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!