Women and spiritual gifts

Speaking of the downtrodden RPs. I wonder what sort of lens we are supposed to apply to scriptures like these:

Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? But earnestly desire the greater gifts. (1 Cor 12:27-31a)

“It will come about after this
That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind;
And your sons and daughters will prophesy,
Your old men will dream dreams,
Your young men will see visions.
“Even on the male and female servants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days. (Joel 2:27-28)

I guess the question that this should raise, but seems not to have is the question of whether women are included here. Women are told that they cannot be spiritually gifted to be teachers. So if we take Paul's enumeration of the gifts here: 1 - apostles, 2 - prophets, 3 - teachers (pastor/elders), this raises some significant questions:

1) The Reformed church teaches that women are spiritually equal to men, and that they simply have different "roles". However, Paul enumerates spiritual gifts, and commands all (men and women) to pursue greater gifts. So, if men are spiritually able to pursue the gift of teaching, and women are not, then doesn't this therefore say that women are spiritually inferior to men, despite claims otherwise?

2) Many women are called prophetesses, and the Joel passage talks about women prophesying. If the spiritual gift of prophecy is greater than the gift of teaching, then why do we think that women cannot teach? That would be like saying that women can play volleyball at the high school and olympic level, but not in college or professionally.

Bruce Hemphill wrote a paper asking the RPCNA to study whether women can be elders. One thing that was troubling was that the committee assigned to counsel Bruce spoke to him and at presbytery about a "Patriarchal lens" that should be applied to scripture. I've been taught all my life that scripture interprets scripture, so if scripture doesn't say to interpret scripture with a patriarchal lens, where does that come from?

Instead, scripture seems to suggest the opposite. The idea that the husband will "rule over" his wife being a curse suggests that the "patriarchal lens" men apply to scripture is part of the curse, not part of a correct interpretation of the will of God. Instead, we see suggestions of an "equality lens" in the Joel passage - that God pours out His Spirit on the noble and the lowly, without regard to position. Paul says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:28). Does Paul suggest a patriarchal lens?

This gets to one of the core RPCNA issues. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. What I mean is that Bruce Hemphill was considered an enemy by many in that presbytery, and the committee that counseled and charged Bruce Hemphill was seen as the enemy of the enemy. Yet, people were not on guard for what the committee was about to do:

1) They circumvented due process: The committee recommended that Bruce be "counseled" to request termination of his ordination within 120 days. In other words, they wanted a deposition trial, without an actual trial. Bruce was simply supposed to punish himself. In fact, when Bruce was charged and tried, one of the charges was "contempt of court" for not punishing himself.

2) They, according to Bruce, introduced a heretical view (Eternal Submission of the Son) as the basis for their rejection of Bruce's paper.

3) They introduced the "patriarchal lens" at presbytery as partial basis for rejection of Bruce's paper.

4) They charged him for rejecting query 4 of his vows (Do you believe in and accept the system of doctrine and the manner of worship...) and yet they haven't explained why he should be treated differently for his rejection while many elders and deacons are not charged or even refused office when they reject "women deacons".

So, the "friends" did go after the "enemy", but what has the church sacrificed in taking the easy road? Another rejection of due process? Tacit approval of heresy?

This is exactly what the RPCNA got when they approved the Worship Committee paper as a response to a paper against Exclusive Psalmody. The WC paper introduced "worship as covenant renewal", the "dialogical principle" and stronger liturgy. Interesting that Synod rejected covenant renewal in the Directory for Worship rewrite only to have the committee chair reassert it later in an RP Witness article.

Why the Westminster Larger Catechism teaching on the 5th commandment is wrong and dangerous.

Q. 124. Who are meant by father and mother in the fifth commandment?

A. By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not only natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts; and especially such as, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth. 

Q. 125. Why are superiors styled father and mother? 

A. Superiors are styled father and mother, both to teach them in all duties toward their inferiors, like natural parents, to express love and tenderness to them, according to their several relations; and to work inferiors to a greater willingness and cheerfulness in performing their duties to their superiors, as to their parents. 

