I have long struggled with whether to call the RPCNA "legalistic". On its face, using the term legalism implies that RPs believe in "works-based salvation". Even though works are central to how that church operates, I don't believe any RP member or pastor would claim that they were saved by their works, so it's always seemed not quite right to call the church "legalistic".
Reading a book on purity culture recently, the author used the term "purity prosperity gospel". This immediately struck me as a better way to think of the RPCNA's focus on works. In purity culture, the equation that was pushed was that discipline now led to a guarantee of marital bliss. For a man, staying celibate until marriage, never dating, never viewing porn, never getting physical with a girlfriend and avoiding emotional attachment at least before engagement would mean that the honeymoon night would be amazing. For a woman, similarly, checking emotions, never wearing 'provocative' or 'revealing' clothing, staying celibate meant that the marriage would be wonderful and happy.
This led to what might be called the marriage myth, which led to the marriage disillusionment. Christians who did everything right found disappointment on their wedding night (Sheila Gregoire's study revealed that vaginismus was common among women who held purity culture beliefs) and potentially in marriage because they were encouraged to find the one right person.
When honeymoons or marriages are unhappy or abusive, the myth itself is not questioned, but instead, the couple is interrogated and ultimately blamed when some violation is found, not matter how insignificant, and even if the elders themselves recommended the course of action. For example, there have been cases where women told their leaders that their boyfriend was pushing them on purity boundaries (physical contact / sex) and the leaders said, "you should get married". Not surprisingly, when the marriage ended up being abusive, since men don't suddenly develop respect when they're wearing a wedding ring, the leaders told the now-wives that they cannot divorce husbands on the grounds of divorce, and they should have seen the warning signs. The same warning signs the leaders told them to ignore.
This mythical behavior around purity culture then becomes a lens into this quasi-legalistic, quasi-heretical view of God found in Evangelical and Reformed churches.
RPCNAs may have held books like The Prayer of Jabez at arms length, but they embraced books like Parenting by God's Promises. I haven't read The Prayer of Jabez, but my understanding is that it is based on Jabez's prayer for prosperity, which the Bible simply notes that God granted to him. So, the premise, as far as I've heard is that we can pray for peace and material possessions and God will(*) give it to us. I'm sure, like Beeke's parenting book, there are lots of hedges around the central point.
These books, and the related prosperity-gospel culture propose a view of God, which some have called the "Magic god", a god who obligates himself to give things to people based on an incantation or ritual. Beeke does waffle on God's "Promises" a bit, probably to satisfy potential critics, but his contention is that God promises to bless parenting that follows the rituals that Beeke has laid out, most notably severe discipline and regular family worship. Parents who neglect this will almost certainly annoy God and their children will become wayward.
When we look at Evangelicals broadly, we find this ritualistic language in common discourse. In Christian political discourse, I often see: "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land." (2 Chr. 7:14) This becomes a Christian Nationalistic ritual. If we can only pass Christian laws and declare ourselves a Christian nation, then we will force God to bless us.
This brings up another interesting point - the American Dream / Myth is a similar ritual. So, interwoven with this idea of Christian Nationalism is the idea that morality = wealth and wealth = morality. We may not consider Elon Musk or Warren Buffett the epitome of Christian morality, but we do look at a person sleeping in their car as inherently immoral, due to this equation. Both sides of this equation come into play
So, back to the RPCNA. Because they have adopted this idea of a "magic god" their view of the Christian life comes down to a list of do's and don't's. A person living life within those guardrails can expect all the good things in life from God (except that God sometimes allows bad things to happen to good people), and a person living life outside those guardrails can expect all bad things in life from God (except that God is gracious and doesn't always give people those consequences). Conversely, a person whose life is going well is most likely living within those guardrails and a person who is experiencing trouble is most likely outside those guardrails. Therefore, it is the job of the elders and pastor to find members who are experiencing bad things in their lives and figure out how they have strayed outside the guardrails.
Of course, in typical RPCNA fashion, the asterisks(*) on the RPCNA prosperity gospel give the authorities the crack in the door they can stick their foot into. A pastor/elder who is experiencing bad things is, most likely, still within the guardrails, but experiencing a Satanic attack. Allegations of abuse? Satanic attack. Under investigation by CPS? Satanic attack. Conversely an ordinary member with allegations of abuse must be investigated, and a normal parent under CPS investigation probably needs strong questioning by the session.
