Selling authoritarianism to ordinary people

One of the common accusations against the victims of abuse is... why didn't you walk away? Testing and preparing someone to submit to abuse is a long, thoughtful and involved process. It involves, not surprisingly, twisting the truth and, as I have said elsewhere, gas lighting - denying the reality of what is happening. I think there are four main points of attack in turning normal people into codependent victims.

Point 1: The one they should submit to is superior physically, intellectually and spiritually

Although RP pastors may claim when asked point blank that "superior" and "inferior" in the Westminster standards are simply positional and not a value judgment, the culture created through sermons and procedures suggests otherwise. There are a number of sermons on SermonAudio that hint that pastors, elders and deacons are somehow divinely gifted not to make mistakes when wearing their "office hat". That is underscored by a typical sessional unwillingness to override the action of an elder. That is underscored by the typical presbyterial unwillingness to override the action of a session, and so on.

When an elder is caught in sin, the typical RP response is to ignore the sin, or, if the sin is deemed significant enough, quietly usher the elder out of the position without suggesting anything amiss. It is only elders who belligerently hold to their error whose charges ever see the light of day. This is the opposite of what scripture commands, and the clear indication is that the RP church is afraid that exposing sinning elders will undermine their authority (i.e. the authority that comes from their presumed infallibility)

Much is made of the process of choosing elders, no matter how much individual sessions choose to subvert and manipulate the process by, for example, making "session nominations" for elders and refusing to allow the congregation to discuss candidates. Once the candidate is "blessed" by the session or presbytery, they are deemed worthy of our obedience and submission. Note that session and presbytery pre-approvals subvert the will of the congregation by using their authority imbalance to undermine the concept that the "sheep hear the voice of their shepherds". Hard to hear that still, small voice when the powers that be are using megaphones!

Accusations against superiors and concerns tend to be dismissed out of hand. This has happened to me many times. We were taught not to question our superiors logic or reason because, to the point, their logic and reason must be superior to our own. When we thought something was amiss, we were told to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Point 2: They are inferior physically, intellectually and spiritually to the one they should submit to.

If there is a doctrine of the church that has been repeatedly hammered home, it's TOTAL DEPRAVITY. Yet, somehow, I've never heard a sermon in all my RP years about the effect of Total Depravity on the leaders of the church. Somehow, once someone has been ordained, Total Depravity is sent far away and now these men are at a new level.

However, much is made of OUR depravity. For example, I'm familiar with a church that ended small group Bible studies. The reason (again, SermonAudio!) was that our individual interpretation of scripture was flawed. That's why we needed an elder (implication is that their interpretation is not flawed?) to lead Bible studies. Because there were not enough elders willing to support all the small groups needed, small groups were cancelled.

In fact, there is NO GRACE. We are told EVEN AS BORN-AGAIN CHRISTIANS how worthless, how sinful, how disgraceful we are and how God must hold his nose to even deal with us. Week after week in an auditorium where every person is a member of the church, the pastors continue to remind us of how inferior we are. Who is not inferior? The shepherds who watch over us!

Just with point 1 and point 2, members are set up to withstand extraordinary abuse. They are, by default, conditioned to distrust their own emotions, thoughts and opinions about what is happening, and also those of their fellow members. Conversely, they are conditioned to trust the opinions, emotions and thoughts of their leaders. If Joe left the church because the session said he was insubordinate, there was no question that he was insubordinate. If Joe told me that he was abused by the session, I would probably doubt his account of the situation. I might even close my ears to listen to his story, or listen only for ways that I could point out his mistakes. Maybe he misjudged or his emotions got out of control.

Point 3: God will bless them for staying and submitting to the authoritarian culture

Even if the church theoretically admits that some church authorities throughout history have overstepped their bounds, much is made of the blessing of staying and submitting. Members are told that they are insubordinate vow breakers if they leave without "exhausting all avenues of reform". But, if they attempt to reform, they are subjected to intense persecution and abuse. (e.g. Bruce Hemphill).