Q. 127. What is the honour that inferiors owe to their superiors? 

A. The honour which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence in heart, word, and behaviour; prayer and thanksgiving for them; imitation of their virtues and graces; willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels; due submission to their corrections; fidelity to, defence, and maintenance of their persons and authority, according to their several ranks, and the nature of their places; bearing with their infirmities, and covering them in love, that so they may be an honour to them and to their government. 

Q. 128. What are the sins of inferiors against their superiors? 

A. The sins of inferiors against their superiors are, all neglect of the duties required toward them; envying at, contempt of, and rebellion against, their persons and places, in their lawful counsels, commands, and corrections; cursing, mocking and all such refractory and scandalous carriage, as proves a shame and dishonour to them and their government. 

Q. 129. What is required of superiors towards their inferiors? 

A. It is required of superiors, according to that power they receive from God, and that relation wherein they stand, to love, pray for, and bless their inferiors; to instruct, counsel, and admonish them; countenancing, commending, and rewarding such as do well; and discountenancing, reproving, and chastising such as do ill; protecting, and providing for them all things necessary for soul and body: and by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary carriage, to procure glory to God, honour to themselves, and so to preserve that authority which God hath put upon them. 

Q. 130. What are the sins of superiors? 

A. The sins of superiors are, besides the neglect of the duties required of them, and inordinate seeking of themselves, their own glory, ease, profit, or pleasure; commanding things unlawful, or not in the power of inferiors to perform; counseling, encouraging, or favouring them in that which is evil; dissuading, discouraging, or discountenancing them in that which is good; correcting them unduly; careless exposing, or leaving them to wrong, temptation, and danger; provoking them to wrath; or any way dishonouring themselves, or lessening their authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or remiss behaviour.

This is a long quote, mainly so that it doesn't look like it is taken out of context. There are four significant issues with this teaching. The primary one is a sin of omission, and the remainders are sins of commission. 

1) The most notable omission is the lack of any talk about abuse and abusers. Abuse is taking upon yourself authority not granted, or exercising granted authority using inappropriate means. It is also called "domineering". For example, elders are told not to Lord it over the flock. Jesus states that a defining character of gentile leaders is domineering and told his disciples that they are not to be that way.

So, why is the omission of domineering so crucial to the teaching of the fifth commandment? Since the RPCNA follows the Westminster standards, the omission has invaded in many ways when superior/inferior relationships are taught. Because we ignore the sin of domineering and abuse, we don't teach them. When we don't teach them, people think that they don't exist, and when people don't think they exist, then when sheep are domineered, they turn a blind eye, or even applaud. For example, the session that ruthlessly goes after a wayward member is rewarded for "the marks of a true church". When the member complains about the abusive treatment, the congregation rallies around the leaders and ignores the member or worse, says that the member deserved the harsh treatment because of his waywardness. No one ever deserves abuse. Jesus was harsh towards the Pharisees, but they were the abusers. Think about that. Jesus was gentle towards wayward sinners, but he was harsh towards those who were oppressing and battering the sheep. Because of Westminster, we are the opposite. We harass and defame those who are being abused, and we praise and honor the abusers. Just like in Jesus's day. Perhaps things haven't changed all that much.

2) Westminster defines superiors as those superior in "age and gifts". This is taken, for example, to mean that children ought to obey adults. But, this is ludicrous. Age doesn't say one specific age, neither does gifts say specific gifts. Age and gifts cannot be lumped together with those in authoritative relationships. They are a different category altogether. Yes! I should respect and honor those who are older and more gifted, but I should respect and honor everyone. I should respect children and I should respect the aged. I should respect the mentally incapacitated and I should respect the mentally superior. Separating them out as a special class having to do with the 5th commandment is neither helpful, nor Biblical.

3) Westminster uses the terms "superior" and "inferior" to refer to roles. As many elsewhere have pointed out, while we can weasel around those words meaning simply stations in life or roles, actions speak louder than words. For example, the Bible says that iron sharpens iron, and that we ought to submit to one another. Matthew 18 does not qualify "brother". This goes beyond correction. There is a presumption that a superior is intellectually, morally and spiritually more advanced. This was a claim of the Pharisees, who rebuked correction due to their supposed superiority. With it goes a presumption of innocence of superiors and guilt of inferiors. Would my child be heard if she said that I was abusing her, or would she be dismissed? Are spiritually abusive leaders opposed or rewarded?