Sessions tend to be militaristic in their behavior towards people they think are living outside the guardrails because they think that somehow the church will be poisoned by the person living in sin. They might think they have an Achan in their midst, or think about the man in Corinth who was living in visible sin who needed to be put out. Again, the prosperity gospel strikes. A church can only experience blessing if it is living in the guardrails, and that likely means that all members must be living in the guardrails, and all members who are not living in the guardrails must be identified and put under discipline so that they either repent and return within the guardrails, or they leave and thus the church returns to the pure state. Sometimes this inquisition-like behavior becomes so severe that it seems like, "will the last perfect person who discovers they're imperfect, please turn the lights off on your way out?"
I hope this concept of "RPCNA prosperity gospel" gives you a better framework to describe your legalistic experience in the RPCNA. Not exactly works-based salvation, but works so central to what it means to live a right life and being under constant scrutiny. I believe this is an American cultural view that has become established in the church - the same view that pushes political parties against compromise and blames people in the worst of circumstances as if it must be their fault. Ironically, the exact thing the book of Job was meant to explain. American Evangelicals have all proudly put on the garments of Job's friends. Job 4:7 - "Consider now: Who, being innocent, has ever perished? Where were the upright ever destroyed?" Job 8:4-6 - "When your children sinned against him, he gave them over to the penalty of their sin. But if you will seek God earnestly and plead with the Almighty, if you are pure and upright, even now he will rouse himself on your behalf and restore you to your prosperous state." - Job's friends would have made wonderful RP elders.
19 comments:
"A man is to be counted a legalist or self righteous if, while he does not pretend that his obedience is perfect, he yet relies on it for a title to life... By depending for justification partly on their imperfect obedience to the law, they framed the law into a covenant of works, and such a covenant of works too as could admit of imperfect instead of perfect obedience. And by relying partly on the righteousness of Christ, they mingled the law with the gospel and works with faith in the affair of justification. Thus, they perverted both the law and the gospel, and formed for themselves a motley covenant of works." -- John Colquhoun, The Law and the Gospel.
I commend to everyone Sinclair Ferguson's wonderful 3-message series on The Marrow Controversy (https://www.sermonaudio.com/series/15512), which deals with the subtleties of legalism in evangelical garb, among other important issues.
Just because they won’t claim themselves to be something, you think it not right to call a spade a spade? Do they not also claim they are non-abusive, etc., and yet we know their ‘works’ to be otherwise?
Do we need to even bother with having a term to use to describe this ‘church?’ If so, why? What is alleviated by giving it any other name than what it is: a cult (if a name must be given). And no, I’m not concerned about the old definitions of cults. Cults have evolved, like all crafty, evil things, and so now we are seeing cults emerging from within what we once considered solid orthodoxy. Call them CULTures, if you like, as there is no difference. Their fabric is manmade, and the precious Word of God is only levied to sustain its power. It is an amalgamation of some good theology (in theory, for the most part) and some vicious and destructive heresy. While they pride themselves on what they (and no one else) is doing “correctly,” they willfully ignore their evident departures of the Faith. Their ears are deaf and their eyes blind. Their hearts are hardened. The leaders are only part of the problem; the congregation in their grasp is made of people, and these people are free to think and choose of their willfulness- and yet, like their leaders, they refuse. They are more afraid of their leaders and worldly losses than God. They are all of them complicit in this. People are always wanting to point the finger at presidents, leaders, etc- but none of those people would have a shred of power without conforming sycophants.
They do indeed search out those who seek to be experiencing misfortune, and go after them. But I don’t believe they and other leaders do this truly from a place in the heart that believes God is punishing all of these people- that, of course, would be heresy (not to mention, at least one elder in many sessions dissents to these antics). I believe it is really done from a deep place of selfishness in the heart- and pride. If people fear ridicule and punishment from their leaders if they suffer anything, they are more likely to hide their sufferings- and in that, problem solved (for the leaders). A problem not known is WORK not needed to be done. Real work. Like love, compassion, and genuine pastoral care. These leaders don’t possess that in the heart which would lend to these acts of service, so they invent theologies over the centuries to cater to their willfulness and sin. They craft doctrines that support the adulation they wish to receive and the labor they wish to avoid. Their god is their bellies, as it is written.
