Rethinking: Is the RPCNA a cult?

 One of the questions that keeps coming up about the RPCNA is whether the RPCNA is a cult. I think the answer is not so clear-cut. I believe the NAPARC churches are, in general, "high-control" authoritarian churches, and that overlaps a lot with cult behavior, but the difference is in degrees. I'm using a list of cult characteristics I found that is supposedly from the Cult Education Institute, but I can't find the original link:

1. Absolute authoritarianism without accountability
2. Zero tolerance for criticism or questions
3. Lack of meaningful financial disclosure regarding the budget
4. Unreasonable fears about the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecutions
5. A belief that former followers are always wrong for leaving and there is never a legitimate reason for anyone else to leave
6. Abuse of members
7. Records, books, articles, or programs documenting the abuses of the leader or group
8. Followers feeling that they are never able to be “good enough”
9. A belief that the leader is right at all times
10. A belief that the leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or giving validation

As a background, I grew up conservative in what is probably a more liberal presbytery in the RPCNA, so there were some authoritarian tendencies because the RPCNA overall is high control, but I would say that what I experienced as abuse as a child wasn't the church exactly, but how the church taught parenting - as "instant unquestioned obedience". So, yes, in a sense that was spiritual abuse enabled by the church, but not direct spiritual abuse.

My church/presbytery growing up was mildly cultish...

I would say that there were shades of cultish behavior in my church growing up:

(4) My church, as did the vast majority of Evangelical churches, believed that all levels of government were consciously antagonistic against Christians and Christian morality. Schools at all levels were underhandedly teaching anti-Christian propaganda as neutral truth, and that Christians were increasingly threatened for their Christian beliefs or practices. This exacerbated, in my opinion, the abusive environment growing up, because I believed that I had nowhere to turn. The church would unquestioningly support the abusive practices of my family, and the state would use any complaint as an excuse to destroy anything Christian in my home.

(5) The church always emphasized that those who left, whether for other denominations, or left altogether were "choosing sin over the truth". The implication is that the RPCNA was the pinnacle of all churches and any step away from the RPCNA was a step into some sort of sin. The sin was determined by the destination church. Mostly, it was because people couldn't handle the purity of RPCNA worship and demanded satanic instruments or human-corrupted hymns. Maybe it was because people couldn't stand the idea that Jesus was the "mediatorial king" of every aspect of life and they wanted to be Sunday-only Christians. Of course those who left had no ability to defend themselves from defamation.

(8-9) The doctrine of Total Depravity was always emphasized and, with a sense of false dichotomy, the Spiritual calling of church leaders to office was also emphasized. As I've pointed out, sermons hold this with both hands - that members are depraved and flawed, while leaders are Spiritually gifted to give God-ordained insight to members. This authoritarianism leads members to (8) believe that they are never good enough and, at the same time, that (9) leaders are always right. This despite the fact that these supposedly God-ordained leaders make decisions in courts based on simple majority, as if it's expected that they are not so God-ordained.

My church/presbytery in adulthood up was significantly cultish...

When I moved to a more conservative presbytery, I discovered they exemplified more of the cultish behavior in addition to what I experienced before:

(1) There was the appearance of accountability - leaders acknowledged in private that the behavior of other leaders was inappropriate, but that was never public, and nothing ever appeared to happen. Leaders whose behavior was acknowledged as abusive were not removed from roles they were abusing. At the higher courts, calls to accountability were often drowned out by praise for long, distinguished service. That is, yeah, that wasn't good behavior, but we shouldn't hold someone accountable for a single failing, no matter how abusive to the members, when they've served as a leader for decades. Note that an elder abusing another elder... completely different standard. We see that there are various degrees of accountability enforced, but I don't think I've ever seen an RP leader charged with "domineering".

(2) I was specifically labeled and sidelined for asking questions. Apparently once someone is an adult member, or maybe just within this church/presbytery, questions are a sign of insubordination and distrust. Often leaders simply told me that I "must accept" what they were teaching because they were the authority, even when what I was supposed to accept was in direct opposition of the stated position of the church!

(3) In general, budgets are above board at the RPCNA churches I've attended. The abusive church would repurpose significant sums of money based on a Session decision. In my understanding, this was not only a violation of the Constitution, requiring congregational approval, but also a violation of federal law because the funds they repurposed had been designated.

(6) I think RPCNA churches are all abusive to various degrees. Some churches create an abusive dynamic where members are distrusted and leaders are trusted, but some will single out a "sinner" in the congregation and push them to change or leave. This is why I think Biblical Counseling for pastors is a bad idea. Biblical Counseling stamps a date on whether a person is able to change or is going to cling to their "sin". Combine that with church discipline and churches abuse the members who need their help the most.

(7) I don't think there are as many cases of this - maybe one benefit of the RP structure is that a single pastor can only go so far in creating a cult without the help of his presbytery and synod. Jared Olivetti was exposed in the media because his session and significant leaders within his presbytery were involved in coverup. Synod didn't participate in the coverup, which could be because there was already media coverage of the issue.

In summary, maybe more questions than answers

I feel there are multiple ways I can look at this. From a time perspective, I believe the RPCNA overall is becoming more cultish each passing year. The "liberals" are leaving or being forced out and the "conservatives" are becoming more entrenched and pushing more dogma through the church courts.

From a pastoral personality perspective, I think there is a spectrum of pastors. Some want nothing to do with cultish behavior (for all the hatred towards the McCracken dynasty, I believe that they tend to be very pastoral and not about pushing their authority on others) and some want to be the king of the 30-or-so people in their congregation. Again, over time, the ones with restraint find themselves more and more having to question whether they want to stay in the RPCNA when more cultish dogma is passed.

From a presbytery perspective, I think while the overall church is marching towards being a cult, each presbytery has a distinctive characteristic that may be more cultish/authoritarian or less.