, and what will happen to Judas, but the example here is not a mere recitation of statutory law in the hopes that something will stick.

Hanson's implication is that David is saying, "God, if this is a class 2 felony, then your law says he should get 5-10 years in jail. God, if this is a class 3 misdemeanor, your law says he should be fined up to $500." David is saying, God! I want this guy to be in jail for 10 years!

It's problematic for Hanson to flip the script yet again and say that this David somehow just tossing the offense into the wind and hoping for something to stick. Instead, David, a man after God's own heart, is demanding his rights before God. It's not, "Hey God, it'd be nice if you put him in jail for a few days," but "YOUR LAW says that he gets 10 years, and you'd better get it done or you're not true to your word!"

Hanson: Psalm 109 says we have to hand it all to God because we're depraved

[40:50] Those are reasons why we can say that it is good and appropriate for us to sing and to pray Psalm 109. Psalm 109 removes the court case from my courtroom and says "I know I'm totally depraved. I know I miscarry justice. God, I turn this over to you. It affirms God I'm trusting your law, your rules, your penalties, and not mine."

Hanson: Now forget everything I just preached when it comes to Jesus

[42:40] And they said we know that Psalm 109 applies to us right now, because Psalm 109 is really talking about the approach that Jesus had to the courtroom that really mattered. And it's in Psalm 109 that we read 'let another man take his office' and they identified in a particular way and appropriately so, recorded by the scriptures, that Psalm 109 was talking about the relationship between Jesus and Judas Iscariot. And so Psalm 109, we know, is actually a psalm that would have been on the lips of our savior and that scripture tells us explicitly applies to him.

Obviously, this is where the entire logic of his entire sermon completely unravels into a ball of spaghetti on the floor.

What would Hanson "teach" Jesus by this sermon?

Jesus should distrust himself.

Jesus's hurt is insignificant to the Father

Jesus should "suck it up" when he is wronged

Jesus should never spoken openly about the injustice committed against him

Jesus should "turn it over to God" because he's depraved.

Conclusion: RPCNA preaching turns scripture into spiritual abuse

This sermon is completely typical of what you see. "Exegesis" is merely the pastor putting his own words into the Bible. He cannot possibly understand Psalm 109, because his interpretation of Psalm 109 cannot possibly apply to its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus! And therefore the instruction from his false interpretation cannot apply.

In fact, this is just Hanson dictating his own rules for dealing with persecution in the church.

You're an insignificant worm.

God doesn't care about your little problems.

Whatever emotions you have or justice you desire is inherently wrong.

Shut up about it.

Don't take any action.

Maybe Satan could say it better, but I think Hanson has tried hard.

Synod Ben Manring decision, the Jesus test and standing...

 RPCNA Synod met last week. I was most interested in the Ben Manring case, since it was likely that Synod would kick the can on the many issues coming from GLG, but this required some sort of decision.

Ben Manring was disciplined by his church for e-mailing publicly available information about a potential elder candidate to his congregation. The potential candidate had signed a complaint to Synod in opposition to the handling of the IRPC case. Synod had voted against the complaint and Manring thought that the candidate's disagreement with Synod was material to his qualifications as elder. Such a complaint might be seen as a divisive course.

A little bit of irony here is that Professor JG Vos was credited for single-handedly saving the RPCNA from demise. The mechanism that JG Vos used was mass mailing his complaints to any person who might have any impact on a decision. When a controversial speaker spoke at Geneva chapel, JG Vos transcribed his speech and put it in the mailbox of every faculty member. When the RPCNA was considering women in leadership, Vos wrote a letter and sent it to every session and elder in the RPCNA. As far as I know, no one, especially the conservatives who rule the RPCNA petitioned to have Vos disciplined for his actions.

The opinion of the Session, which was supported by the presbytery and ultimately Synod, was that a member did not have the right to e-mail fellow members about elder qualifications. This is a horrible decision on many levels. I'll talk through a few:

It fails the Jesus test

Here is my summary of the Jesus test. Any opinion that makes Jesus a sinner is wrong. Some say drinking alcohol is sinful. Yet, Jesus says, "I come eating and drinking and you call me a glutton and a drunkard." In other words, Jesus drank alcohol. If drinking alcohol is sinful, then Jesus is no longer the perfect Son of God and unblemished lamb. We are still in our sins. It's a pretty powerful test.

So, in the Manring case, Manring was rebuked by his session for telling the congregation something that was not what the session wanted them to hear. Synod apparently ruled that a member does not have the right to e-mail the congregation something in conflict with the view of the session.

Why does that make Jesus a sinner? Jesus publicly rebuked the church leaders of his day. He called Pharisees hypocrites. If a church member is sinning if they make a public statement in disagreement with church leadership, then Jesus is a sinner. The RPCNA is now on dangerous ground. In protecting the authoritarian hierarchy of the church, they are condemning Jesus. Who is their god? Jesus or Hierarchy?

It undermines church elections

Part of philosophical underpinnings of RPCNA elections comes in the interpretation of Acts 6. The church leaders in Acts 6 were elected by the people, then ordained by the apostles. According to the RPCNA, there is a belief that church leaders should be elected from the people. They would reject any idea of prelacy - the Catholic/Episcopal belief that church leaders are appointed by church leaders.

Many Sessions fall afoul of this already in their authoritarian bent by "nominating" candidates, which puts an undue burden on members, who may take this as the very representatives of Jesus saying they approve of a candidate.

But, what is here is even scarier. The qualifications of an elder candidate are material to the election. Manring believed that the candidate's opposition to the handling of the IRPC matter was a significant consideration in whether he could be an elder. In fact, he believed that signing the petition disqualified the candidate from the office.

Given the unique understanding the RPCNA has had about elections, it is surprising that they now want to muzzle members. What would the RPCNA do if a member was convicted in a secular court for writing that a political candidate had signed a petition supporting abortion? Would they say, well, the state is your authority and you should trust God to bring about his desires? Of course not, they would go ballistic!