I don’t believe in Christian Nationalism. Whatever they concoct, it will not be ‘Christian.’ To be a Christian is individual, and the Church is a group of people past, present, and future, from all peoples and nations. While conservative in my beliefs, I detest politics. The R. Party has essentially hijacked what they find useful in Christianity, and created their own brand- their own amalgam. It is similarly manmade religion. The Left has been setting up their own religion too, defining what a good person is: a good person recycles, lives green, saves the planet, fights global warming, affirms all people in their sin, despite it being sin. Each party is EVIL and leading America to its doom in its own way. The only right Way is the straight and narrow, Jesus.
I also concur with familiarizing oneself with the Marrow Controversy.
This is interesting. I think I agree with at least the brief summary, that we're not better off with some balance of legalism and antinomianism to trade off each other.
I do think it's helpful to clarify definitions, because using a broad brush "legalism" to paint something that isn't specifically related to salvation blurs the term and opens the door for an RP apologete (as one did to me) to say that it isn't legalism because it's not "works-based salvation".
As I said, I think whether RP church is a cult or not is up for debate, and it may very well be church-by-church because some churches are very cultish (abusive and intrusive) and others really aren't.
With the political controversy, I keep coming back to the fact that we vote for these people. If morality really matters to the church, at some point the church should be saying, we tend to favor the policies of this candidate, but this person is so immoral we can't in good conscience recommend anyone vote for them. I've occasionally voted for 3rd party candidates because the mainstream options were bad and I think having a reasonable 3rd party would fix a lot.
Reading through Proverbs is a pretty big wake-up call for politics.
"When a country is rebellious, it has many rulers, but a ruler with discernment and knowledge maintains order. A ruler who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain that leaves no crops." (Prov 28:2-3)
"Like a roaring lion or a charging bear is a wicked ruler over a helpless people. A tyrannical ruler practices extortion, but one who hates ill-gotten gain will enjoy a long reign." (Prov 28:15-16)
Seems like bi-partisan criticism to me.
Ferguson points out that legalism and antinomianism are NOT opposites of each other (and therefore it's never a matter of finding a balance between the two). Legalism and antinomianism are different reactions to the same unbelief in God and His Law as good. They are therefore both opposites of grace.
Not sure which anonymous this is, but I feel like it's awkward to paint legalism and cult with broad brush strokes and then dissect hairs when dealing with this specific issue.
What's interesting to me is that Paul's response to the (legalistic?) Galatians is that they are teaching a different gospel, but his response to the (antinomian?) Corinthians is that they need to clean up their act. So, not sure where Ferguson find his Biblical support for whatever he's teaching on antinomianism, but it seems that the Corinthians at least have some concept of grace that the Galatians don't.
Thank you, anonymous, that’s exactly Ferguson’s meaning, I believe. His illustration of Eve was one good example.
While he told them to clean up their act, did he not say to put one out of the church?
The Church should be saying we should favor the policies of a candidate? These offices we vote for are the world system. If it’s in one’s conscience to vote, fine. But participating in a voluntary process of the world system has nothing to do with the Christian life. Voting is a right, not a mandate. To vote or not to vote is between each man/woman and God and/or his/her conscience. We live in this world, and we can participate as much therein we feel convicted and it doesn’t contradict the Scriptures or our conscience. But the Church has NO part in a world system. As a conservative (not Republican, mind you, as I am a Christian only and am neither registered or tethered to any worldly Party), I am honestly angered that the R. Party has interwoven the parts of the Faith that benefit them with their politics. It’s abhorrent to me. It’s tainted the Faith for those in its clutches. It’s become cultish. Both parties are now unmistakably cults. Church and State are separate entities, and our identity (and belonging) to Christ are the foundation of everything in who we are. I’ve been bullied by parents and many about why I’m not voting anymore and won’t staunchly uphold the GOP. I’ve explained my position tenderly, and clearly: I believe some things they’re doing are good and right, and others I abhor. I cannot therefore accept a Party wholly if I don’t agree wholly. Further, I’m disturbed about the amount of time and conviction these ‘Christian’s’ put into their politics, and how little of Jesus - in fact, the more the politics increase, the more His importance decreases to them. They use His Name in vain in this way, in my opinion. As for the other Party, there’s nothing to say about that ‘coven.’ Any true Christian sees the absolute hatred and disdain for our God, and I won’t spend a moment debating anyone on this. Either Christ has our affections, or the world does. We can do things in the world, but we can be blind as to if it’s the world is finding its place in us, not really Christ. The fruit of politics today is devastating on all sides: whole families have been so completely wrecked by strife and division, and society is a place I look on now with increasing sadness and disgust. The fabric of this country has been so interwoven with the fallout of this political circus that I don’t believe we’ll ever recover. Something essential has been lost. And while most are using their time to rally to whatever is trending, they are monstrously avoiding the good fight- the fight for the real atrocities happening in our country. There is no honor in being paid to protest, protesting and bullying others to ones point of view (group evil to the max), and creating division in families by targeting SPECIFICALLY the younger generations - people whose minds aren’t even fully developed- and brainwashing them with their ever-evolving, sickening manifesto. These young people are committing suicide in numbers never before seen, and they are turning against their families in numbers never before seen. Familial estrangement is off the charts now. There is a precisely evil force at work destabilizing our country, and the REAL resistance are the ones who aren’t falling for any of it-on either side- and who refuse to harden their hearts as this lawlessness grows…
… We all need to stop pointing fingers at a single leader or person and start taking a good look inside, “what, Lord, would you have me do with my small life?…what do you require of ME?” But that’s hard, isn’t it? It’s so easy to get caught up in the red or the blue team in life; it feels good to belong. But once the Lord opens one’s eyes to what’s really happening, that façade all falls away, and one sees themself truly: alone, him/herself and God alone. Group evil exploits our innermost desires to belong, and it takes strength to say no, and cry out to God instead for help. For His Presence, for real belonging.
ALL parties oppress the poor in different ways. And a third party would still be led by a human being. There would still be ‘doctrine’ to write. The first time I voted I write in a candidate, ‘Daffy Duck,’ thinking myself funny. Flippant was my real attitude. The next election may be the first I don’t vote, depending on conscience. But my hope is not found in politics anymore, and I’ve been freeer ever since. There is only One source of hope. One Leader. “He’s the King, I tell ya.” (CSL)
That’s my vote.
I believe our Lord’s return may be sooner than we all expect.
Yes. Not sure how that conflicts with anything I said. Telling a church they should excommunicate someone is not an accusation that they are teaching a different gospel.
I didn't say "should".
"But the Church has NO part in a world system." - I disagree. The church has a responsibility to speak truth and not shrink away from engaging in the fight against sin in the world. I agree with you wholeheartedly that the church should not be campaigning for or endorsing candidates, but I do believe that the church can take a stand on matters of policy.
Is it immoral for the church to teach on the sanctity of life because the political parties have made that a point of contention? I would argue that both parties miss the heart of the matter in the debate.
I believe it is entirely called for when Pope Leo has spoken out against the United States' hatred of immigrants.
Choosing whether or not to vote is certainly a matter of personal conviction. The RPCNA held, for much of its history, that Christians could not participate in the political process of a non-Christian government. Eventually they repented of that, since non-participation is a guarantee that the government will remain antagonistic towards the church.
I was taught in the RPCNA that voting for a candidate meant that I personally endorsed them, and thus all sorts of baggage, must be a Christian, must be a Republican (implied, not commanded), must be morally upright. I don't believe that any more. I think it's completely moral to vote for "the lesser of two evils"(gasp).
All that said, I believe that many Evangelicals have it completely wrong. I think you're onto the right idea. The gospel is not spread through the power of the state. We cannot make the United States a Christian nation. Only the Holy Spirit can, and he works primarily through the actions of individuals. When we volunteer at a food pantry or serve meals or donate to organizations that are meeting the daily needs of people, that makes this country Christian, and that's what the church was before we lost our way.
I do agree with this. I find myself being caught between wanting to understand the system to fix it, and being driven to despair about how broken the system is and how people are voting for their own demise (in both parties!).
As I said, the work of Jesus, in this case, is to spend our time doing what Jesus would have us do. We can still pray for our leaders, that they would choose to serve and not enrich themselves, and miracles can happen, but we can make an impact for Jesus with the people he brings to us each day.
Amen
The Church has a responsibility to speak the truth from a Christian platform (the Holy Spirit working in the Believer), not a political platform.
It is not immoral to teach on the sanctity of life, but the teachings should stay strictly in the ‘Christian lane,’ without overt or even subtle allusions that are intended by the speaker and understand by the hearer to be promoting or disavowing either Party. There should be NO promotion or ill-speaking of either Party in a church sermon; this is a solemn teaching which should never stray into any area outside of Christ. Christ never encouraged or bad-mouthed any world system to influence His followers for or against. He pointed only to His Father, to the Godhead, essentially. He did settle the tax question, shrewdly for those on both sides of that argument. And we are told to obey governing authorities- but it is understood, by allowing scripture to inform scripture, that we would not obey if they told us to do something against God.