4) Westminster talks about "lawful commands". The RPCNA take on lawful commands is commands that do not require me to sin. That is, commands that are in accordance with the law of God. This is an abusive definition, and we have double standards to prove it. We all know that a policeman must have a warrant to enter my house to search it. So, we are taught. Ask for a warrant. A warrant is LEGAL AUTHORITY to search. But... is letting the policeman in sinful? Probably not. So, we recognize that a lawful command is not necessarily an authoritative command. There is a difference. And we teach that difference - that we only need to obey the government's authoritative command, not commands that go beyond their authority, yet don't require us to sin.

But... when it comes to husbands, elders and fathers, this difference goes out the window. Wives, members and children are taught to OBEY, OBEY, OBEY, unless the command is immoral. If my session wants me to lead the singing. OBEY. If my husband wants me to only wear ankle-length dresses. OBEY. If my father tells me to clean up his vomit after a drinking binge. OBEY. Yet, one could hardly argue that God explicitly gives that authority to the elders, husbands and fathers.

All told, this is much of why the RPCNA continues to maintain an abusive view of authority, why they continue to support and defend abusive husbands, fathers and elders, and why they continue to batter the sheep.

Anonymous comments -> enabled

Hi all,

     I have been looking at moving to WordPress because they allow commenting without an OpenId. When I looked at the settings on Blogger, I realized that I could allow Anonymous comments. It's not perfect, but it's better than having to potentially expose your information.

     Since I grew up in the RP church, I know the potential stigma of having your name or id out in the open for searching. In fact, I do know some examples where people have been linked to their online comments.

     So, please feel free to comment anonymously. I am considering whether I should remain anonymous as well, as I am not sure whether it is healthy to fear whatever backlash I might get from having my real name out there.

Abusive power, Satan's stronghold in conservative Christianity.

To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” [Gen 3:16]

Thus says the Lord, “Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.  For if you men will indeed perform this thing, then kings will enter the gates of this house, sitting in David’s place on his throne, riding in chariots and on horses, even the king himself and his servants and his people.  But if you will not obey these words, I swear by Myself,” declares the Lord, “that this house will become a desolation.”’” [Jer 22:3-5] 

 ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will demand My sheep from them and make them cease from feeding sheep. So the shepherds will not feed themselves anymore, but I will deliver My flock from their mouth, so that they will not be food for them.”’ [Ezek 34:10]

How long will the conservative Evangelical church continue to abuse without impunity and still remain? I don't know. The church should be defending the powerless and weak, and yet instead it sides with the oppressor. How can that be, you ask. The hypocrisy of submission.

The church teaches that authority has limits, but it also teaches that we should submit to authority in the Lord. Someone who demands obedience beyond those limits is a sinner. That person is usurping authority. So, we can divide a command from someone in authority into three categories:

Lawful commands within the sphere of authority: I can require my child to stay inside during a tornado warning. As his God-given protector, I have a responsibility to keep him from harm, and that may require me to issue commands for his own protection. These can always be worked backwards to a positive need. It is dangerous to be outside if a tornado hits, and it is my responsibility to keep you safe from harm, so I need you to stay in the basement. Another one might be, "Put away that fireplace lighter!" - you don't yet have the skills necessarily to handle accidents that might arise from use or misuse of a fireplace lighter, so you may not use it without my active supervision. Or "Take your medicine." You could get more sick or even die if you don't take this medicine, and it is my responsibility to keep you reasonably healthy, so you need to drink this medicine. When I am acting with proper authority, there is always a path from God to me as a parent, etc., to the person under authority.

Lawful commands without authority: I could command my child to sing karaoke at the next church talent show. In this case, there is no clear scriptural warrant for my command, yet my child is not sinning by obeying, so this is a lawful command. Yet, it is usurpation. When my child inevitably asks "why?", what is my answer.  Well... "I love hearing you sing and it would be great for you to sing to the church." See this answer starts from my personal preference, not from Biblical command or warrant. How about "Because I'm your father and I said so!" Well, again, it starts with me and ends with obedience. How is this proper authority from God? If you can't walk your command back to God then perhaps you don't have the authority to require it. Jesus says "render to Caesar that which is Caesar's." He doesn't say "render to Caesar everything he commands you." I don't believe God requires us to obey commands without authority, lawful or not.