It's not surprising that an authoritarian, cultish church is going to spiral into prelacy. Of course, they will do it talking out of both sides of their mouths. Like a former church that paraded a candidate around the church, and then when the election came, claimed "we don't want to nominate a candidate, we want this to come from the congregation!" Complete horse crap! In fact, this church conducted the election in such a way that any congregational input was disallowed. It was a session meeting and the only time the floor was open was for nominations. So, a member wanting to bring something up (like Manring would have) would have been in contempt of court.

It destroys accountability and creates a secret society

Presbytery and Synod documents are considered open to all church members. There's a reason for this! At least at the time this was written into the RPCNA Constitution, the pastors and elders believed that light was an antidote to darkness. This was at a time when the church debated whether a member or leader could be a member of the Masonic order. The church ruled that any organization that relied on secrecy and the suppression of truth was incompatible with Christianity. Hear that again. SUPPRESSION OF THE TRUTH IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH CHRISTIANITY! So, Synod's rule that e-mailing the congregation about concerns with a candidate that are derived from the public record is somehow a rebukeable offense is creating a secret society, in contradiction to the church's own law and order. If members cannot openly speak the truth for fear of discipline, then the church has shut its ears to the truth. Why is the RPCNA so afraid of the truth? On the judgment day they are supposedly preparing their members for, every sin will be publicly exposed. Do these men truly fear God? I honestly have to say, no. They fear other men. This decision seems to come from the mentality of what the leaders might expose themselves to. In other words, if Manring is allowed to expose uncomfortable truths to the congregation, what happens if my sins are exposed? This isn't about serving God, it's about PR and damage control.

It's not surprising, then, that what seems to be the biggest takeaway post-IRPC is putting the church in control of the narrative. The Stephen Rhoda paper sought to make it a chargeable offense to go to the press. The Orlando/RPH paper was about the offense of going to public courts, and now the Manring paper creates a precedent that saying anything that could be taken as undermining the session's narrative is cause for discipline.

Manring's only "win" in this was that the session didn't follow the right procedure. It was okay to rebuke him for telling the truth, but they should have told him first before e-mailing the congregation.

Just remember, in an authoritarian system, it's okay to sacrifice a few lambs to protect the hierarchy. It's okay to send a wife back to her physically abusive husband to "protect the sanctity of marriage". It's okay when one member is told to shut up about another member's abuse to protect the public image of "Christ's Church". It's especially okay when a member is thrown under the bus to protect the power and control of the church structures.

For this reason also the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation...' (Luke 11:49-50)

Why the RPCNA pushes shame and doesn't understand joy

 

Having read a lot of books on shame (Chronic Shame by Patricia DeYoung is a good example) and most recently a book on Joy (The 4 Habits of Joy-Filled People by Marcus Warner and Chris Coursey), I want to piece together why NAPARC churches, and the RPCNA specifically, are stuck on a fear loop and unable to teach their members a joy-filled life.

Throughout life, when we experience trauma, we often need others to come beside us and help us deal with the intense emotions.

The Fear Loop:

One approach to dealing with trauma involves rejection. Often, rejection stems from believing that certain emotions are evil or are an incorrect response to the situation. Maybe we see a child who is crying because the Mac-n-Cheese was homemade and not from a box. Rejection can take multiple forms from direct threats to non-helpful verse quoting, but the point is ultimately that their strong emotions are not welcome.

"If you can't stop crying, I'll give you something to cry about"

"Your dad is in a better place now. No reason to be upset."

"All things work together for good"

"This too shall pass"

"It's been a month since that happened. Time to move on."

There's a lot of complexity to the effect of rejection (see Chronic Shame). Essentially, our right brains are looking for a connection with our caregiver, authority or friend, and when we are rejected, our left brains fill in the blanks with the only theory possible - that the rejection is rational and that there is something wrong with us. (DeYoung calls this left-brain response "shame")

Since we are communal beings who want to fit in, we learn to suppress trauma so that we do not suffer rejection. This suppression has negative consequences. It leads to anxiety, "chronic" shame, and fear of rejection. It can cause adverse health conditions.

I think that this loop is the experience of many lifelong RPs, and a pretty typical experience within our American culture. Rejection is a natural response to, a screaming child, or an angry parent or whatever thing breaks the peace. We want that to go away, and rejection is the simplest approach. We couch that rejection in religious terms, and now God is part of the fear loop. We're taught that our strong emotions don't belong in the throne room of God, and since we approach God's throne in prayer, our prayers need to be positive.

When I've experienced "Joy" taught in a fear cycle church, it's taught in a completely repressed or dissociative sense. In other words, joy is what we experience when we suppress our natural emotions for the "good" of the community. Joy is a pasted-on smile.

There is a lot of talk about churches "grooming" people for abuse. This is a mechanism by which spiritually abusive churches groom their members. The members are trained, by continual rejection, that their strong emotions are problematic. They are not trained to understand and deal with the emotions, but rather suppress them in the name of the peace of the church. When an evil person comes along, they know that members of these "fear cycle" churches have suppressed their natural defenses against evil people, in the supposed name of Jesus. People lose their ability to discern the difference between pastors and wolves because they are using the same techniques (fear manipulation) to motivate change in the church.

Ultimately, the fear/shame loop teaches an incorrect view of God and an incorrect view of humanity. We see God as the scowling judge, and not as our loving father. No matter how we shove our emotions and paste on a smile, we know we are never pleasing. We look at our peers with contempt and distrust, because our hurts and pains are never important enough to be reconciled. Instead, visible peace must be preserved at all costs, even if it means I hate my fellow church member for what they did to me, but I know that the church will discipline me for my "uncharitable spirit" if I ever bring it up.

The Joy Loop:

A different way of dealing with trauma is mirroring. Whether we agree with the cause of the strong emotions or not, our first step is to respect the humanity of this person by being present. Job's friends sat with him for a week helping him process these emotions before they started questioning whether the emotions came from truth or falsehood. For children, it might be saying something like, "I see that you are really really angry." - naming the emotion. We want their whole brain (see The Whole-Brain Child by Siegel and Bryson) to be engaged in processing the emotion.

I think this is shown in scripture. We don't believe in a God that, like the fear cycle teaches, is somehow unable and unwilling to deal with our strong emotions. Quite the opposite. We believe in a God who wants us to pour out our hurt and pain, our joy, whatever is on our hearts, to him, and we believe that same God calls us to do the same for others as we represent him. Even if we are unable to listen, we can be honest.

