A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us. (Acts 16:14-15)
I want to preface this by saying that I hold to covenant theology and infant baptism, but I don't think it is a fundamental issue for the church.
This verse has been used to "prove" that baptism should be performed not just on believers, but also their children. The central argument is that Lydia believed and her household was baptized, with the assumption that her household didn't necessarily believe. What is ironic is that the word "household" becomes both a reason to include children in baptism, yet exclude them from communion.
I'm trying to find a link to a pamphlet, but there is a Reformed brochure in many RP churches on paedocommunion. The author claims that if there is any proof that children partook in the passover, then children should not be excluded from communion. When faced with:
Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying, ‘On the tenth of this month they are each one to take a lamb for themselves, according to their fathers’ households, a lamb for each household. (Ex 11:3)
The author proposed that "households" is NOT meant to be inclusive of children, so Ex 11:3 is not proof that children took part in the Passover meal. Seems like Reformed theologians want to argue different meanings for the same word in order to justify their particular views. Isn't it eisegesis to put one's view above the Scripture? This is the sort of hermeneutical compartmentalization we come to expect from Reformed-types. As long as the argument makes sense for baptism, who cares if the argument makes sense for communion?
So, I think there are two reasonable approaches to the church through scripture. The first is the view of covenant theology. Israel was a nation of families, and thus the church has hereditary characteristics. So, children are included in the church, like they were in Israel. The second is the view that the church is those who have professed faith, without a hereditary component.
Of course, the RPCNA botches this. For baptism, it's hereditary. For communion, it's profession of faith. They try to explain it like voting or driving - I'm a citizen of the US, but I can't vote until I'm 18. However, I don't have to take an oath or profess loyalty to the US in order to vote.
Baptists tend to be more consistent. Baptism and Communion are upon profession of faith.
The end argument ends up being completely historical. Because Reformers and Baptists clashed over baptism and covenant theology, we are the beneficiaries of that schism. So, church leaders on both sides are going to assert a fundamental belief. This is where I have issues.
It's okay to be a baptist RP, as long as you don't have children. If you have children and join an RP church, refusing to baptize your children will get you put under church discipline and potentially excommunicated. I was told this by a person who waited a year to join the RPCNA because he hadn't been convinced of infant baptism. I also know a couple who were baptists, but were allowed to join without discipline because their children were old enough to decide for themselves whether to get baptized.
In the same way, I know RPs who wanted to join a baptist church and were forbidden until they were baptized.
It seems to me that baptism and communion are secondary issues and we shouldn't be forcing people into a specific view of one or the other in order to maintain fellowship. Do we really think all Baptists are heretics because they don't baptize their children? If not, why would we excommunicate someone over the issue? Maybe it's because "insubordination" is considered worse than doctrinal error?
I new some reformed baptists who were adherents of an RP church for many years and were allowed communion without communicant membership. They well loved by all in the church and were very involved. Nobody doubted they were our Christian brethren. The pastor told them not to become members because if they did he would be forced to put them under church discipline for not baptizing their children. You know there is something wrong when you are considered a believer in good standing with the Lord until you take the vows of communicant membership and immediately receive a church discipline warning that you are in serious rebellion and sin.
ReplyDeleteBefore someone joins ‘a particular reformed church’, there ‘might be’ background research done. The potential member ‘might not be’ made aware of the scope of this research, or in fact that it’s happening. This is how the church discipline ‘might’ come right away. They’re ‘possibly’ biding their time. A contract must first be signed to avoid risk of lawsuits. Church contracts are 100% about lawsuit-prevention.
DeleteAt least in the RPCNA there's an expectation that your new pastor is going to call your old pastor to get all the dirt. I know of some situations where the RP pastor contacted non-RP new pastors.
DeleteI think there is some reason to do so. If someone is sexually harassing members at a church and gets asked to leave, I would hope that the new church is given a heads-up, but it seems that pastors are much more likely to talk about whether people are 'team players' than whether there were substantiated claims of actual bad stuff.
There is no expectation that is informed. Once again, defending this wicked system. There’s no justification for it, period. It’s wicked excuses for gathering things to use against others. I know of one case now that’s done so much irreparable harm it’s costing both pastors now. The old pastor who was called, he lied about abusing a woman, and said he did not abuse her and invented a wicked, wicked story. The fallout of the RP pastor believing the original pastor is still coming. Both are serial abusers, particularly of women, but some men- particularly the eager, young, trusting type.
