Friends of sinners or whitewashed tombs?

I think Paul Tripp rightly describes churches as a hospital. A hospital is full of sick people who need healing. Tripp also says that pastors should not go into ministry thinking that everything will be wonderful. In his books, he talks about pastors who think that other churches will be messy, but their church will be a happy place.

So, here is the question, why is there so much pressure for Christians to portray themselves as well?

Think about it. I go to the hospital doubled over in pain from my burst appendix, but when people start asking me for my symptoms... well, I've got this cough and my head hurts a little.

In the church, this is a learned response. There is little shame in having bad thoughts about our boss making us work the weekend, or forgetting to have our quiet time because our kid fell out of bed and had to be calmed down. But, if one of the 50% of religious men who is addicted to porn walks in, what would be the response? Open arms or shame?

In fact, the sins that lock us into a self-imposed shame cycle are the very sins that would make us outcasts in the church. I've experienced that sort of shame - those whose sin-free facade was torn off and we finally knew some of what was inside. Did they experience love and grace in the RP church, or were they outcasts? You see, the RP church is for those who have it together. The neatly wrapped package of a "together" life, good theology, great signing voice and excellent volleyball skills. Okay, maybe grace for the non-musical and non-athletic, but limited grace for those whose life isn't wholesome and whose theology isn't quite there.

Have you heard grace or scorn for those questioning Exclusive Psalmody, Instruments, or gasp! the Regulative Principle? Is there any patience for those who hear Infant Baptism proclaimed every time a baby is sprinkled, and Session-Controlled Communion every time the elements are passed, and still don't agree with the arguments?

Jesus lived the opposite. He was scorned as a friend to the tax collectors, prostitutes and sinners, but called the religious elite who had their ducks in a row "whitewashed tombs"! I'm afraid that sinners walk into the RP church looking for healing, only to find an empty coffin and a wet paintbrush. Would Jesus walk into the RP church and find us to be friends of tax collectors, prostitutes and sinners, just like he was, or would he find pews full of whitewashed tombs?

Hey RPs, is your elder or pastor someone you would trust your darkest sin with, or do you think you'd end up being on the wrong side of the session? Is it only those whose sins have already been reported to the congregation who then confess their sins to be restored?

Out of the hundreds of testimonies you've heard from lifelong RPs, how many were anything other than "I lived the RP double life and God told me I had to choose"?

The statistics are staggering. According to Barna (an EVANGELICAL survey organization), 79% of Christian men 18-30 view porn monthly. In another survey, 63% of pastors admit sexual addiction or compulsion.

What should take more energy at Synod? Freeing the perhaps 63% of pastors in the denomination addicted to porn and other sexual addictions, but hiding it in shame, or dealing with the one pastor with a theological position contrary to the church?

Did Jesus spend his ministry years purifying and perfecting Jewish case law, or did he spend them giving beautiful life-giving freedom to those trapped in the worst sins?

I recently talked with someone about why there is such an inordinate focus on seminary. Why do we expect pastors to hold a Masters' degree and understand the original Greek and Hebrew? Does that prepare them for a life in the trenches of freeing people from sinful addictions, or does it prepare them for a life of debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin? Who is more likely to become an RP pastor? The brilliant Bible student at Geneva who's too busy studying Calvin to volunteer for any campus ministry, or the high school dropout who opens his doors to the neighborhood kids to show them the love of Jesus?

Gaslighting in RP sermons

A common thread among abuse victims is the thought of "walking on eggshells". When the abuser comes home, the victim tries to do everything right because she doesn't know what will trigger the anger of the abuser. Is there a speck of dirt on the dishes? Will my response show a bit of frustration? Will I overcook the casserole?

Healthy people look at this situation and understand - there is no justification for abuse, but the abuser carefully works through a process to seed uncertainty and self-doubt in the mind of the victim. That process is called gaslighting.

Seemingly, the God of the RPCNA is an abusive God. No matter how hard RPs work at the Christian disciplines - prayer, Bible reading, devotions, fasting, family worship - there is always some area that they are failing. God, then, waits for those failures to be just in sending all sorts of trials in their lives. Sermon after sermon is preached to show this or that common failure and prescribe more and more exhaustive lists of symptoms. Lacking joy? Pray harder, read more, fast more, sing louder. Having a hard time? Pray more diligently, read your Bible more, spend more time fasting. Maybe you're not tithing or evangelizing your neighbors enough.

If you dare question whether this is really depicting a merciful and gracious God, RP leaders are quick to point out that your judgment is flawed. How dare you question the leader God has sent and ordained to be over you?!?

Again and again, I'm drawn back to the gospels. Who did Jesus treat with mercy and kindness? The people that would never be allowed in an RP church. The sinners, the adulterers, the lepers, the outcasts. Who were the people Jesus challenged and berated at every occasion? The leaders who prayed hard, fasted, etc.