"I understand you are hurting and you deserve help, but I'm too busy right now." 

"That's a huge burden! I'd love to help, but I'm emotionally spent."

Maybe we sound like we're uncaring, but what is more uncaring, being honest or saying something trite to put their burden back on their shoulders with the added confusion that something must be wrong with them?

The joy loop isn't easier. It's more difficult, in my opinion. We humans, by nature, are going to avoid the pain and commitment of walking beside someone as they process their trauma. It takes a second to reject someone, but maybe hours or weeks to sit with them and hear their story.

However, God has modeled the joy loop and set it as the pattern for how we operate as a church. We're told if one member suffers, we all suffer. That isn't a fear cycle statement. In the fear cycle, one member suffers and the rest say, "suck it up and put a smile on your face!" God asks us to do the hard things. True reconciliation, true restoration. We don't slap a band-aid on trauma so we can "move on".

I was in a church situation, unfortunately, I was young, opinionated and abrasive. The church was split over some important issues, but nothing that was "fundamental". Instead of acknowledging the strong emotions, having adult conversations and perhaps compromising, or at worst, parting ways as brothers, each side launched into an underground proxy war. First, elder candidates were scrutinized about their beliefs, and, in response, became evasive and defensive lest they say something that would cause open war. Then the session made some decisions that were not popular, causing complaints to presbytery. The pastor kept saying, "we need to move on." It was awful, and as I look back, the whole thing was important, but I'm sure we could have figured out a compromise if we first acknowledged the strong emotions and asked for understanding and clarity.

When emotions are accepted, then that gives us the time and space to process those emotions instead of repressing them. Maybe we acknowledge that we overreacted, or that the emotion came from some incorrect understanding or wrong belief. This happens so much in marriage!!! Once we process the emotions, we can return to joy. Not a "suck it up and paste a smile on joy", but a joy in understanding that we matter.

In my opinion, this teaches a faithful view of God. God wipes tears away, not by shoving them back in my eyes, but by bringing justice and reconciliation. He isn't afraid to dive into my trauma and turmoil. God does not want me to repress who I am, but wants the true me, the me he created, to shine forth. In the same way, it is more important for the church to weigh into the hurts and the disagreements and the trauma than to hide the truth from the congregation or the outside.

Legalism:

When people call the RPCNA "legalistic", pastors are correct that it is not technically "legalism". Legalism supposedly means that members would have to believe that they are saved by their works. Instead, legalism is more appropriately a church that, for one reason or another, is using a fear/shame cycle to goad its members into external righteousness. The Pharisees were likely legalistic in a similar sense, because of what Jesus says about them. Externally righteous, but internally filthy. The ones who knew better or should have known better are shutting the door to those who would enter.

It's not surprising that some of the issues coming before Synod this year are about sessions using their "authority" to cover up uncomfortable truths and to maintain control of the narrative.

The ruling eldership is a Scottish invention

One of the anachronisms of the "Presbyterian" church is that the modern understanding of elder, whether one office, or two, is not consistent with the tradition of the church. I don't have a lot of scriptural opinions on church polity, other than to complain that youth and seminary training seem to do more harm than good.

The traditional view is rooted in the synagogue. The synagogue would be led by the priests and Levites who were God-ordained to prophesy and work among the people; however, there were also lay leaders, called elders, who governed the synagogue. Whether the practice of the synagogue is normative for us today is a good question, and perhaps the interpretation of e.g. the Westminster Assembly is not a correct understanding, but it was the view of the Reformed church at that time.

According to Peter Colin Campbell, in his book The Theory of the Ruling Eldership, Westminster specifically, and unanimously, denied that "ruling elder" was synonymous with the elder of the New Testament (p.33-34)

From the record of that Assembly left us by Lightfoot and Gillespie, we learn that the discussion on the point of lay elders in the Grand Committee, commenced on the 12th of November 1643, and lasted with some interruption till the 11th of December, a period sufficient to show how carefully and anxiously it must have been conducted. The subject was introduced for consideration by a proposition so framed as distinctly to bring under discussion, not merely the lawfulness and expediency of the institution but the special theory of Calvin: "That besides those presbyters that rule well and labour in the word and doctrine, there be other presbyters who especially apply themselves to ruling though they labour not in the word and doctrine." The discussion which follows is instructive, and the result remarkable. While the Grand Committee declare unanimously in favour of the institution of lay rulers in the Church, they carefully exclude from their conclusion not merely the term presbyter, in reference to lay rulers but even that of elder, as liable to be confounded with "presbyter," and refuse to quote 1 Tim. v. 17, in regard to the office. The conclusions of the Committee are recorded thus by Gillespie and Lightfoot:-

"1. That Christ hath instituted a government and governors ecclesiastical in the Church. 

"2. That Christ hath furnished some in His Church with gifts for government, and with commission to execute the same when called thereunto.

"3. That it is agreeable to and warranted by the Word of God that some others besides the ministers of the word be church governors, to join with the ministers in the government of the Church Rom. xii. 7, 8; 1 Cor. xii. 28."

... "there fell a debate about naming church governors, whether to call them 'ruling elders' or no; which held a very sad and long discussion: at last it was determined by vote thus, - such as in the Reformed Churches are commonly called 'elders.'" Gillespie made a last attempt to obtain the recognition of the theory, and, with obvious purpose moved that the Assembly itself should call them "ruling elders;" "but this," Lightfoot tells us, "prevailed not." The battle of the presbyter theory had been fought and lost 

Campbell explains that Scotland (whether ignorantly or purposefully) did not remove the "ruling elder" language from their own ecclesiastical documents, which led to a resurgence of the idea of 'elder' as 'presbyter'.

The effect [of the lack of removal] was that which in all probability the Westminster Assembly had desired to prevent. The use of the designation "ruling elder" kept the popular mind unavoidably directed to "the elders that rule well" of 1 Tim. v. 17, and maintained a measure of life in the theory, quietly buried at Westminster with the formal assent of the Scottish Church, which regards the lay rulers as a portion of the presbyterate.