Unlawful commands: These are clearly to be disobeyed. If I ask my son to steal a candy bar from the grocery store, he is required by God to say no. This has mostly been settled since the "Divine Right of Kings" era where the king thought that he could command things that were sinful for his subjects, yet have them be required to ignore their consciences, because, after all he WAS the king.

Church abuse: I believe that churches abuse those under authority, whom they should protect, when they require submission to "lawful commands without authority". So, let's say my son is terrified on being on stage at church, and while he loves singing at home, he doesn't want to get up in front of so many people. Perhaps a loving and gracious father might find ways to encourage and work through that fear, but for the sake of argument. I just double down. "You WILL sing for the talent show." When he refuses, I punish him. He still refuses. Finally, I take him to the pastor. "Pastor Harry, Nick is refusing to obey me. I told him that he has to sing for the church talent show and he is refusing. Could you help me out?" Well, our good conservative pastor reminds Nick that "children are to obey their parents!" and tells him that he must obey whatever I say.

What just happened? Well, first, I abused my son. I commanded him to do something that wasn't my right to command. My authority is limited in this case. When he refuses, (if I don't have the right to command, then why does he have the responsibility to obey?) I punish him (wrongly and thus abusively). Then when that doesn't work, the pastor commands him to obey me (the pastor has no right to require that which the Bible doesn't). If that still doesn't work, he might be disciplined for insubordination. But, there's more. Nick was just abused and the church sided with his father's abuse. Nick knows it is unjust and he now faults the church with injustice.

Submit.... to what? The RPCNA is hypocritical when it comes to submission. The Bible talks about authority and submission interchangeably. Wives submit to husbands. Children submit to parents. We submit to our government. We submit to our elders. The church submits to Christ. Christ submits to the Father. The words submit and obey are generally used interchangeably, although submit is generally seen in the sense of a higher order - we submit to the plans and dreams rather than submitting to make dinner.

Why is this important? Because we need to understand that submission is always within the context of authority. In order to submit, I need something to submit to. I don't submit to a person, I submit to an authoritative role. A policeman. An elder. My parent. My boss. That authoritative role is limited. My boss cannot claim spiritual oversight, just as a policeman can't make me clean my room.

The reason the RPCNA is hypocritical is that they reserve certain roles: parent, husband and elder, and say that their authority is absolute - meaning that one must obey any lawful command given by one of those three people. Yet, there is no difference between the submission we are told to give the government. What is different? It's not hermeneutics. It's simply that it's nonsensical.

Everyone knows that a policeman has no authority to demand entrance to your house without a search warrant. There are other extenuating circumstances, but those are not pertinent. So, a policeman shows up to your door tomorrow and commands you to let him into your house. That is indeed a lawful command, because police can request entrance any time. What would you say, well NO of course. If you want to search my house, you need a warrant. That is a very clear example of a lawful command without authority. Policemen who then use physical force to obtain entry are breaking the law. Okay, so we get that.

But... here's the problem. It is the same for fathers, husbands and pastors. We can say NO... But we really can't. That's because the RPCNA wields and supports abusive power. Let me clarify. The RPCNA is a haven for child abusers, spouse abusers and spiritual abusers. The RPCNA doesn't stand alone. You see, Nick is all alone. He has been abused and the church says it's his fault. He didn't obey his dad. Just like the wife. When her husband hits her, well, yeah, that might be a little wrong, but she should submit to the fact that he wants to take money out of her bank account.

Don't be fooled. There are many godly and wise leaders in the RPCNA, but they are so completely absorbed in their desire to enforce submission (their definition) that they will completely humiliate and destroy anyone who stands in their path. The ones that aren't so godly or wise are going to take the path of least resistance, which means abusing the powerless. If you are a leader, you need to repent and seek to change this before God takes away the lamp stand. If you are a member. You've been warned. If you are a child... be strong and wait. What feels unjust to you is probably unjust. There are other churches where you can find godly leaders who understand authority and heal, but for now you must endure.

