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:
- Absolute authoritarianism without accountability
- Zero tolerance for criticism or questions
- Lack of meaningful financial disclosure regarding the budget
- Unreasonable fears about the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecutions
- A belief that former followers are always wrong for leaving and there is never a legitimate reason for anyone else to leave
- Abuse of members
- Records, books, articles, or programs documenting the abuses of the leader or group
- Followers feeling that they are never able to be “good enough”
- A belief that the leader is right at all times
- 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.
(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".
(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
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.
31 comments:
One thing that helped me was a friend's simple definition of a cult: "when loyalty to a leader is equated with loyalty to God". I saw that I was being treated as a sinner because I questioned the leadership.
I think that's the crux of 9 and 10 - the leader gets to decide for the members what God's opinion is of everything. How the RPCNA does it is very subtle but evil nonetheless.
Great article! Can you give examples of the cultish dogma you mention that are being pushed these days?
Just off the top of my head, in the IRPC investigation, there was a paper that railed against the "victim-centric approach" that argues that really a top-down "justice-centric" approach was Biblical. In other words, the victims don't matter. What matters is what the leaders think about the situation and how to resolve it. (#10) There was also a hint that the victim-centric approach is pushed by modern psychology and not Biblical (#4)
There have been a number of things that have moved the RPCNA towards misogyny. Bruce Hemphill claimed that the committee appointed to counsel him argued from a stance of ESS (a heretical doctrine used to support misogynistic claims). There was a study committee appointed to determine whether the RPCNA should reverse its position on women deacons, which supported removal. A vote of 54% vs 46% favored removal. Also, proposed, but not passed, 'The next major discussion had to do with the RP Testimony on abortion. Our Testimony says, “Deliberately induced abortion, except possibly to save the mother’s life, is murder.” The committee proposed the following: “Deliberately induced abortion is murder. When medical intervention to remove the child from the mother’s body is necessary to preserve the life of the mother or the child, all medically reasonable measures should be taken to honorably care for both the mother and child’s life and body.”' (https://rpwitness.org/article/a-summary-of-the-2025-rpcna-synod)
Not to go too far into this debate, but I'm certain that the RPCNA would not consider killing an enemy soldier in a just war to be murder, and would probably not consider it murder to steer a crashing plan towards a less populated area of a city to minimize loss of life, so saying abortion is unequivocally murder, even when both mother and child will die otherwise is pretty dogmatically misogynistic.
Thanks!
Nice trolling, Anonymous. Let me guess, GLP?
GLP?
I find Steve Hassan's BITE model for authoritarian or high-control groups to be very helpful. The acronym "BITE" stands for Behavior control, Information control, Thought control, and Emotion control. Notably, in addition to being high-control, the RPCNA exhibits fundamentalism. RPCNA youth often take pride in their "blue blood" status, referring to their family lineage and association with the blue banner. However, the RPCNA's tight control over members’ networks of friends and family makes it nearly impossible for anyone to leave without facing disgrace. This illustrates the high-control aspect of the group. Moreover, because they are fundamentalists, members are dogmatically certain in their beliefs, making them extremely difficult to persuade otherwise.
GLP = Great Lakes Presbytery member
Dogmas like creationism or biblical literalism?
I struggle with BITE because it's too general for me. I can think of a lot of things that might be behavior control, for example. Are police "high-control" for enforcing speed limits? So, it's hard to apply because on one hand, maintaining moral standards for members is going to check all the boxes, but on the other hand, we expect any religious group to enforce certain standards. On the other hand, if it's not highly general, then what seems like a simplistic model ends up being complex. Like "Emotion control" - if the model has very specific parameters for what is emotion control vs. just shaming people for expressing unwanted emotions, then it's a better model, but it's harder for an uninformed person to say "this applies to my church!".