Of course, this interacts with Point 1 and Point 2. Not surprisingly, an ordinary member can rarely, if ever, effect change in the church, yet she is expected to stay and submit in a church that continues to ignore and abuse her. This is similar to the advice for wives - somehow they can transform their unbelieving and abusive husband through godly submission. This is the definition of codependency - we are blaming the lack of reformation and transformation in the church on the lack of submission of her members. This teaching also flips the relationship - somehow, the assumed inferior member is told and expected to be spiritually superior to their leadership in reforming the church. Yet because the church denies that a member could be spiritually superior, this will never happen! This then just becomes an excuse for members to submit to deep and ongoing abuse.

Point 4: God will curse them for disobeying or leaving the authoritarian culture

As a counterpoint to the third point, much is made of the decline of church members who leave. It's like a country song - their wife leaves, their truck breaks down and their dog dies. Again, this is simply another hurdle placed in the path of those who would otherwise escape abuse.

This is perhaps the most Satanic of all. It creates a caricature of a capricious and judgmental god, whom I believe is the RP god, whose desire is to slap us whenever we desire to improve our lot. A god who can only grow his children through pain and suffering and never through Exodus to the promised land. Were the Israelites cursed for wanting to leave Egypt? NO!! In fact, they were cursed for wanting to return.

It becomes and excuse to blame and shame victims for taking a stand against their abusers. A wife who claims domestic abuse is told to return and submit. So, God blesses her for her abuse, and curses  her for not desiring abuse? Is that how God's kingdom comes on Earth? When the church becomes the agent of forcing submission to abuse? Or is the church told to free the abused? Does the church feed on the sheep, or does the church deliver the sheep, bandage them and help them heal? Again, does God curse the sheep for wanting to be delivered from the mouth of the wolves, wanting to be bandaged and healed, or does God bless the sheep for struggling to free themselves from the jaws of the wolves?

Isn't that what we are societally and culturally conditioned to do? "Someone stole my car..." "Did you leave it unlocked?" "My brother hit me" "Well, what we YOU doing at the time?" - as if the wrong done to them can be excused by some mistake on their part. "I was raped..." "What were you wearing?" We don't think in terms of evil people, wolves, abusers doing what naturally comes to their minds. Instead we think of a vindictive god who waits for us to make mistakes so that he can send adversity. Yet, that's precisely what Jesus says - the actions come out of the heart. Evil people do evil things and good people do good things. When our "good" elder does evil things, we are more right in questioning whether that elder is evil, then questioning whether his victim was being punished for a mistake.

I was reminded about the warning given to members who request to be removed from RP membership. "We are deeply saddened that you have thereby separated yourself from the visible church, outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." This is so deeply flawed, is taken completely out of context, and primarily serves as a form of extortion to keep abused sheep from leaving. This highlights the fact that the RP church is essentially pronouncing a curse on those who dare to walk away from abuse. I don't think it is in vain that Jesus says, "where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them", and I don't think it's correct (as the RP church would like to suggest) that those two are three are church leaders disciplining members.

Conclusion:

It shouldn't be surprising that the sort of intellectual and rational people that the RP church can succumb to abusive and authoritarian theology. It shouldn't be surprising that abusive elders are tolerated and supported, while abused members are told they are insubordinate when they finally take a stand. It shouldn't be surprising that members are silenced when they question the elders or try to share their stories of abuse.

Semper Reformanda and the chilling effect of heavy-handed discipline

The RPCNA claims her roots in the historical Reformation, started by the nailing of the ninety-five theses on the door of the Wittenburg church by Martin Luther. Once the Reformation was in full swing, there was an overwhelming cry for the church to be open to the need for continual reformation. From Luther's initial claim that salvation was by faith alone, not by works, and that the church could not "sell" forgiveness for sins through the practice of indulgences, the Reformation led to study and insight into the sacraments, the authority structure of the church, the separation between ecclesiastical and secular authority, and many more.

It would be naive to believe that the church prayerfully and scripturally considered each issue with Christian charity towards those who held divergent views, but there was at least a concept that any stated position of the church was subject to scrutiny, no matter how strongly held.