Authority and our view of God

Something that has enlightened me over the past few weeks and months is how my view of God has been shaped by the peculiar RP views of authority.

Unquestioned obedience:

RP's like to teach that the "superiors" should enjoy unquestioned obedience from their "inferiors" due to the superiority of their wisdom, gifts and position. Children are taught to obey their parents, members are taught to obey their elders and everyone is taught to obey the governing authorities. This somehow stems from the fact that authority relationships ultimately portray our relationship with God, and we should unquestioningly obey God. However, this is not supportable from scripture. First of all, God doesn't expect us to obey Him without establishing a relationship first. For example, God didn't send Moses back to Egypt without miraculous displays of power and graciously handling Moses's questions. But, many of the people who questioned God got gracious answers and not punishment.

• Gideon questions God and God responds by miraculously manipulating a fleece.
• Samson's father, Manoah asked God to come back and repeat the commands regarding Samson. (Interestingly, God's command first came to Samson's mother)
• Samuel questions God when he is sent to anoint David and God gives him a way to avoid tipping Saul off.
• When God told Hezekiah to put his house in order before his death, Hezekiah prayed that God would let him recover, and God healed him.
• God told Ezekiel to eat cakes baked over human dung. Ezekiel protested that he had never eaten anything unclean, and God allowed him to eat it over cow dung instead.
• The angel who appeared to Mary graciously answered her question about how Jesus would be born when she was a virgin.
• Ananias questioned God when he was sent to heal Saul, but God graciously answered him.

There are surely other examples, and there are examples where people are "punished" for doubting God, but we see that God graciously handles questioned obedience. If we are to be authorities who represent God faithfully, then why do we expected unquestioned obedience?

Letter of the law:

RP's like to think that God's will is served by strict adherence to his commands. We tell kids that their obedience should be willing and cheerful, but that instead creates a two-faced obedience. That two-faced obedience is a signature of Reformed authority. For example, Ted Tripp talks about shepherding a child's heart, but that shepherding is just a second legalistic layer added onto the first legalistic layer. In other words, if I tithe, that is the first layer of obedience, but then the church says that if I tithe without the right attitudes or reverence, thankfulness, etc., then it is also sinful. Instead of cultivating a gracious and loving view of God, we just doubly weigh down people.

My relationship with God was destroyed by his unapproachability. What I took away from what I was taught was that instead of God graciously accepting me where I am, instead, God ungraciously condemns me for every slight infraction.

That also translated to those in authority. That is, those who are under authority have to act graciously and lovingly to those who are their superiors, but those who are superiors have, seemingly, no such requirements towards their inferiors. That is, when a child erred, the parents had the green light to take care of that by whatever means necessary. Parents who graciously redirected their children or calmly explained the error were "spoiling" their kids, while those who took them aside and beat them for even minor infractions were "good" parents. In the same way, the sessions who ungraciously steamrolled the sin out of their congregation showed "the marks of a true church", while those that worked slowly to resolve and reconcile sin were weak. Perhaps it's better to say that enforcing the letter of the law is more important to superiors than the grace and love they show in the enforcement. I've been told by elders that, if I agree with what was ultimately accomplished then I will come to accept the means by which that was accomplished. The ends justify the means. So, is it therefore okay to establish a household of fear and intimidation to get children to obey the letter of the law? What would their view of God be in that case? I would argue, a similar view to the one that I grew up with and had - that home and the church are the places where you put on your righteous happy face and outside of that is where we can be real. There are so many RP children who confessed to this two-faced existence. I don't believe it's an accident. It's encouraged by the legalism and fear encouraged in RP parenting.

Superiority / Worthlessness:

This is a little trickier to explain and defend. We all know and are taught that God is perfect and superior. Yet, we are also taught that we are "united with Christ" and "co-heirs with Christ". We are also taught that Christ and the Father are equally perfect. Yet, they have different roles: father and son. So, we need to be very careful when we talk about the superiority of our roles - elder to member, husband to wife, parent to child, government official to citizen.