I would say that trying to charge a Geneva professor for not teaching "Literal six-day creation" is dogmatic. That did fail, though. I have mixed feelings on Biblical inerrancy, though. I do believe that the original is inspired and without error, and that there has been supernatural preservation. I agree that there are possibly copy errors and that non-inspired stuff could have been added. To me, the biggest problem isn't inerrancy, but the culture surrounding inerrancy that claims to know precisely what the Bible means.
For example, the word "homosexual" was introduced in the English translation. At the time it was introduced, what was considered homosexuality was really pedophilia - men preying on male minors - and what I understand is that it's a pretty accurate portrayal. However, the English word has changed meaning from an act to a predisposition, and from a form of statutory rape to something consensual. However, the word is still in the English translation and the inerrancy folks now use it as a prooftext. So, is inerrancy itself the problem, or is it eisegesis (making the Bible say what you want it to say) and poor scholarship?
I would say I still hold to inerrancy, but my beliefs on e.g. psalmody and women have changed since I left the RPCNA echo chamber - I find the debate is much more nuanced when you don't have a pastor who won't ever discuss any counterpoints.
As an example of dogma, I would put out "Covenanting" - the idea that it's not enough to convert people, but that Jesus isn't happy until the RPCNA church is established as the national religion of the United States.
I'm not sure that there has been any more recent push for this, but it's always stewing in the background. With the rise of Doug Wilson and his ilk, I wouldn't be surprised.
It is very subtle indeed. Undiscerning members will be thoroughly confused, have their consciences all but destroyed, and lack any personal identity by the time they have the slightest inkling something might be terribly wrong. By then they’re locked in by virtue of tight familial relations to several people in the church, their own identity being woven into the tapestry of the denomination, and leaving will mean the loss of everything. It’s a cult!!
“ For example, the word "homosexual" was introduced in the English translation. At the time it was introduced, what was considered homosexuality was really pedophilia - men preying on male minors - and what I understand is that it's a pretty accurate portrayal. However, the English word has changed meaning from an act to a predisposition, and from a form of statutory rape to something consensual. However, the word is still in the English translation and the inerrancy folks now use it as a prooftext. So, is inerrancy itself the problem, or is it eisegesis (making the Bible say what you want it to say) and poor scholarship?”
Battered Sheep: This is all word-concept fallacy.
The fact that Wilson is even rising is absolutely confounding for a Christian. It’s sickening.
You're not providing enough context about your claim. I would argue that this verse is used a a primary prooftext against what we call homosexuality today, but the original is unclear. There are other verses that make, in my opinion, much more compelling arguments.
I would argue that it's a more egregious fallacy to read the Bible divorced from its context. The context of Roman culture was the focus on the paterfamilia - this is like American patriarchal culture on steroids. The head of household had the right to "penetrate" all under his authority. Wives, slaves, children (male and female). It was also established in their legal structure and religion, such that speaking directly against it would have been problematic. I think it might align pretty closely with the conflation of our military with the soldiers. Saying bad things about our foreign policy and military intervention somehow equates in peoples' minds that we are spitting on our soldiers and the legacy of those who sacrificed for our country.
So, Paul, a few times, speaks against the Roman paterfamilia authoritarianism and replaces it with statements such as "submit to one another". Jesus perhaps references it when he says that great men in society "lord it over" their people, but in the new kingdom, the greatest is the servant of all.
All that to say that it is the church in the West that is trying to use homosexuality as a red herring for the proper focus on the rape culture that is rampant in the Evangelical church. In other words, pastors raping women in their church is a problem, but we can offer them grace, versus the "real" sinners - those who engage in consensual same-sex relations. I think if you read the Bible within the context, you find it is much, much more concerned about how those in power treat those under them, physically, emotionally, economically and sexually, than it is about what consenting adults do in bed.
I thought it was Great Lakes-Gulf Presbytery. (GLG or GLGP) has the animosity towards all things southern and non-Indiana grown that much?
BBB- yes
BS: what are you talking about Indiana? What?