In the "Presbyterian" church (which is synonymous with those churches descended from the Scottish churches), this misunderstanding is perpetuated, and anachronistically considered the historical position of the 1st century church.

As I said, I (now) don't have a really strong opinion on who gets to be ordained and who gets to participate in various aspects of the life of the church, but I do think this warrants the following discussions:

Minimum pastoral age

Considering that "presbyter" literally means "old guy", like "presbyopia" is the inability of older people to focus on close objects, the status quo of seminary-trained 20-something pastors is likely a really bad idea. Proponents of "classical presbyterianism" will argue that it's okay for the ministers to be young because "the ruling elders are the old guys", but this is clearly not what Westminster unanimously decided. They stated that presbyter, overseer, minister and elder were all aspects of the same office. The Bible seems to distinguish knowledge from wisdom, with wisdom being closely coupled with life experience. A 26-year-old RPTS graduate likely has zero, or nearly zero, life experience, but lots of Seminary-derived knowledge and youthful vigor. This has become the culture of many churches, where knowledge and vigor have become proxies for Spiritual giftedness. Does a presbytery exam really determine wisdom, or can RPTS "teach to the test" to give their students what they need to appear wise? How can we determine if, for example, a candidate is a good father, if his children are still toddlers?

Plurality and geography

Part of the Presbyterian system is a plurality of elders. If there is only one "elder" in a church, there is hardly any accountability. The RPCNA tries to create that accountability by elevating the lay leaders to equal in rule and judgment, and making the pastor a member of the congregation, subject to the Session, but if "lay leaders" do not rule in that sense, there is a vacuum of leadership and accountability. I think this is evident in the RPCNA because the pastors in the Presbyteries are not holding each other accountable, unless there is clear heresy rising to that level. When we picture a "church at Ephesus", Timothy might be a senior pastor, but there would be a plurality of pastors within the city who would have much closer oversight, not just a quarterly get-together of forty guys serving a geography of maybe 1/3rd the United States.

Seminary

Maybe this follows from the other two, but if you have a plurality of pastors in a geographical area and there are people in the congregations who have demonstrated a lifetime of wisdom, they have also gained a lifetime of knowledge. So, perhaps the knowledge gap of a 40-50 year old who feels called to minister is much less dramatic than someone whose brain still hasn't completely formed. Even then, seminaries cannot fix the problem of 18-year-old know-it-alls who have been fawned over by their congregations and presbyteries. Their hubris just becomes calcified and now they are an ordained know-it-all minister with zero life experience, but an M.Div and an ordination who holds all the authority in the congregation.

Also consider that someone who has been pastored, discipled and mentored for decades has much more of a base to draw on than someone who has a high school diploma and three years of seminary. So, seminary could bring much more depth.

I also have very little interest in the argument about understanding original languages. I'm sure it's helpful, but is it a necessity? Maybe a pastor who knows Greek understands more than that same pastor not knowing Greek, but does a pastor know more than a Greek scholar after two or three semesters of Greek? Doubtful. Does a generic Greek scholar know more about a passage than someone who has spent decades studying the context of a passage? Doubtful. So, I can, most likely, know more about a passage by reading commentaries and books by Greek scholars than I can by knowing enough Greek to be dangerous and cowboying it. This also feeds into pastoral hubris.

Ordination and office

The RPCNA struggles with this. Pastors are ordained by the Presbytery, while ruling elders are ordained by the local Session. The inherent unfairness of considering Ruling Elders "equal" to Teaching Elders is obvious here, and highlighted by, e.g. the "ordination" of Kent Butterfield. Kent was already an RE when he decided to become a pastor. The GLG Presbytery could not re-ordain Kent when he was called to a church, but it was (apparently) insufficient given the gravity of the situation to do nothing, so they fake-ordained him. In other words, they had him kneel, they laid hands on him, but they did not pray the prayer of ordination. 

In the same way, the RPCNA calls the ministry of the word a "distinction":

The responsibility of the elders is in teaching and ruling. Although all elders are to be able to teach, the Scripture recognizes a distinction in these functions. (RPT 25:9)

 yet prohibits or restricts ruling elders from many ministerial functions, except in "special circumstances"

The Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper agree, in that the author of both is God; the spiritual part of both is Christ and his benefits; both are seals of the same covenant, are to be dispensed by ministers of the gospel and by none other; and to be continued in the Church of Christ until his second coming. (WLC A176)

The sacraments of the New Covenant ordained by Christ are two: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. They are to be administered according to Christ’s appointment, by pastors or by ruling elders authorized by the presbytery to meet special circumstances.  (DFW 3:2)

Ordinarily, a teaching elder is the moderator of the session. Extraordinary circumstances may arise where it is advisable for the session to elect as moderator an elder other than the teaching elder, or for the moderator to be appointed by presbytery. (DCG 4:2)

Even in discipline, they are considered different. Ruling Elders can be deposed by their Session, but not Teaching Elders.

I'm curious what others' thoughts are. My current feeling is more of a one-office view where the leaders of a local church are all ministers of the word in some sense with equal authority. There may be a hierarchy in the sense of having a senior pastor who is more respected and trained, but many of the issues go away when the ministerial staff isn't one more seasoned pastor surrounded by puffed-up knowledgeable bundles of vigor driving the sheep. I also think that much of the ministry of the church can be done by all members, or even non-ordained members in lay office, like a treasurer, or, dare I say, deacon.

The Master's Voice

 Often, when I am pondering some avenue of spiritual abuse, it's hard to put my finger on the core issue. For example, when I was struggling with disciplining my children, I read a (secular) book that explained the purpose of discipline, and not only did it put everything into perspective, but it gave clarity to my next reading of Proverbs.

This week, I was reading a blog and the whole Evangelical spiritually abusive system came into perspective. This is what Pastor David Orrison wrote (source):

Study what the Scriptures say about your thoughts and take the words to heart. Learn to hear the Master’s voice above all the rest.

I leave this, I want to suggest that this is a primary goal of the Christian life. You may think that you have so many other “Christian” things to do, things that are more important. Believe me, nothing is more important than hearing the Master’s voice and following Him. If you can’t do this, drop everything else until you can. Why spend time and energy running around doing things the Lord never asked you to do? Learn to listen to Him.