This is, I think, the greatest weakness of those in authority, and it is also the least talked about when dealing with authority. Instead, one of the ways, seemingly, to help us respond appropriately to those in authority is to beat the drum of superiority. Yet, in the passage I keep referring to it's different:

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Matt 20:25-28)

The natural condition of those in authority is to assert that authority and claim dominance (lord it over). Not surprisingly it happens through those means above. Yet, as with many things in the Christian church, authority is portrayed as the opposite. We honor father and mother, yes, but in the church it is the "less honorable" that we bestow honor upon. In the same way, those who are in authority are not served, but are the ones serving. The concept of servant leadership misses this point completely. Servant leadership is like the abusive parent who thinks he is serving his child by punishing him severely.

So, as a parent, I have to be careful to portray the responsibility of their care without claiming superiority. I have to be careful to apply discipline, not to create an environment of unquestioned obedience, but to help them develop the proper understanding of right and wrong. I've discovered with my children that harshness does not convey anything but harshness.

The flip side of this coin is that in painting those in authority as superior, we portray those without authority as inferior. No surprise, since those are the EXACT words used in the Westminster Larger Catechism, and although my pastor friends like to hedge those words when confronted, the message in sermons is loud and clear. Why else would an elder tell me what I should believe and then refuse to listen to my scriptural objections? Why else would a church require an elder to be present whenever there is instruction? Why else would a church refuse to listen to a wife or child claim abuse, or why would they then ask, "well, what did YOU do?". Why would a Presbytery insist on hearing the Session's side of a complaint before the member's?

This also affected me in terms of seeking office. As someone who grew up worthless, I aspired to the eldership, not because I wanted to serve, love and help people, but because I understood it as the only way to not be worthless. Now that I'm older and wiser, I don't feel called to that - not that I'm less knowledgeable or qualified than many RP elders, but that I'm not sure that I have been taught to love, or have grown to love God's sheep as I feel I would need to.

Approachability:

The RP view of God on His throne is that of a majestic king in unapproachable glory. A very true picture, but we need to be complete in our view of God who is also described in more approachable terms:

For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” (Rom 8:15)

We need to be careful, then, to understand that our adopted Father in heaven is yes, the great king on the throne, but also our loving, devoted, proud father. One who wants to know how our day went and the fact that we scraped our knee on our bike and that we got an A on our test. He is the one who allows us to be angry with him and yet runs with open arms to hug us when we mess up and repent. This is yet another picture of godly authority - love, grace and familiarity. When we focus on the picture of the throne room - sovereignty, perfection and judgment, we miss the family room - snuggles, conversations and warmth.

One of my greatest struggles with God is approachability. Because my own father was distant, cold and judgmental, it is hard for me to grow beyond that in my view of the Father. The cold, distant stereotype is so pervasive in the RP church that it is no surprise that the leaders we choose are the most cold and distant. It has been really, really hard for me to grow from being a distant, code and judgmental father into one who is warm and approachable. One who values, loves and shows grace to my children. When my kids scrape their knees when they fall off their bike, for me it becomes a natural lesson in carelessness and not an opportunity to show love. What, then am I portraying about God?

We are struggling with this as an entire society. The recent police violence has been one, I think, fed by the move towards the distant, cold and judgmental officer, rather than police being trained in warm graciousness. We want a country ruled by cold regulations and cold jails rather than charity and grace.

Perhaps this is why Deism has become more of the country's religion. We no longer believe in a loving, warm and near God. Instead, we believe in a cold, distant, judgmental God who snapped the world into existence, and now sadly looks at the state of affairs from an impenetrable distance.

Conclusion:

I thought this especially applicable, given the routine abuse and authoritarianism of the Catholic church:

Synodality, as a constitutive element of the Church, offers us the most appropriate interpretive framework for understanding the hierarchical ministry itself. If we understand, as Saint John Chrysostom says, that “Church and Synod are synonymous”, inasmuch as the Church is nothing other than the “journeying together” of God’s flock along the paths of history towards the encounter with Christ the Lord, then we understand too that, within the Church, no one can be “raised up” higher than others. On the contrary, in the Church, it is necessary that each person “lower” himself or herself, so as to serve our brothers and sisters along the way. ... 