DeletePay attention to this blogger, people- he is not your friend or advocate. He’s a member of a core family in this church and makes excuses for this church repeatedly. There is a risk anything shared in private will be leaked: proceed with caution!
I’d like to know the published rule where this expectation can be found. People have a right to hear what is levied against them and to respond. What a breech of trust!!!!!! Contacting previous abusers and believing them and NEVER INFORMING ANYONE JOINING OF THAT OR ANYTHING ELSE IMPORTANT!!! I want the name of the rule and I’m publishing it to warn others.
ReplyDeleteI'm not defending it, but I think it's a very very complex issue about what should be confidential, what should be public, and what is gossip/slander.
ReplyDeleteSo, for example, https://www.npr.org/2022/06/02/1102621352/how-the-southern-baptist-convention-covered-up-its-widespread-sexual-abuse-scand - the SBC had pastors who were sexually abusive. The pastors got fired, but because the SBC system gives plausible deniability, these pastors got hired into unsuspecting (the members were unsuspecting, but the pastors knew) churches. So, there is a reason for churches to share information to protect the members.
On the other hand, there are many, many abuses, such as your example, and I know of some where pastors used these conversations to poison the well to cover abuse, or to share confidential information. I know of a case where a Biblical Counselor shared confidential information with the church gossip. If that person were state licensed, they could have lost their license over it.
The "rule" is that the RPCNA is Presbyterian. You can read specific examples in the Constitution, but, for example, all Session minutes of every church are subject to review by outside elders at Presbytery meetings. It also means, though, that one RP pastor will "counsel" with another RP pastor about pastoral issues. Whether that's gossip or not, I think there are good reasons to do so and bad reasons to do so.
Explaining how the system works is not "making excuses". If I say that abuse victims are rarely going to be supported in the RPCNA, it's not because I don't want abuse victims to be supported. If I explain why abuse victims don't get support, again, not justifying the system.
When you began your sentence with “at least in the RPCNA…,” you were automatically minimizing the issue. I don’t believe they do it to protect the people in their church: if their real motive was this, it would show in the other ways they look after the flock. It’s about gossip and control- the more knowledge, the more control. The other church in this case was not Presbyterian. There is no rule, is there? And in any case, the ‘deed’ was done before the woman became a member, during the investigative phase. It was not allowed by any rule or enforceable by the sane absence. It was sinful men who disagree on most everything, but when it comes to their precious pedestal of authority, they were best friends. This happens all the time. People who unite only in what serves their ego or hatred never have the right motives.
DeleteProspective members have the right to ALL information before joining. I will fight to ensure they do.
And yes, I have objected to handing prospective RPCNA members a Constitution, because it gives them the illusion that the RPCNA is governed by a set of policies. The Book of Discipline outlines how members get a fair and impartial trial, but, in practice, it never happens because Sessions can "counsel" members, then engage in "informal discipline" and then appoint an elder to prosecute charges, even though every elder was involved in counsel and informal discipline. There is no chance for a fair trial.
ReplyDeleteThat is NOT your choice to make!! This is typical RP overreach that neglects the presence of the Holy Spirit in the heart of a Believer to discern and guide. Having a set of rules does not prevent a Christian from knowing that those rules guarantee fairness. All of those sermons that play up their supposed fair and robust system are all impression management shows. Anyone with discernment knows that rules guarantee nothing. We see that in our society and everywhere else.That is the worst excuse I have ever heard. When a person joins anything, he or she must be made aware of the rules which will at least legally govern them. Of course these groups find a way around that- they’re always changing and updating these things also. Your admission of this is disheartening and bewildering.
DeleteDon’t * guarantee fairness
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you want. The law of the land, the RPCNA Constitution and whatever else don't dictate this kind of stuff. If I'm in a school, there's FERPA that protects school-related info from disclosure. If I'm in a hospital, there's HIPAA that protects medical records. If I'm seeing a licensed mental health professional, HIPPA and licensing ethics cover disclosures.
ReplyDeleteBut... no "rule" dictates what conversations I am and am not allowed to have with whomever I want outside of the few professions governed by those laws.
A pastor can talk to another pastor, regardless of denomination about whatever he wants. I may believe that is gossip or slander, but there is no rule, like, "oh, my pastor violated chapter 1 paragraph 4 subsection a by telling a fellow pastor that I picked my nose in private" IMO, that's gossip, but I doubt any church is going to sustain charges against their pastor. I've heard multiple witnesses to pastors/elders publicly slandering members in Presbytery with zero accountability.
