Bloomington goes to bat for IRPC: Part 3

 Continuing this series today.

Point 4. Pastoral care and physical proximity

I think there is a lot to consider here, and I don't want to waive this simply due to the fact that it is overconstrained.

"Pastoral" care implies that those providing care must be spiritual leaders, as defined by the RPCNA to be teaching or ruling elders. "Physical proximity" means, as they say, "provisioning them to spend sufficient time physically present among the congregation(s)"

I could propose the same solution as #3 - paying for third-party help to investigate, but that investigation, even if done by an organization designed to deal with these issues within an Evangelical Christian context, like GRACE, still cannot offer the "pastoral care" envisioned by the Bloomington session.

As the PeacePurityProgress blog claims, "more than 30 elders ... have contributed more than ten thousand hours to this matter." So, let's say a three-member committee is appointed and paid for overseeing this investigation and by their attention save half of the effort. That would be a 42 week commitment for each of the three men. These men presumably have their own calling and their own flocks, so this is not a trivial matter. Another option would be calling men to this ministry as a full-time position, perhaps something like an RP Investigator General, but I think the scope of this office would be too broad because part of the objection of the PJC was that the victim-centric approach (i.e. providing pastoral care to the victims) was deemed injurious to their investigation. It would also be expensive. The ministries of the church, Crown & Covenant, RPM&M, the RP Home and even the College and Seminary take a lot of denomination resources, and even then, are expected to be fundamentally self-supporting. Creating a new office with full-time employees enough to handle congregational implosions I would ballpark at $500k - $1m. per year. They would have ample work, judging by the complaints I've seen rise to the presbytery and denominational levels.

I think part of the issue here is that the RPCNA is small and scattered. I think the plurality of elders envisioned in the New Testament worked well when churches were not so fragmented and disjoint. If Beaver Falls had a church per 100 people with 5 elders, there would be on the order of 500 elders within the city limits. That would be plenty to provide both pastoral care and physical proximity to a Beaver Falls church imploding due to rape and coverup.

I believe their proposed wording is flawed because by the time a "judicial commission" is warranted, someone is asking for the church to make a judgment because the parties cannot agree. We see with IRPC that there were immediately calls of prejudice and partiality when the PJC got involved.

Point 6. Repentance and Reconciliation

The case of the former IRPC pastor presents a further question more specifically related to reconciliation: To what extent is repentance to be judged by actual success in reconciliation?

I think they start off with the wrong question, and it doesn't get any better. The real question to ask is to what extent repentance is judged by the subsequent actions of the sinner. Spousal abuse goes in a cycle, where the violence is typically followed by apology and desire for restoration. However, this apology and restoration does not lead to change, because the cycle repeats, and is often more violent each time. Cycle of Abuse So, the easy RPCNA grace of forcing abuser and victim in a room to shake hands and be done is diametrically opposed to the fact that the abuse occurred over months, if not years, and the damage done will take months, if not years to repair. RP sermons bemoan our generation's desire for "instant gratification", but that is exactly what Bloomington wants here. A judicial commission sweeps in, gets an apology, on pain of church discipline, then wants to write in their report that all is fixed, time to move on.

Sessions shall gently and patiently remind those who sin of their duty to repent and seek forgiveness from those against whom they have sinned. Likewise, sessions shall gently and patiently remind those who have been sinned against of their duty to forgive the one who has sinned against them, irrespective of any evidence of repentance on the part of the sinner.

When Bloomington starts with instant gratification grace, we already groan because we know where this is going. If grace is not offered immediately and without qualification, it's now time to blame the victim. A wife who was physically, emotionally and financially abused for decades must be prepared to immediately forgive her abusive husband because the church said so, and now Bloomington wants to amp this up a notch or ten. Forgiveneness requires NOTHING from the abuser. This is heretical and blasphemous. The Bible says repentance is necessary for God's forgiveness from our sin against him. So, what session is going to remind God that it is his duty to forgive those who sinned against him, irrespective of any evidence of repentance? Bloomington, I'm all ears! God does not require something of us that he is unwilling to do himself. That would mean that Jesus failed as mediator because he did not truly understand the human condition, because his human nature and divine nature would be disjoint - his "person" could not forgive by the requirement Bloomington proposes. Either that, or they would have to declare that they are Universalists - that despite all of our sins and lifelong rejection of Jesus and his gift of salvation, we're still saved. That would be consistent, but not in accordance with RP doctrine.

I believe this issue is moot because Jared never actually repented. He made a calculated demand of "instant gratification grace" by apologizing for every infraction. When the judicial commissions didn't wipe the slate clean right then and there and restore him to his former glory, he complained about the whole process. When the commissions continued (with Jared being belligerent and uncooperative) to censure him appropriately, he and his church again used cheap grace and legal loopholes to restore him to the table. When that didn't work, they walked out of the RPCNA. Maybe I'm ignorant, but that sounds pretty flat out unrepentant. If I were a victim, I would certainly not want to be brought into a process where I'm told to "reconcile" with someone whose contrition reeks of "I want my job back ASAP."

It's hard to read this as something other than a treatise on complete lack of accountability for church leaders. So, to understand how this plays out:

Leader abuses member
Member goes through the multi-year gauntlet to prosecute this within the church courts
If leader is acquitted, the abuse is justified. If the leader senses he might be convicted, he fake apologizes, the matter is absolved, and we're back to square one where the leader is free to abuse again.
If the member complains, they are disciplined for being unforgiving
If the member enlists outside help, they are disciplined for being unloving

How exactly does Bloomington claim that their proposed system will get rid of vicious wolves? Do they think that wolves won't fake conciliation to avoid discipline?

This perpetuates the failed ACBC model that suggests that the sinner is never as guilty as one would think, and that the victim is never as innocent as one would think. Like the ACBC, Bloomington wants to promote the psychosis of turning off injury immediately upon words of apology, and then the focus moves to how the former victim has now become the unrepentant sinner. Doesn't this make our Lord and Savior the unrepentant sinner, when wolves fake repentance?