For as long as I can remember, the Great-Lakes Gulf Presbytery was "the churches in Indiana plus other churches that we really don't care about but are stuck with"
Some examples:
- Indiana has an atypical cutoff date for school years and Covfamikoi has enforced that, so you could have a kid going into 6th grade in another state, but because the conference follows the IN cutoffs, that kid might be, based on birthdate be stuck in the elementary program.
- Fall ministry project is limited to churches within reasonable driving distance from Indianapolis
There are other issues that I think have faded a bit since Roy Blackwood died which were more about promoting the Blackwood crowd's agenda, but there were echoes of that when James Faris proposed splitting the Presbytery along similar lines. (Indiana churches minus Kokomo stay and all else leave).
Battered Sheep I think you need Jesus.
Another RP/Legalist drive-by. Seems like we disagree. Why have you decided I'm the one who needs Jesus? What if it's you? What have I said that gives you the right to call me an enemy of God?
I abhor RP manmade religion and legalism. You’ve exposed your beliefs thoroughly and openly, and it is human to make deductions based on what we see and hear. When others expose their beliefs you draw conclusions, yet when I or others do, you rail in the extreme. These choices are not compatible, but contrary and hypocritical. You may disagree as a right, but it’s how you ventilate the same that betrays immaturity and/or some emotional struggles. This is my opinion of reading your blog for some time.
We all need Jesus, myself included. Me reminding you of the fact is focused only on the character of responses in this thread regarding clear biblical principles that you’re determined to reinterpret. When Jesus told Peter to get behind me, calling him Satan, He wasn’t saying Peter was Satan, but identifying Satan’s rhetoric in Peter’s speech. Likewise, I’m telling you that you need Jesus in the sense of renewing your mind and examining if your interpretation is compatible with either Christ’s character or Satans. I have no idea who you are or to Whom you belong. But I earnestly would, with all my heart, that you belong to God; therefore, I beg you to pray and seek the Lord on this and all matters.
For years you’ve operated this blog, “working through” your experience in a very damaging corner of what we call the visible church (but I am not a fan of this term, as the Church is only visible to Christ and is not buildings, denominations, religious activities, or public professions).The things you focus on however, while not unimportant by any means, still skirt around and far supersede the things you avoid- things I believe you should deal with. This church’s damage isn’t just in their touted beliefs, but in their recondite expositions on endless minutiae and the twisting vortex of spiritual abuses levied subtly on their members. Stepping away from such a place isn’t limited to re-examination of one’s doctrinal position. It’s an absolute shakeup- if we’re bloody honest- to our minds as a whole. An endless maze of ever-changing algorithms and confusing doctrines we knew we were never to question, our minds are addled by the cancer of a poisonous legalism designed by rebellious humans who want the benefits of God and worldly positions without any personal cost to themselves. They ‘lay on us burdens they themselves wouldn’t dare to lift’ (“Say it ain’t so,” like Americans say).
There’s a need for radical healing for those who leave, and the more we focus on choice topics and avoid delving into the real damage in our very souls, the farther we are from the renewal we desperately need. What healing can come from years of focus on popular topics, without addressing first the primary injury? Can a person put a fashionable, well-fabricated bandage on a deep, festering wound? Should he or she not first evaluate the wound, determine if any major organs are affected, and determine if there is any bacteriae in the wound that needs treatment- lest it infect the whole body? Should he sew the wound closed with the stitches of this world, and forget the storm brewing beneathe the makeshift closure? Will you not consider that there’s been real damage to your mental health, and that the center should be in focus before the fringes? Will you “see a piece of unshrunk cloth onto a new garment?’ …
…. Your reactions on here are primarily emotional and reactionary in nature when anyone doesn’t agree with you, and sometimes you go into a lengthy explanation of why your position is either correct or plausible. There’s nothing wrong with defending one’s position, or even some healthy banter, but I don’t think that’s what you’re doing. It’s as if you’ve divorced yourself from many RP beliefs, but held tight to the pattern of reasoning and devilish exposition you endured and learnt well while in the group. I think most anyone can understand to a degree. We give up some sins, and hold coherently to others sometimes, and we dispense with the easy vices or such (and pat ourselves on the back heartily for it) while clinging to the ones we really enjoy and lying to ourselves for a season in attempt to exculpate our consciences and keep them.