I'm not against people getting a copy of the Constitution. I'm against the implication that the Constitution constitutes the rules. For example:
"The session shall hold meetings at stated intervals. Ordinarily, meetings and minutes of the session are open to members of the congregation except when “executive session”* is called.:"
However, Synod decisions and church practice are that sessions can hold meetings whenever they want without prior notice, even if that has the effect of making such meetings closed, and most Sessions will flat out refuse to allow members to see minutes.
So, I might read that "rule" and say that the RPCNA does not operate as a secret society, but the official decisions have nullified that rule.
This denomination’s toxic leaders are BENT on rule-keeping. Everything is about the rules. That’s why I asked. You answered. You see, they only lean to rules when it benefits them. When it’s expedient, ethics go out the window, too. This kind of behavior results from people working from the centre of THEMSELVES, not a heart with Christ. Your inability to see this is also apparent. The Christian doesn’t look at rules as the only guide: all things must be filtered through the lens of Christ.
DeleteHIPAA is another joke. When I took my daughter to the pediatrician recently, I had to wait awhile, and ended up reading HIPAA policy. I was shocked to learn it is really all about protecting the medical businesses from lawsuits from types of sharing, and has very little to do with protecting patients. It is all a giant guise, just like these church contracts.
You said you objected to handing the constitutions- same thing.
We know who operates as a secret society here, yes. It will all stay hidden as long as God allows. Right now we are seeing a massive revealing of things in our world right now, even cases over 60 years old with genealogy. I believe it’s only a matter of time for all steeped in unrepentant sin for the truth to out. We are all sinners, and we must all repent and get right with the Lord. Being right according to a man made denomination is not the same thing.
It’s not okay for pastors to do this. There is some real civil precedent in some cases that this woman is going to be able to sue both of these men now. This was told to her by her lawyer, so I don’t know which precedent. I also don’t know which states are involved, as the men are in different states now and I’m not sure which state it occurred in. There ARE rules/laws on privacy and there are provisions for people to bring suits for defamation. There are real consequences for our words, and if these men really loved the Lord, they’d mind what the Bible says about the tongue and the heart. They are sowing discord between brethren.
"at least in the RPCNA"... It's hinted at in this "rule"
ReplyDelete"A member of the Church moving from one congregation to another congregation in the denomination shall be given a certificate of transfer of membership at his request. Notice shall also be given to the session of the congregation to which he desires transfer."
I'm not trying to minimize it, but moving from one RP church to another is not like quitting a gym and joining the gym across the street. The person never leaves church oversight and is made aware of communication between the two sessions that the member is transferring.
I would say this reminds me of school. I go from third grade to fourth grade. There's no "rule" that says that teachers cannot talk and that I start with a blank slate each year. Every teacher in the school knows who the smart kids are and every teacher knows who the troublemakers are. Teachers also transfer between schools, so if I go from third grade at one elementary school to fourth grade at another elementary school, my new teacher probably knows teachers across the district and probably will talk.
Again, whether this is bad or good depends on the circumstances. If I have a history of pulling the hair of the girl who sits in front of me, the teacher can protect girls by putting me behind a boy. If the teacher hates my family and invents lies, probably not good.
I’m not talking about this kind of thing. I’m talking about coming from a non-rp church to an rp church. I understand the rp-rp church or whatever ‘approved’ church and the school example. Those are covered. My teachers talked too- and it was all in genuine caring for our growth and advancement. What I know of that happened in this church situation was highly irregular and likely done in malice.
DeleteIf you knew the rp leaders were slandering others, or other witnesses did, you and they should speak up…is there a statute of limitations keeping them from speaking up? Or is everyone too afraid for themselves? Maybe give “thinking in systems” a read. The leaders aren’t the only ones culpable- it’s everybody. Absolutely everybody! Everyone in that church knows what’s going on at some point, and are responsible to God. We can be afraid now and not suffer or speak up now and not answer for it later. But we will all give an account. Every silent person in the RP pews needs a good wake up call as to the sin they are enabling and the suffering of the abused. The leader alone will not be responsible. This is a group effort, make no mistake.
Does saying stuff like this make you feel good? "Your inability to see this is also apparent."
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think it's necessary to cut me down? Do you represent Jesus in this?
This is brutally obvious and I've said it many times. RP pastors preach exclusive psalmody, they must swear that they believe EP in their heart, but as soon as there is friction, they jump to a church that sings hymns. Makes you wonder whether they really believe it. In the same way, RP pastors preach Presbyterianism and how it "protects members against abusive pastors", but in reality, the system either protects abusive pastors, or, when it works, and pastors are called out, they walk away to another denomination.