What he says is monumental. The purpose of the Christian life, the church, the entire religious system, is to teach us to be able to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit in our heart and to obey him. That's it.

So, when we hold this up against modern Evangelicalism, it really shows why the religious system is so corrupt. These pastors don't want us to hear God's voice! They want us to hear their voice. They don't want us to obey God. They want us to obey them. Now, again, some are truly narcissistic abusers and they know completely that they are just there for the power. This also holds true of those who have been deluded into thinking that they are Spiritually-empowered with the ability to command others.

This is a striking difference between what I hear preached at my Reformed/Evangelical church and what I hear in NAPARC. My pastor is teaching me to hear the voice of God. He is teaching me to discern truth. He explains doctrine in a way that let's me understand, discern and decide whether it is truth or not. He doesn't use cognitive dissonance and equivocation to make me doubt my own discernment so that I rely on what he says. He humbly teaches what he believes to be true, and he trusts that the Holy Spirit will guide me into understanding.

That is the core of what is missing in the RPCNA. These pastors seem to believe that equipping the church is enacting a Sunday morning spiritual boot camp, where members' view of self is perpetually beaten down and replaced with the belief that the pastor and session must be consulted for each spiritual question. Members are held in spiritual infancy.

In the same way, the Spiritual Discipline industry teaches people the boxes to check. Did you pray today? Did you read your Bible? Did you read your daily devotional? Have you tithed? Have you done enough good stuff at work? at home? They never really explain (if they even understand) that the purpose of Spiritual discipline is to bring us closer to God. Yet, in the same way, what would happen of spiritual self-help actually enabled people to help themselves? Maybe they wouldn't sell as many books.

I've been wanting to do a write-up on anachronistic church leadership, but this seemed very applicable and pertinent. Maybe this is why the Bible says this about the religious leaders of the day:

Then the disciples came and said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?” But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted. Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matt 15:12-14)

Bully Pew: How to protect abusers and re-victimize victims

 In the midst of the latest rounds of posts, Nathan Eshelman's Gentle Reformation post Bully Pew came across my desk. Since I haven't read Bully Pulpit, the book that he is critiquing, I'm going to deal mainly with his arguments. I'll try to summarize the arguments rather than try to take this point-by-point.

DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) 

This is the typical tactic abusers use to deal with accusations. They portray themselves, or those they support, as victims. Unfortunately Eshelman takes this tactic, which, in my opinion, doesn't help his case, by implying that he is going to become the victim merely for saying that not everything is spiritual abuse. He also does this more directly:

In the midst of that project, a beloved former professor of mine and churchman has resigned from the ministry, in part, because of what is currently being called "spiritual abuse."

This quote seems to imply that a "beloved" = incapable of spiritual abuse professor got victimized by angry congregants to resign. This reminds me of Jimmy Hinton, whose father sexually abused perhaps hundreds of children. An article about the situation says:

After his dad's arrest, Jimmy Hinton was shocked to see how many people responded with compassion. In retrospect, he says, it makes sense given the powerful role that he had occupied in their lives. Hinton had led many in his congregation to Christ, as well as baptizing them and marrying them.

Jimmy remembers the conversations. "When he got arrested they would ask me 'how's your dad doing?'" he said. "At first I would answer it. And I would be polite but then after a while, I just thought – 'not one person has asked how my dad's victims are doing.' And so I started to answer people. I'd say 'well he's doing fine. It's his victims who aren't doing well.'" (source)

Those who are not victims do not see the abuser in the same light. Often, abusers, like John Hinton, are enabled in their abuse by projecting a certain image to enlist supporters. Those same people will circle the wagons and defend them from seemingly absurd accusations. Larry Nassar was well-respected by his peers, but he was an abuser. Eshelman's reference to his 'beloved former professor' demonstrates a naive lack of understanding of abusive systems.

Eshelman goes on to claim that he will be the victim of accusations of gaslighting, misogyny and defending abusers. Maybe it would be worthwhile for him to pre-examine those accusations and figure out how to revise his paper instead of forging ahead with a paper that is easily discarded as such.

Cognitive Dissonance

Eshelman continues to poke holes in the book by questioning Kruger's definition of spiritual abuse:

This definition is difficult. Imagine a man who is leading and is convinced he is “seeking biblical and kingdom related goals” but is being accused of being domineering, bullying, and intimidating. I understand that each of these things can occur and do—but they are so broad as terms that I would caution reading ministries through this lens. 

He thinks he’s building God’s kingdom. Was that bullying? Was he seeking to be domineering in what he just said? Again, I understand the definition, but I am afraid it is not the full story. Witch hunts are started with only half stories. 

Cognitive dissonance is an abusive tactic where a person's judgment is subtly undermined to be replaced with the judgment of the abuser. This is the approach Eshelman takes in multiple places. His implication is that someone who feels like they are being spiritually abused cannot possibly understand the nuances of that abuse sufficiently to make the claim that they are being abused. It's utter horse crap. Pastors and elders who say (like Rhoda does in his paper) that abused people are incapable of judging sin need to ask each other if this applies to Jesus. Jesus has to step off the throne of judgment in murder cases, because he was murdered? Why is the RP church digging people out of whitewashed tombs to wave over their congregations? These guys need to be driven out of their ordinations!

If a pastor thinks he's building God's kingdom by abusing his flock, he's just fulfilling what the Bible says: 

They will make you outcasts from the synagogue, but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God. These things they will do because they have not known the Father or Me. (John 16:2-3)

I don't think that Jesus is saying that, as long as a pastor thinks he's doing the will of God, everything is okay. Perhaps Eshelman is not saying that either, but it's not a defense at all. A pastor who spiritually abuses someone "in the name of God" is still a spiritual abuser. The RP church is often confused with the ends and the means. Creating joyless soldiers for Christ to establish a Christian nation might seem a worthy end, but the means - abusing children in the name of Christ - is certainly not the way God has designed families. We don't need to complicate this by pretending that unwitting spiritual abuse is somehow non-abusive. We might say that the consequences are different, or that the process of repentance is different, but abuse is abuse. More on this later. I believe my father abused me for the advancement of the kingdom, but the natural result of that is a difficult, joyless relationship with my heavenly father that is still in the early stages of healing. Spiritual abuse is so much more destructive, because the very people who are ordained as being representatives of God are hurting people in the name of God. Narcissistic church leaders make God look narcissistic. As an example, choosing to ignore Stephen Rhoda's narcissistic rage is creating an impression among the congregations that narcissistic rage is okay for a spiritual leader. If rage is okay for a spiritual leader acting on behalf of God, then what does that say about God? Whether this is the intent or not, the culture of the GLG presbytery, and likely the RPCNA, through inaction on spiritual abuse, is to paint a picture of God as a spiritually abusive God.