Again, the RPCNA would probably consider the Westminster Assembly to be a worthy model - ministers from different beliefs and backgrounds came together to debate and agree on a common set of core principles that would establish the beliefs of the church. Yet, even the reverence that is reserved for the Westminster Confession of Faith does not preclude prayerful and scriptural consideration, and as the RP church has done, clarification and disagreement with principles held by the Assembly.

Unfortunately, the more deeply held a belief is, and the more power derived from that view, the more difficult it is to prayerfully and scripturally evaluate it. In fact, many views that have changed throughout RPCNA history have not been a result of deep, scriptural analysis, but rather a changing of the guard. This is the definition of "conservative" - a person or organization that is resistant to change - not necessarily resistant because it is true but resistant because it is change.

For example, perhaps 60 years ago, members of the RP church were not allowed to drink alcohol at all. It was also a violation to own any business that profited from the sale of alcohol. I'm not sure when that was overturned, but I do know that when I was a child in Sunday School, certain teachers were insistent that we children said the WCTU pledge - a vow not to drink alcohol - before each class.

About 30 years ago, alcohol was allowed for membership, but forbidden for ordained officers. Certain men took exception to vowing to abstain from alcohol, and war broke out, not surprisingly between the old guard - the WCTU generation who felt alcohol in any form was sinful and the new generation of elders and pastors who felt otherwise. The church had to wrestle through all sorts of issues, including whether these men who rejected these vows were appropriately ordained.

At the same time, a few women challenged the denominational position on women elders. Despite having their paper rejected and calls for church discipline, the denomination made a very interesting statement - that the church ought to have a forum to deal with controversial matters prayerfully and scripturally without the specter of church discipline.

This principle was, albeit grudgingly, applied when deeply held convictions of a capella and exclusive psalmody were challenged with papers. It was applied as "closed" session meetings were considered, when grape juice was challenged as the proper element of communion.

But... a generation passed and the need to provide an avenue for reformation was squashed by the newly minted need to enforce doctrinal purity. A doctrinal purity that was at odds with the RPCNA Constitution - specifically, rejecting the parity between pastors and elders, rejecting that deacons are non-authoritative officers, and rejecting that women can be deacons.

As a consequence, issues that are outside the "new RPCNA doctrine" have been met with strong opposition, not only in rejecting papers, but now the Diet of Worms - style recant or else...  As the world is waking up to the evil of sexual abuse, RPTS was commanded to take a strong stand - against using sexual abuse as a grounds for divorce. Not surprising, since domineering is not grounds for being deposed, but insubordination is.

More wisdom from Rachael Denhollander

This was buried deep in Rachael's response to Sovereign Grace Ministries. I think it is critically applicable to how we hear victims of institutional abuse. We see this repeated over and over. From President Trump defending his wife-beating press secretary, Rob Porter, to Sovereign Grace Ministries circling the wagons trying to justify ignoring their statutory requirements as mandatory reporters to protect their own.

I think I've gotten the same response here - just because others have had a good experience in the RP church doesn't mean that the church isn't abusive. I'm sure many, many members in SGM had a great experience, but does that really justify ignoring and denying victims of sexual abuse because that wasn't their experience?

I believe the vast majority of RP members are willfully blind to the spiritual abuse that happens in her midst.

Wisdom from Rachel below:

The Evangelical Response

This is not a case of being asked to be “judge and jury”, anymore than any of us were, or ought to have been, “judge and jury” in other instances where similar allegations and concerns were raised against other institutions. What is being asked is that we apply the same level of intellectual honesty and scrutiny that we apply to groups outside our own community where such allegations are made. Given the standard set in Scripture for what a Christian ought to be and in particular a Christian leader, I would suggest this standard ought to be even higher than we require of, say, state universities.

Put simply, what we ought to have done is treat the concerns and allegations expressed as very serious. As potentially damaging to the Gospel. As potentially deeply damaging to God’s children. We ought to have truly listened and considered that those close to us could have fallen in serious ways or made serious mistakes. We ought to have to urged and required that serious matters like this be subject to a transparent, public, independent investigation that is conducted by a group the survivors also trust, just as we expect and require such accountability for secular institutions.