You might do well with "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse" - in that, the authors explain how people expect a religious system to be operating in everyone's best interest and how abusive religious systems prey on peoples' natural desire to believe the best. When you point your fingers all around saying that everyone is accountable for their part in the abusive system, you are also condemning yourself for whatever system blindness you have.
It's funny you talk about speaking up. When I spoke up, you verbally abused me. Just because someone said you were "calling me out" doesn't make it right. So, now I know, speaking up about current injustice is going to get me abused. Now, talk to me about the system. If I speak up and someone slaps me in the face, am I obligated to speak up again knowing someone will slap me in the face? Is that what Jesus wants me to do, spending the rest of my life getting slapped repeatedly in the face? I think the Holy Spirit gave me wisdom to not speak up in an abusive environment.
Again, defamation isn't whether or not I should shut my mouth, but what I say when I speak. The two pastors could have talked truthfully, but that is not what happened. The first pastor spoke lies. Two pastors speaking about a member isn't necessarily wrong. I agree with you that it can be gossip or defamation, especially if a member leaves on bad terms.
You say "Every silent person in the RP pews... is enabling" - you seem very legalistic in this. When the man was kicked out of the synagogue, Jesus didn't go in and yell at the Pharisees. Yes, he called out the Pharisees on certain occasions, but he let many abuses go. The Holy Spirit gives wisdom and wisdom is reading the room to know when statements are appropriate.
I’m very confused by several parts of your writing here. So many parts in this last response seem like you’re either talking to someone else or I don’t know what. Maybe that happens when there are different anonymous writers. In any case, you often miss the point in the conversation, and it goes off the rails. I can reply if there’s disagreement, which is of course fine. But I’m actually confused by some of your bullet points, so to speak, and they often make the conversation seem incoherent. I’d love to talk more and try to understand but I don’t do well with confusion. I wish you well and mostly above all wish for inner healing and peace and every good thing.
ReplyDeleteI will say I agree there’s a time and place for some words, but come they should, in some form. Unfortunately I’ve found the longer I wait for anything, the less likely I am to act. Jesus allows what He allows for a season and a reason I think- He knows the ends. He does not ignore sin though. There are many things He said and did that are not recorded, or so said Paul.
John *
ReplyDeleteLikewise. You talk about rules and how somehow people would be able to discern rightly if shown the rule, how you're going to expose the rules as if they must admit defeat. Then when I bring up examples of rules, you point out that they're junk "Anyone with discernment knows that rules guarantee nothing", so it seems really incoherent. On one hand, I'm minimizing people harmed by the RP church because I point out unwritten rules that should be codified and informed, and on the other hand when I point out rules that are codified, informed and enforced, you claim that they're worthless. Which is it?
ReplyDeleteYou claim that I "should" have publicly cried out against slander and that I'll be held accountable before God. "Should" is a word that invokes shame - when faced with a situation, it was wrong for me not to act, and thus you are calling me out. However, you are also posting anonymously. If the truth must be told publicly without consequence, then why be anonymous? If we "shouldn't" be afraid of the consequences of calling out evil, then why be anonymous? If you are afraid, then why are you hypocritically shaming me for my fear? Which is it?
Maybe there is more than one anonymous in the conversation. I have no idea. I was very much like you (who proposed rules) in the sense that I thought the Bible outlined principles that a diligent pupil could turn into a set of rules that governed every situation. I see a lot of this sort of wrangling in legalistic environments. Does it break a rule to attend a marriage between a Christian and non-Christian? Two women marrying? Can I bring a gift? That's what I see when you say that those who stay silent are enabling. On the other hand, they are protecting themselves. McKnight and Barringer point that out in the book, Pivot. That sort of change must come from the top. People that cry out from the bottom just get ignored and squashed. That's why I think wisdom and not blind rule-following is needed. The prophets at the time of Elijah were hidden in caves and the Bible does not suggest any shame in the hiding vs. public opposition of Jezebel.
If I'm actually talking to two or more different "Anonymous" it makes complete sense and it'd be helpful if there was some sort of identifying "Anony-Mouse" or something.
ReplyDeleteShould is a word that implies obligation; if it invokes shame it cannot be assumed to be the intention of the one using the (very common) word. Shame is not a tool used by Christians, but by controlling religious men and the like. If we feel shame, we have to ask ourselves if that is a result of guilt or a some kind of transference or possibly something else. We must not abandon logic or the responsibility to examine what is and what isn’t.