Red herring/Genetic fallacy

Eshelman waves the red herring of egalitarianism in front of the reformed audience. Certainly a scholar who believes the Bible teaches women elders cannot be trusted to discern Biblical teaching! Especially a professor who is teaching NAPARC students were the organization has disavowed women elders.

To follow this to the logical conclusion, PRTS (Eshelman's seminary alma mater) cannot be trusted because they teach students that singing unbiblical hymns in worship is okay. So, this whole argument is ridiculous on its face. Baptist John Piper is quoted from RP pulpits even though the RPCNA excommunicates parents who hold Piper's beliefs. CREC Doug Wilson is widely revered. The RP seminary teaches Biblical Counseling even though Jay Adams was OPC. Saying that anything Kruger writes must be suspect simply because of one unrelated position he takes is faulty reasoning. It might be reasonable if Eshelman could find some incorrect egalitarian principle Kruger ties to abuse, but simply saying that egalitarians have lost any Biblical authority is a dangerous and hypocritical argument.

Boiled Frog / Plugged Ears

I wonder how pervasive spiritual abuse is in the church? Kruger seems to think that most of our churches are filled with abusers in leadership, at least that is how he presents the numbers. Kruger says that “63% of survey respondents said they had experienced some form of spiritual abuse, including coercion, manipulation, and and the defense of such behavior with a divine rationale.” Kruger, 5. That is a huge number! Scary actually, because there’s a bogey man in most of our churches at that rate. But it gets worse! Kruger says, “Whatever the hard numbers are for spiritual abuse, there is a good reason to think most instances still go unreported.” Kruger, 5.

Eshelman concludes that if a majority of Christians are being spiritually abused then we'd read more about it other than sensationalist cases: 

If spiritual abuse is as common in more than half of our churches as the non-discerning reader may believe; then why are the examples sensational rather than examples from presbytery records in the more common corners of our average churches where pastors are doing ordinary things through ordinary means? I am not saying Kruger’s wrong—he may not be at all--but I am saying that we need to push pause and open our Bibles and discern what’s here. 

Perhaps he doesn't read presbytery reports? The majority of what the GLG presbytery dealt with last week was spiritually abusive. Let's see, Ben Manring being rebuked because he challenged a session candidate? Sounds abusive to me. How about Sparta RPC admonishing an adult member who believes that the requirement for parental obedience ends at adulthood? Sounds abusive. How about Bloomington and Stephen Rhoda calling for spiritual discipline of any people who report abuse to the media.

Actually, maybe that is why abuse is underreported, Mr. Eshelman? I knew I was being spiritually abused in the RPCNA. I also knew that reporting spiritual abuse would go nowhere because virtually every instance of spiritual abuse I've seen rise to presbytery level has been justified by the fellow presbyters (like Manring). Taking "Average Joe" spiritual abuse to the media not only isn't sensational enough to get to air, but it subjects me to further spiritual abuse and church discipline.

Mr. Eshelman doesn't see spiritual abuse because he doesn't want to see spiritual abuse. He calls that denial discernment, as he argues that only a "non-discerning reader" would believe that 63% of Christians are being spiritually abused. I don't think of ostriches burying their heads in the sand as discernment. Spiritual abuse is a constant in the RPCNA and especially in GLG, but he refuses to see. Maybe his subconscious mind has told him that acting on spiritual abuse erodes his pastoral authority. 

Wolves and abusive systems

As I said, abuse is abuse. Part of the problem in the RPCNA is that it is very hard to differentiate between wolves and a wolvish system. Maybe in prosecuting abuse, there is a difference between an abuser who is abusing because he believes it to be God's will, versus an abuser who is abusing because he delights in the abuse. I will say that it is mostly a moot point. If a child lies beaten to death on the floor, does it really matter to the child whether they were beaten to death because the parents were serving God to the best of their abilities and thought they had to "beat until sweet", or because the parents were violently asserting their dominance with no regard to God?

The RPCNA has both. As with any church, there are pastors who are abusing because they want to domineer, and there are pastors who are abusing because the RPCNA system is abusive. Either way, members are being abused. I prefer the definition of spiritual abuse in The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse. 

Spiritual abuse is the mistreatment of a person who is in need of help, support or greater spiritual empowerment, with the result of weakening, undermining or decreasing that person's spiritual empowerment.

In other words, spiritual abuse is defined by the effect on the victim rather than the state of mind or actions of the perpetrator. When members are told not to go to the press, their spiritual power is weakened. When members are disciplined for openly questioning the direction of the leadership within the bounds of the church, their spiritual empowerment is weakened.

Johnson and VanVonderen go further to explain red flags of abusive systems:

Power posturing:

Power posturing (or positional authority) is claiming power by illegitimate means. For example, the authority of an elder does not come from a denomination or ordination, but by the calling and work of the Holy Spirit. That work is also in play when we converse with elders. True elders will tell us what the Holy Spirit is saying in our hearts. False elders will say things that are not in keeping with the voice of the Holy Spirit. It is these false elders who need to use the posture of church authority and the threat of church discipline to exert their own influence over the members. If it is truly the will of the Holy Spirit that Christians not talk to the media, then what is the point of threats from presbyters? If it is, instead, the will of ungodly power brokers not to be held accountable, it makes perfect sense that false authority would be used to silence members.