So, for example: let’s say we’re told to wear masks. It sucks, sure, especially for people like me who are practically blind without our glasses and hate the hassle of contacts (fogging lenses up when breathing) lol. But because it’s not a sin, resisting it and fighting about it is itself a sin. We don’t have to agree: we just have to obey (Bible says so!), provided it’s not a sin against God. But it we were told to do anything sinful, we would have every right to resist and stand by our faith. And on that note, I fully believe in standing up for the unborn, but I think Christian’s often do it terribly. Arguing online and making it political isn’t Christian. What is Christian? Peacefully being present at clinics outside, offering help and alternatives to the women going in. Radical help- even giving them a place to live in their homes until the child is born and assisting with adoption or re-homing, etc. Real actions, Christlike help- not rants and fights online and with people.
I agree. I think it's difficult and I don't think Jesus was entirely neutral. For example, the disciples were breaking the law by harvesting grain on the Sabbath. Jesus did not say, "oh well, I guess that's the law and we should obey authorities." Instead, he said the law was invalid because it was a misrepresentation of the Biblical law. Paul apologized for disrespecting the high priest, but Jesus and John the Baptist called the religious leaders vipers.
I think the church does have to weigh in on political matters sometimes. For example, in the abortion debate, the conservative church took a stand that it was an unacceptable moral hazard to make contraception available to teenagers, even though it greatly lowered the abortion rate.
The church, then, has to get political because there is no "perfect" solution to the abortion debate and, of necessity, making progress in this is multi-faceted and involves weighing "bad" alternatives. Providing contraception to teenagers has been shown to significantly reduce the abortion rate. Does the church then say that saving unborn life outweighs the appearance of condoning pre-marital sex? I do believe that God does this sort of weighing. Jesus says, "It's for the hardness of your hearts that God allowed divorce." Jesus seems to be saying that what would have happened if divorce was forbidden would have been worse than allowing divorce. That's a political statement, because God is allowing a lesser evil to protect from a greater evil.
But, to your point, I think the system of Christianity is upside-down in the sense of our world systems. Instead of Christianity growing from a place of power and imposing religious order, Christianity and Christian morality grows from a place of Spirit-inspired neighboring. I think the RPCNA and NRA (National Reform Association) are misguided in the sense that trying to force the kingship of Jesus by putting it in the Constitution would be unnecessary if the church were instead focused on doing the work of ministering to the lost.
They weren’t harvesting grain, as we account work.it seems they were plucking pieces to get a little nourishment while in motion. My understanding is it was not against the Law to do what they did, and it was the Pharisees that were always codifying the Law (gnats). So he didn’t invalidate the actual Law re: work, only the legalistic interpretation the Pharisees were applying. As for obedience to governing authorities, I’m referencing Romans, and its application to the Church.
One can weigh in on moral issues, those which are compatible with Christian life- that is not weighing in on politics. Sometimes theological truths will overlap within the political sphere, but we are speaking as Christian’s, not involving ourselves in politics. A political party that has hijacked Christian principles to sway their voters should not be confused with the place from which we operate in the heart…
The Pharisees were civil leaders. I'm not sure exactly what power they were given, but one of the discussions they have re: Jesus is that the Romans gave them power to punish lawbreakers, but they could not impose the death penalty. It's difficult, then to figure out whether this is a discussion with some random pastors, or whether it's more like chatting with police officers deciding whether to write a ticket.
I think politics is more broad than you're claiming. If we define politics as a process of determining the legal boundaries on citizen's behavior, then the church does have a lot to say about what is behaviorally right and wrong. I think what you're saying is that it is inadvisable for a church to say "Joe Candidate is a good guy and deserves your vote", or "All Christians must be Democrats or they're disobeying God." - that is completely true. When a state, however, starts having discussions about what form of discipline is appropriate for children, and who is allowed to inflict that punishment, the church most certainly has opinions, and those opinions are necessarily political.
It's a fun discussion, but most likely something we will have zero control over, which is why I totally agree with you that our best path forward as individual Christians is to be the hands and feet of Jesus in loving our neighbors.
Post a Comment