I am not afraid. I am not aware of any such things that others were exposed to. I did not grow up in or spend much time in this church. I know only my own experience, and that is very much being dealt with. You are confusing the levels of responsibility. Had I been aware of anything averse to someone else, I would have spoken up. Abuse is tightly compartmentalized in ‘this church system,’ and it can take a while I’m sure to see what’s happening to others.
I have proposed no rules, but asked if there were any for the purpose of knowing if the particular action was codified.
I could care less about rules. If they are not in the Bible, no weight whatsoever as far as obligation (in the church). You are confusing many concepts. This happens when emotion is behind a response.
I don’t follow the rest of what you said. I understand you’re replying to your understanding of the conversation, but because it was in no way what I communicated from my understanding, your reply seems like gibberish.
There is no way I’d be interested in differentiating which anonymous I am at this point. I don’t believe you keep private conversations private, as you follow your own made up personal code, as seen many times in thus blog by your frequent invention of the definitions you will live by.
You constantly minimize the sins of this church and find ways to praise them. Yet they were so terrible you had to leave. You are completely enamored with the liberal societal causes of our time, to the exclusion and even simple kindness to those who refuse to be pulled in by those things. You delete comments that don’t fit your narrative. You didn’t leave that church because you had a problem with them, at bottom- you left because your real problem is with God. I know they presented God wrongly, but that’s not God’s fault. Instead of just starting from the beginning, you piled liberal trash onto RP trash, and the rhetoric you spew now is like a poorly-bred dog. It’s terribly confusing, and you show no interest in fighting through that fog. All of us who have come out of this church have stuff to deal with- we need profound healing. But if our problem is really that church, and not God, we just start at the beginning, like a child. Gospel, work from there. Baby steps if we have to. I feel enormous empathy for the way their doctrine isn’t just a religious layer to be peeled away, but it’s so integrated in your every facet of thinking and reasoning that you can’t separate what’s bad doctrine from what’s some real truth from the Bible that’s been so mangled, so mismanaged and misappropriated that it’s infected every corner of your cognition. Reformed Theology is FALSE. And doctrine, beyond its basic application that even a devoted child can understand, is a ginormous effing idol. An IDOL!! I knew almost no one who read they’re Bible, hardly ever saw one opened!! Ever!! But they consume GC and 9marks articles and trendy, pushy, junk books that push their authoritarian bent. And in that sense, they are what they eat. Am I angry? Oh yes. And anger is not a sin. Gods people are being used, abused, coerced, and throttled to death. And I’m not just angry at their leaders- I’m angry at the members who KNEW - KNEW!!!! And did NOTHING!! Of course, I will expect no empathy from you. You rail against their denunciation of empathy while possessing not a shred of it yourself!! You are kind to NO ONE in this blog for 10 year now unless they are agreeing with you! By all means, delete this comment too.
"I have proposed no rules" "Should is a word that implies obligation" "If you knew the rp leaders were slandering others, or other witnesses did, you and they should speak up."
ReplyDeleteOkay, so "should" implies obligation and you say that people "should" speak up, which, by your own definition, implies that people are "obligated" to speak up. A rule is just a stated obligation. So, you ARE proposing rules.
"Shame is not a tool used by Christians, but by controlling religious men and the like" "Had I been aware of anything averse to someone else, I would have spoken up." "Every silent person in the RP pews needs a good wake up call as to the sin they are enabling and the suffering of the abused." Shame is hard to put a finger on, but when you come in here and say that you are morally superior to people who are keeping silent out of fear, and that they are morally inferior, that is not guilt, that is shame. It is arrogant to say you would do differently in that situation. You're not in that situation.
"I could care less about rules." This betrays narcissism. You don't care about OTHERS' rules, but you invent your own rules and lay them on people. You constantly try to define reality for other people.
You can whine about me all you want. You have set yourself up as the judge of all that's good and right and instead of listening, you just go around wagging your finger at anyone who disagrees with you. You rail against RPCNA legalism and authoritarianism, but, I think it's the pot calling the kettle black.
"This happens when emotion is behind a response." "Am I angry? Oh yes." You know that anger is an emotion, right? So again, you hypocritically apply a double standard. Emotion is okay "for me, but not for thee".
"I feel enormous empathy for the way their doctrine isn’t just a religious layer to be peeled away" I doubt it. You have demonstrated patronization, not empathy. You come here as if I have much to learn from you, but I don't want to learn how to be an asshole. You claim I don't have kindness. What kindness have you shown? You claim I don't listen. Have you listened? As Jesus said, "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? (Matt 7:16)"
You need to read and re-read what you write. You are doing the very things you call evil and then denying you do them, but they're there for all to read. Every discerning person here knows you're a hypocrite. It's in black and white for all to see.