What was the problem, though? The Pharisees portrayed God as an abusive God who demanded sacrifice (works) rather than mercy. When bad things happened to people, it was because God was punishing them for their sin. The solution was to fix your sin - figure out what thing God was punishing you for and try harder. The Pharisees were the ones who had it all figured out - they were rich and bastions of righteousness. But there was a big problem. Jesus HATED THEM. He called them vipers, hypocrites, whitewashed tombs. He said, beware of their teaching. He said they put heavy burdens on people that they could not bear, and they make their converts sons of Hell.

RPs should be repulsed by the leaven of the Pharisees, but instead, they seek it out. They seek more and more sophisticated pastors who can slice and dice doctrine and rant against the other denominations who have this or that theological error.

Instead, we need to think about who God is. Yes, God is holy and God is just, yet God loves us so much that he crushed his own son, Jesus, so that he could show us kindness and mercy rather than judgment for our sins. Why would that God then wait for our every little infraction so he can smack us?

The Bible shows us picture after picture of God's love. Hosea, whose wife was a harlot, is a picture of God. Homer returns to her prostitution and yet Hosea repeatedly brings her back and restores her. What about the prodigal son? He wishes his father dead and blows the family fortune, yet his father sees this pile of sin coming from afar off and runs to embrace him. Where is the smack? Where is the judgment? None of that. Just love, mercy, hugs and kisses. God's wrath is reserved for his and our enemies.

Perhaps it's not surprising that, when I treated my own child like I thought God treated me, it drove a wedge between us. I waited for the inevitable infraction and punished it swiftly - thinking that it would bring righteousness and closeness, but instead, it brought defiance and distance. In the same way, why are we surprised that generation after generation of RP children, brought up in legalistic nitpicking chooses to reject God, or find a church where grace is taught?

How do we understand the law?

The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) talks about three categories of law:

I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.  

II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man. 

III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.  

IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.  

V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.  

VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace. 

VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.

The real question is how to understand the implications of these laws.

He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. (Matt. 19:8)

But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. (Matt. 12:7)

These aren't one-off responses or loopholes Jesus is inventing to evade questions. Instead, this is a pattern for understanding the Old Testament law from God's intended perspective.

Do we expect children to understand and behave like adults? Of course not. There is a natural progression of knowledge. For example, Natural numbers do not contain zero. We don't necessarily teach the concept that zero is a number to a three year old learning to count. In the same way, elementary teachers might say their students can't subtract 7 from 5, or divide 10 by 9. Is it "wrong" to teach that way? I don't think it is - the children's brains are not developed enough to understand those abstract concepts. As their minds develop they can handle the concepts of zero, negative numbers, fractions, irrational numbers and so on.

In the same way, we are locked up in childishness with regards to sin. God consistently calls the Israelites "stiff-necked" and "hard-hearted". Paul admonishes the Corinthians:

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? (1 Cor. 3:1-3)

What does this have to do with the law? Remember that the law of divorce was due to "hard-heartedness". To unroll this further, Israel was a nation where women and children were considered to be property. It was lawful to own slaves, including slaves meant for sexual gratification of men. So, why was it necessary to allow divorce? For the protection of women. In that society, women had very little means of support outside of a male provider. Women who were married were supposed to be provided for by their husbands. So, in Israel, a man could refuse to provide for his wife and yet not officially divorce her (this still happens today). This law was to protect women by allowing them to remarry and be provided for.

So, how do we differentiate between "Moral Law" and "Judicial Law"? What is general equity? Moral Law is the natural order created before the Fall. Judicial laws are applications of the Moral Law to the unique circumstances of the Israelites (including their hard-heartedness).

Consider slavery. There was much to-do about the Biblical justification of slavery - the OT has laws discussing how to acquire and free slaves, and laws talking about the treatment of slaves. This became a huge debate, since those who wanted to justify slavery could easily point to the apparent approval of slavery in the Old Testament. Yet, as we have come to believe, "sanctioning" slavery is not "approval". This becomes an important principle. The law meets us where we are - hard-hearted spiritual infants sucked up in a sinful culture.

So, when we read Paul's instructions, like "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man", do we understand it from a "Moral Law" perspective, or from a "Judicial Law" perspective. Was Paul's prohibition due to some universal moral principle, or was it due to a specific problem in a specific time and place? I think scripture leads to the latter. 1st century culture still promoted slavery, patriarchy and women and children as inferiors and property. So, Paul, who incidentally CIRCUMCISED Christians to further the gospel, isn't necessarily claiming a universal principle, but is pushing for laws that make accommodations for the hardness of the 1st century Greek heart.

I think this is an important discussion now because so many churches are looking at these specific sanctions in light of more general passages that say, for example, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female", or "your sons and daughters shall prophesy", and coming to the conclusion that daughters should NOT prophesy. Instead of trying to find roles, they push women to the side. Is God's heart in this really to push women out of any public ministry in the church?

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.