We are all enemies to God without Christ. And if we have Christ, we should be growing, no matter how meager- growing in character, and having the fruit of this new birth. Aligning oneself with the world and giving one’s time and efforts to marrying the claptrap of the world to the holiness of God is amalgamation of human origin, and a defilement to the faith. Republicans, by the way, do this also in the U.S. by recruiting the useful bits of the faith into their party. The result is a stain to the faith- the usual pollution of people who want God on their own terms.
You're entitled to your opinion. What I hear in your response is resorting to shame-based manipulation, inflammatory rhetoric and appeal to authority.
Shame-based manipulation. Instead of identifying a point of disagreement and explaining why you disagree, you attack my person. "I think you need Jesus" - that's incredibly insulting and when I call you out on it, instead of admitting it was wrong and inappropriate to question someone's faith you move the goalposts, "everyone needs Jesus". Yeah, 100% that's not what you were implying. Your lack of understanding between guilt and shame suggests that you're the immature one.
Inflammatory rhetoric. I see you (I have to assume "you" because everyone is anonymous here) repeatedly slap me in the face and then accuse me of being emotional. I'm not sure what standard you are holding me to, but I don't know many people who stay calm when repeatedly demeaned and insulted. Let's pull out some jewels:
"you rail in the extreme"
"betrays immaturity and/or some emotional struggles"
"Your reactions on here are primarily emotional and reactionary"
"pattern of reasoning and devilish exposition"
So do you seriously expect anything calm and rational from me after calling me immature, emotional, ignorant of my festering wounds and Satanic in my reasoning?
Appeal to authority. In all this, you insist on putting yourself above me. You're the psychologist examining my emotional state. You've observed my posts and judged my spiritual state. You've figured out which sins I cling to.
In all this, you talk about how horrible the RP church is, but this is EXACTLY what the RP church does. Pastors use shame-based manipulation, inflammatory rhetoric and claims of authority to spiritually abused people. So, you're using the same sort of spiritually abusive tactics that caused festering wounds in the RP church, from which I'm trying to heal, and calling me a hypocrite when I have an intensely negative reaction.
And to further your abuse, you use spiritually manipulative lingo. I should "pray and seek the Lord". In light of what else you said, it means "I'm right and you're wrong and God's on my side. Pray to God and he'll tell you the same." Have you thought that maybe, just maybe, God doesn't agree with you on this one?
I, Anonymous, hereby declare that I need a chill pill. In fact, I'll take two.
I feel for you, sir, with all my heart. You seem to interpret any disagreement as abuse, and re-frame some things said as being some tactic. I understand we came from a place steeped in tactics. They threw me for a proper loop, I’ll tell you that. It can be hard to discern friend from foe for a time. Maybe a long time.
I urge you to always reject any true invitation to shame or anything not of God. In my own experience in the cult I found the pastors used fear far and above shame. Fear is much more effective; shame is not very useful today (multiple reasons, my opinion on the matter though). Perhaps whichever tactic they use is based on the assessment of their audience at the time. They spend a lot of time analyzing and investigating people, and precious little time talking to them. And why? They don’t want to know them. They decide who people are based on their behind-the-scenes investigations and behavior profiling.
I wish we knew one another, as real Christian relationships (in person, in community) give time and opportunities to show one another our hearts fully, as opposed to random writing online from anonymous persons whose character we’ve not observed in our own sphere. Relationship gives better context to the times when we are honest about hard things to one another, and even then it’s jolly difficult, because the outcome still depends on the sincerity of the speaker and the hearing of the listener. I can only tell you I have not done what you’ve alleged, and I am sorry you’ve interpreted it that way. I’ve read others on here try to engage you in the recent past and I’ve been moved at the patience and tenor of the writer in a few occasions, but in those cases you were similarly offended. One really surprised me because the person was very gracious. I’ve told you the truth and in good faith, and that’s all I can do.I believe you need radical healing, and I wish that for you.