Let us never forget this! For the disciples of Jesus, yesterday, today and always, the only authority is the authority of service, the only power is the power of the cross. As the Master tells us: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave” (Mt 20:25-27). It shall not be so among you: in this expression we touch the heart of the mystery of the Church, and we receive the enlightenment necessary to understand our hierarchical service. (Pope Francis, 17 Oct 2015)

If the role of those in the church is to lift one another's burdens, then it is the calling of those in authority to be lifting even more burdens. Perhaps God has given us strength, not so that we can swing the whip harder, but that we can stand more weight on our backs.

Geneva's new president, just like the previous ones.

According to Geneva College's website, Dr. Calvin Troup has been elected to be the next President. http://www.geneva.edu/about-geneva/president/

Consider the backgrounds of the last few Presidents:

Dr. Ken Smith, public university department chair
Dr. John White, Geneva department chair
Dr. Joseph McFarland, Director of Academic Affairs for Kansas Board of Regents
Dr. Donald Felker, public university department chair

Although most presidents suffer from the same issues, one stands head and shoulders above the rest in terms of his accomplishments. Yup, the one who was an administrator and not an academic department chair.

I'm not sure how someone who "leads" an academic department gets to be considered a leader, but I guess in a denomination that doesn't know leadership from autocracy, it shouldn't be surprising that it doesn't take that much to be considered one.

So, if you're a Geneva employee, the story won't change. The leadership will talk about how wonderful you are and how much you exemplify Christian character, but behind closed doors: in the Trustee meetings and in one-on-one conversations, you're a money-grubbing moron.

If you're a Geneva student, same thing. The college LOVES LOVES LOVES you, but unfortunately, they don't have enough money to provide basic maintenance to your dorm room, despite charging 3x going rent rates. If you mess up there will be no mercy (from the administration, not the faculty, mind you). If you complain, you will get a sob story about how tight finances are, while you see thousands blown on the administration's pet projects. Oh yeah, and when you're a senior, prepare yourself for the lecture about how you need to "pay it forward" because of how well you were treated.

Stephen Covey's "The Speed of Trust" has some pretty wise words. If you as a manager really are a soulless jerk, at least be honest about it. Your employees probably already know you are and you're already paying that trust penalty!

The RP church is all about manufacturing soulless jerk leadership.

Looking for the wrong people in leadership

As a result of good sermons and a lot of thinking, I've come to the conclusion that we are looking for the wrong leaders. Is a true leader person who came great because they sacrificed those around them to rise to the level of great accomplishment, or is a true leader the one who sacrificed so that others around them could rise to a level of great accomplishment?

In some ways, we see both of these play out in the life of Jesus. His disciples often quarreled about who was the greatest, and who would be second-in-command when Jesus came to his throne, but Jesus instead showed true leadership by making those around him great.

I don't want to get into politics, but why are we looking at people like Donald Trump as leaders? He has gotten ahead in life by manipulating and using those around him. Which of his employees have risen to the top? even someone like Bill Gates created scores of millionaires as Microsoft grew.

A recent sermon talked about the "subversive" story of the church. The world has its faith in wealth, power and fame, but the church is different. Our faith is in God's riches, God's power and God's name for us. It sounds trite, but it is perhaps the biggest struggle in the church.

Think of the Roman Catholic church. As it grew in its own riches, power and name, it attracted men who also were attracted to those riches power and name. It became as corrupt, if not more so, than other human institutions. The idol of its name and reputation actually became the beginning of its downfall. In the Reformation, the church was so consumed by gaining wealth that it would rather try to kill Martin Luther than give up on indulgences. Even more recently, the church covered up gross sexual abuse by its leaders to keep its name.

So, as we think about leadership, should we look for people in the church who manipulate others around them to get a great name, or should we be looking for people who build others around them up and look to God for their great name? Should we look for wealthy people, or generous people?

I think it is the same for our governmental leaders. We call them public servants, but haven't we turned that on its head? The public servants are the one who expect to be served. There is so much hypocrisy today. Those who speak out against gun control do so behind metal detectors and armed guards. Those who speak out against the 1% ARE the 1%. Those wanting to shrink government want to expand the military. What should we expect? Haven't we voted for unfaithful men and expected them to govern faithfully?