Performance preoccupation:

Playing into this, abusive church systems want to have the appearance of righteousness. They want the appearance of peace where there is no peace. They want children sitting quietly and attentively, even if it is not developmentally appropriate. I think this is a primary reason why abuse of any sort is hidden, because the abuser is intent on their appearance to outsiders. I think this is a better phrase than "legalism" because in the RPCNA, "legalism" is used to say that people believe we are saved by our works. However, even in a "sola fide" reformed church, there can still be a preoccupation with how things look on the surface, and that is endemic in the RPCNA. People must wear masks that hide their true selves from others in the church, and they must not need help. When people sin within the congregation, it's more important that things "look okay" than being forthright. This is the core of the IRPC issue. They perceived it more important to keep up appearances of a peaceful church than acknowledge the crimes committed. They perhaps didn't want to follow through on protection measures, because those measures might visibly expose that there was a "situation" in the church

.

If presbytery sided with Ben Manring, it would mean that a session abused its power. That would set a precedent that sessions cannot act with impunity. The downside of Presbyterianism is that the foxes are guarding the hen house. We see this play out in the case of Jared. He can write papers on how the wonderful presbyterian system holds pastors accountable and how he desires that accountability, but when he is on the receiving end of that accountability, he protests and walks away. So it is a false peace - a preoccupation with the appearance of holiness. As long as presbyters defend the spiritual abuse of their peers, the system seems righteous and accountable (even though it is not!), but when the system does what it is supposed to, all of the narcissistic abusers come out of the woodwork to restore the false peace and destroy those who dare do what is right.

Unspoken rules:

These are sort of the elephant in the room types of rules. I often dealt with the unspoken rule that elders may never be questioned or challenged. I've brought up many unspoken rules in the RPCNA. First of all, many of the unspoken rules are unspoken because they would sound utterly ridiculous if written down. "Christians may never talk to the media." or "members may only tell their story if it's warm and uplifting." or "it's immoral to tell someone something that an elder did to you if it casts said elder in a negative light". Also, many of these rules, hearkening back to the definition of spiritual abuse, weaken those in the system who need to be strengthened and strengthen those who would harm.

Lack of balance:

Paul talks about these two extremes (extreme subjectivity vs. extreme objectivity) in Corinthians and Galatians. For the Corinthians feelings were everything and having rules just took away from the feelings. For the Galatians, the rules were everything, even if those rules led to a system where Christian freedom and joy were destroyed. Not surprisingly, the spiritually abusive system within much of the Evangelical church is rules-based and joyless. There is no need to take a victim-centric approach because there is no such thing as a victim. A victim is somehow stuck in an emotional attachment to their victimhood and hasn't objectified it away. Once the church has acknowledged that a crime was committed, that's all that's necessary. Peace can be restored. "Victims" who want further acknowledgment or protection or help are just weak-minded fools!

The RPCNA is clearly guilty of these four, and, as such is a spiritually abusive environment. This is seen in presbytery documents - assuming your eyes are not clouded in delusion.

DARVO revisited

While I agree (and the authors demonstrate) that spiritual abuse can be perpetrated against those in power. The mere fact that this can and does happen does not justify the status quo abusive system. The Presbyterian system is already designed to protect those in power from lay members. 

The fact that women falsely accuse men of rape does not prove that we should not investigate rape claims. The fact that sinning members who don't want accountability accuse elders of abusive discipline doesn't mean that the church should ignore complaints.

That's why, as Jimmy Hinton and Boz Tchividjian assert, churches need to have policies for investigating these matters before they happen, not inventing them on the fly. If a church has a policy of suspending pastors while allegations are investigated, then they don't have to decide whether to suspend or not when allegations come. If a church has a policy to report allegations to authorities, they don't have to determine whether they are credible beforehand. Then the actions of the likes of Keith Magill become matters of policy violations.

Didn't report to authorities: illegal and policy violation
Didn't inform the session: policy violation

Told the victim to be silent: policy violation

Told the victim not to tell authorities: policy violation

Also, consider how the above played into the patterns of spiritual abuse: Magill used power posturing to silence victims when he had no authority to do so. Magill used the system of unspoken rules - that it is insubordinate to ask for an outside opinion of what the pastor tells you - to avoid scrutiny. Magill's performance preoccupation of having a good church kept him from exposing sin in the congregation and exposed children to further abuse. Magill used the existing lack of balance to suppress the natural expression of righteous anger. A mom who was not pre-groomed would not have accepted Magill's coverup and would have demanded immediate action.

Also, all of these play into the broader definition. Magill used spiritually abusive tactics to disempower the mother and the victim. They were made lower so that he (and the father) could retain their positions of authority. Their spiritual power was suppressed. This was done in the name of God. That is why spiritual abuse is so dangerous and why spiritual abuse should disqualify a pastor or elder from any spiritual office.

When the RPW becomes an idol: Part 2

This is a response to Mr. Eshelman's comment here: https://batteredrpsheep.blogspot.com/2023/11/when-regulative-principle-of-worship.html?showComment=1708524812585#c151469687615734056

He recommended a sermon he preached that adds some color to the discussion. Sermon link: https://beta.sermonaudio.com/sermons/114241656337514/

It refers back to an earlier sermon, but hopefully that is not critical to understand this sermon. My thoughts about approaches to worship issues lie along three lines:

1. Generally, the way something is first instituted is a correct pattern, but not necessarily the only correct pattern. For example, it's not entirely clear if the requirement against leaven in Exodus 12 was known to the original Israelites in the Passover, or if it was a remembrance a unique aspect: "So the people took their dough before the yeast was added, and carried it on their shoulders in kneading troughs wrapped in clothing." (Ex. 12:34) The leaven becomes symbolic, but it appears that the unleavened bread during the Passover in Egypt was because they didn't have time to add yeast, not by command.
2. Understanding things in light of culture are important, but we have to figure out what is normative and what is not. The fact that churches met in homes does not necessarily command that churches must meet in homes. It is tempting to think that the early church had some sort of exemplary practice that was correct to the last jot and tittle, but that doesn't make sense in light of the major issues that are being dealt with in letters. Is a church that doesn't want to discipline an incestuous member going to have communion figured out? Probably not.
3. History is helpful, but, again, it isn't scripture. When Jesus taught, history was not on his side. Rabbinical writings contradicted what Jesus said. Trying to make an argument that Luther's, Calvin's, Augustine's or whomever's belief or practice is normative might be interesting, but not proof.