You do need Jesus, and I didn’t think I needed to include myself or others in that statement for one reason: I was talking to YOU. If you felt shame, I’m sorry, that’s a horrid feeling. But equating how you felt with my intent is unjust. I understand shame and guilt well, and know they’re not of God. When I was younger I grappled with these, and they didn’t relent so long as I felt unworthy. Low self worth is also not of God, but the cult does erroneously put this on their members. They confuse shame with contrition, and purposefully to some degree- contrition brings us to God, but shame keeps us under their thumb. I just don’t know what to say to you sir, because you appear offended at anything that you disagree with or that appears to chafe you in some way. Writing in this case may be ineffective then. Your accusation of abuse is a terrible thing though. I’ve given you my opinion based on things I’ve read in fact, laid bear. You’ve judged my intent, though as it be something you can’t see. You’ve charged me with spiritual abuse, a terrible, unjust thing. People disagree with us in life. Spiritual abuse isn’t disagreement and voiced observations. If we go by the definition, and I know there are broader ones, “Spiritual abuse is the misuse of spiritual authority to manipulate, control, or harm others, often through shame and fear.”
I have zero authority, I have communicated with you in a blog, and I have had zero interest or intent on harming you in anyway. Spiritual abuse is a GIGANTIC problem in the churches, and we don’t help it by levying false charges at people indiscriminately. This kind of thing will only delay progress on that score. I wish for you all the healing and help in the world, sir. God bless you and have mercy on your suffering. Let us all agree God be merciful to one another.
Just in case I misunderstood, I asked ChatGPT to summarize and analyze your comments:
---
The commenter says they strongly reject what they see as legalism and manmade religion, and they believe your writing and replies show inconsistency and emotional reactivity. They argue that although you have left parts of your former religious framework, you may still be using similar patterns of argument and conflict.
They repeatedly frame their concern in Christian terms, urging you to “seek Jesus,” examine your thinking, and compare your responses to Christ’s character. They also claim that people leaving spiritually abusive church environments need deeper healing (including mental and emotional healing), and that your focus on certain doctrinal or public issues may avoid more central personal wounds.
In the final section, they broaden the critique to say believers should show ongoing character growth and avoid mixing faith with worldly political identity, adding that both major political sides can distort religion for their own purposes.
---
The tone is strongly confrontational and admonishing, with a mix of moral urgency and pastoral concern.
Primary tone: accusatory/judgmental (calls out hypocrisy, immaturity, emotional instability).
Religious tone: exhortative and corrective (repeatedly urges repentance, renewal, seeking God).
Emotional tone: intense and forceful, sometimes severe.
Secondary tone: concerned/pleading (says they “earnestly” want your good and healing).
Rhetorical style: heavy, sermon-like, and persuasive rather than conversational.
---
Here are my comments:
"strongly confrontational" - This is pretty obvious, and it should be obvious that being strongly confrontational isn't going to accomplish anything heathy.
"intense and forceful, sometimes severe [emotional]" - besides the irony of belittling me for my emotional responses, I think that trying to make your case with intensely emotional language isn't going to do much.
"accusatory/judgmental", "heavy, sermon-like" - do you like being accused, judged and preached at by some random passer by? I sure don't.
And, maybe this is the problem, you seem to want to be persuasive, but you come off as strongly confrontational, intensely emotional, accusatory, judgmental and holier-than-thou. When people respond in-kind, it seems to trigger this combination of rage and persecution complex, which quickly spirals.
All this to say, if you walk into a room and start screaming at someone, why are you offended when they scream back?
Missed the last line: "So in short: a harsh rebuke framed as spiritual concern."
Is that how you want to come across? A harsh rebuke?
Can't say I've ever been receptive to a harsh rebuke from a total stranger. Have you?
Hi, AgaiN
Post a Comment