Ephesians 5:11, et al, essentially. It’s not about rules. The scripture is all profitable for our learning.
ReplyDeleteNo one claimed moral superiority; that is another inference you drew.
Rule disregard is antisocial personality disorder. Prisons are full of them. Disregard for man made rules in the church is not a bad thing.i have no idea who you’re referring to in the rest of that paragraph.
Who is anyone? Your writing is increasingly fraught with confusion. You have certainly been revealing yourself on here though, especially to all of those whose comments you delete because they don’t align with your reasoning. Will you shut off commenting again? There was one in particular who wrote with you at great pains it seemed and was very gracious to you, but you just unraveled. It was mind boggling to read all that, and then have you delete specific comments so the narrative was like a mad lib (if you know if the game, I’m old and maybe you’re not).
We are all hypocrites, that’s for certain. As for here, well, you just tied everyone’s personal discernment into your personal judgment- typical RP god complex. I’ve been peaceful to you on here like others, and it’s clear you aren’t interested in meaningful exchange. Your whole blog is a glaring judgment, against a whole group, but none of us have come down on you for that. You’re documenting your experience and opinions, right? What’s the problem? The problem doesn’t enter in until anyone disagrees with you, and for that ‘offense’ people are either ignored or attacked- just like in the church they left.
This blog is valuable though, make no mistake. Others considering joining a particular church and conducting any real research first will likely think twice after reading this blog. For that, I rejoice. Maybe one day a blog will surface that offers support to people leaving these churches-real, loving, Christian support. It’s sorely needed.
"Had I been aware of anything averse to someone else, I would have spoken up."
ReplyDeleteThat is a claim of moral superiority. People don't speak up because speaking up has real consequences. If you're not afraid of the consequences of speaking up, then why would you be anonymous? So, you're claiming you're unafraid of the consequences of speaking up, but you're hiding behind being anonymous. It doesn't add up.
You should also research "projection". Projection is taking your own issues and putting them on someone else. Like, you're not interested in meaningful exchange, but instead of accepting and owning that you're not interested in meaningful exchange, you accuse me of not being interested in meaningful exchange.
In fact, you might go to someone who is an expert on emotionally abuse tactics to help you understand why people respond the way I do to your comments. There's a lot to unpack.
Dear ‘Anonymous’ blogger,
ReplyDeleteThis person has already answered these things. What a viscous circle. You’re responding like a child: “No, you,” “No, you did,” etc. It’s true that some people here have engaged in significantly meaningful conversation with you, yet you have meltdowns each time. And it’s true that you delete some comments. I’m personally worried about you. I wonder at this point if it’s more detrimental to your mental health to try to engage you. I also would hate to see the blog disappear, because I think it has tremendous value.
I think you need to be more discerning. Let's say you hear an argument:
DeleteA: I'm not doing X
B: Here's a quote of you saying X
A: You're being confusing and irritating
B: But you said X
A: I'm not going to respond to your confusing comments. I'm not doing X.
What just happened? Is B mentally unstable and having a meltdown, or is A refusing to respond to meaningful conversation.
One thing I learned is that I can AGREE with peoples' conclusions, but DISAGREE with their logic. Just because you agree with the other anonymous doesn't mean that the other anonymous is engaging the discussion honestly. Pick something, maybe "rules" and see who is avoiding conversation and who is showing evidence and logic.
I kinda wonder how you would handle stuff like this, though:
Delete"Once again, defending this wicked system."
"he is not your friend or advocate"
"you were automatically minimizing the issue"
"Your inability to see this is also apparent."
"I don’t believe you keep private conversations private, as you follow your own made up personal code, as seen many times in thus blog by your frequent invention of the definitions you will live by."
"You constantly minimize the sins of this church and find ways to praise them"
"You didn’t leave that church because you had a problem with them, at bottom- you left because your real problem is with God"
"You rail against their denunciation of empathy while possessing not a shred of it yourself!!"
"You are kind to NO ONE in this blog for 10 year now unless they are agreeing with you!"
But, you say that I'm the one acting like a child and I'm the one having a meltdown. Do you judge "Anonymous" by the same standard you're holding me to? If what this person is saying is true, then the blog DOESN'T have value. Do you think I'm using this blog to mine private info to send back into the RPCNA?