Bread:

After the background, Eshelman starts talking about the elements. I like the discussion of bread (although probably because I agree with his argument and conclusion). He says that "bread" is just bread. No real reason to try and push our own agenda - I grew up on "Scottish Shortbread" because it HAD to be unleavened. We have every reason to believe that the "bread" Jesus served was unleavened, but that is not the point.

Wine:

This is where the argument gets a bit suspect. So, I can agree that in 1st century Israel, "the fruit of the vine" meant fermented wine. That said, is the practice of the 1st century church normative? As I said above, for the 1st century church, their church building was someone's house. We look at that and say, perhaps, that a house is a fine place for a church to meet, but so is a building. In the US, where we are not persecuted, it's much more convenient to have a church building.

So, here, Eshelman quotes Hodge that "fruit of the vine" meant "fermented wine" to anyone in the 1st century, and not grape juice. It's an interesting argument, but the question is more, what was the intent? I struggle with this because 1st century Christians did not have access to multinational agriculture or refrigeration. Would Jesus have used fermented wine if grape juice were available at the local convenience store?

We have to be careful when dealing with anachronisms. We don't approve of slavery or polygamy just because it was practiced during the 1st century. We have to interpret things like "holy kiss", "anointing with oil" and "fences around roofs" understanding that they are anachronistic. So, "fruit of the vine" = "fermented wine" is, by no means, a slam dunk proof that the grape juice people are wrong.

He makes a point, "Throughout all of church history, this idea of it being wine was never questioned until the 19th century." He then blames the temperance movement for inventing the idea that wine should not be used in communion. However, there is perhaps a simpler explanation. Grape juice was not widely available before 1869, when Thomas Welch first used pasteurization to keep grape juice from fermenting into wine, and probably 1893 when Welch's grape juice became popular after the World's Fair. So, during the prior 1800-ish years of the church, there was no question what was going to be served at communion simply because most of the year, unfermented grape juice was not an option.

I don't have a strong opinion on this other than the fact that I think the "weaker brother" argument would suggest that a church ought to be willing to meet the consciences of their members, whether it be abstinent members or members who feel that wine is necessary. I don't like the taste of wine that much, so I can't say I have warm memories of trying to remember Jesus while trying to choke down wine.

Elements/Accidents/Posture:

Again, I agree (point 2) that not everything about the first Lord's Supper was meant to be followed literally, which is why I agree with Mr. Eshelman that we do not need to "recline" in order to partake in the meal. It seems, though, then that he wants to flip the script and turn the "table" into a quasi-element vs. reclining as an accident. He says, "It was the Presbyterians who were unanimous in their decision that the table was something that ought to occur at the Lord's Supper because it's a meal and it should reflect something of that meal."

So, the sermon becomes progressively weaker. The argument about the bread can be made entirely from scripture that the word includes both. The argument about wine is not sufficiently demonstrated from scripture, so we need an expert to tell us that a phrase contextually meant "fermented wine". By the time we get to the table, there is hardly any scripture and apparently the most pertinent point is that a bunch of Presbyterians from Scotland were unanimous that the table was a critical part of it being a meal. Yet, just as bread might be different in Scotland, India or Israel, not all cultures and likely not a single culture has a unified experience of "meal". The feedings of 5000 happened on the side of a hill with people grouped into bunches. If I go to a wedding or banquet, the way the food is served is different than if I'm at home. There are picnics where we get our plate of food and sit on the lawn. So, even in the western tradition, the table is not an essential (i.e. elemental) aspect of a meal.

He also highlights the idea of "coming forward" to a table, even though it's obvious that the disciples did not "come forward" to receive and none of the passages he references talks about a definite transition between the posture of worship and the posture of the meal.

So, he acknowledges that "table" "coming forward" are not "elements", yet he couches this in language of best practice. I think claiming something as "best" is where it is in danger of binding conscience and being a stumbling block. Jesus used a common cup, fermented wine and unleavened bread given to disciples reclined at a table. If we're going to claim something as "best", then certainly what Jesus did must be the best, right? Or maybe Jesus gave us a framework and great freedom instead and our arguments of best become foolish controversies and arguments and quarrels about the law.

Eshelman goes where he claims he would not go - to make the best a requirement. He quotes Samuel Rutherford positively, also here: 

They "should in any sort forbear the receiving the Lord's Supper but after the form that he had delivered it to them, according to the example of Christ our Lord, that is, that they should sit, as banqueters, at one table with our King, and eat and drink, and divide the elements one to another (Letters, 122)."

This is exactly what I said would happen. Mr. Eschelman wrote this to me via e-mail:

As for the Table, I do think it is best practice, but when the communicants are served in the pews it is still a legitimate communion service. Best and required are not the same.

But his quote of Rutherford suggests something different (he does not hedge this quote in his sermon or at the link above). Forbear means to refrain from participation. So what Rutherford is saying is "if the Lord's Supper isn't at a table, you should not participate." Rutherford is saying, "the table is an element", and Eshelman is quoting him positively.

It pains me that Christians take something meant to be welcoming and joyful and make it something that must be done to the letter so that we end up spending more time thinking about doing it right than recognizing Jesus in it. That has been my experience with the Regulative Principle of Worship. On one hand, living in fear that I forgot to tie my spiritual shoelaces and somehow what I bring to God causes anger and not love, and on the other hand, looking at fellow hymn-singing Christians down my nose thinking that I'm somehow better than they are.

And yes, "these Presbyterians are so precise". It's not a compliment! I think a lot of the "precision" is a fraction of truth from scripture and a dump truck full of quotes from like-minded Scottish Presbyterians who had no better corner on scriptural insight, yet lots of baptized opinions.

Maybe I'm heretical, but maybe what happens spiritually to the bread and wine is not worth splitting the church over. If, like much of the Christian life, what is received is not holy in and of itself, but it becomes holy and spiritual by application of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, why is that better or worse than it becoming spiritually infused by the word of the pastor, and... it begs the question (which has been answered throughout history) of whether a sacrament is efficacious if performed by someone who is later shown to be unregenerate!