Penn State University is a byword for sexual assault scandals. Yet it took Penn State a mere six days to commission a truly independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding Jerry Sandusky. It took Michigan State University an excruciating seventeen months to finally request a similar investigation into the Larry Nassar case. Yet, it has been more than seven years and Sovereign Grace has steadfastly refused this sort of accountability in the face of multiple instances of abuse within the organization – even though they have been asked multiple times to clear the air.

Not only has there been no loving but firm pressure to submit to accountability and openness, the very dynamic I warned about in the Christianity Today article has been repeated. My gospel presentation and offer of forgiveness to my abuser was heralded nationally... until I applied those same principles to my own community of Reformed evangelicals.

The skill, precision, passion for truth and commitment to Christ that received wide acclaim was instantly denigrated as “zeal without knowledge”, “false accusations” and acting “without the facts”, damaging the gospel. Yet not a single person who levied or repeated this accusation asked, even once, what facts or research I had done, before making that judgment regarding me. As soon as I raised concerns about issues in my own community, it was immediately determined by some that none of the abilities and attention to detail I demonstrated to bring Nassar to justice had been utilized in raising concerns with Sovereign Grace. That I was carelessly and ignorantly damaging the gospel that I had been praised for articulating so well and courageously to Larry Nassar two days earlier.

This is institutional and community protectionism. Brothers and sisters, this is it. We need to realize that the reason we are gaining a reputation for handling these situations so poorly is not because people hate the gospel and make up lies about us, but because we have a real problem in how we think about sexual abuse and how we think about our leaders and institutions.

Rachael Denhollander on how the church minimizes abuse victims in Christianity Today

For those who don't know who Rachael Denhollander is, she was the first gymnast to publicly come forward, accuse Dr. Larry Nassar of sexual assault, and press charges against him. This led to a cascade of other brave women and girls coming forward to join the accusation, and ultimately, a guilty verdict and 175-year sentence.

The entire article is a great read... I think the interview is really enlightening about sexual abuse specifically, but much of what she says applies to any abuse situation. I think it also provides more color to the discussion about emotions - it's very tempting to, as Rachael says, tell the victim to simply forgive and that all the emotions will just go away, but that just doesn't happen.

I'm happy that she has been able to forgive her abuser and let go of the bitterness and anger. The answers, I think, hint at the length of the process involved for her to get there. It was not overnight. Instead it was a long process of first understanding, perhaps a different God than she was taught, using that knowledge to study scripture and put things in perspective and ultimately to be willing to trust in the God of goodness and love to provide true justice, whether it was only eternal or temporal, too.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/january-web-only/rachael-denhollander-larry-nassar-forgiveness-gospel.html

A few excerpts:

Was there a particular Bible verse or passage that you felt spoke to your situation?

One was from John 6, where Jesus asks Peter, “Do you want to leave too?” Peter says, “Where else would I go, Lord? You have the words of life.” There was a point in my faith where I had to simply cling to the fact that although I didn’t understand or have the answers, I knew that God was good and that he was love. Whatever else I didn’t understand couldn’t be a contradiction to that.

Beyond that, it was learning more about God’s justice, that contrast between darkness and light, and how to properly interpret God’s sovereignty and Bible verses that command us to give thanks or reveal God’s promises of bringing goodness out of evil. When those verses are interpreted properly they are glorious and beautiful truths. More often than not, particularly in the case of sexual assault, they’re really used to mitigate and to minimize—almost as if the victim handles it “properly,” if the victim just forgives, all of the feelings are going to go away. That’s not true and that’s not what Scripture teaches.

In your impact statement, you mention that it took you a long time to reveal your own abuse with other people. Was church included in that?

Yes. Church is one of the least safe places to acknowledge abuse because the way it is counseled is, more often than not, damaging to the victim. There is an abhorrent lack of knowledge for the damage and devastation that sexual assault brings. It is with deep regret that I say the church is one of the worst places to go for help. That’s a hard thing to say, because I am a very conservative evangelical, but that is the truth. There are very, very few who have ever found true help in the church.

Given your concerns that Christians can use God’s call to forgive as a weapon against survivors, did you feel at all apprehensive telling Nassar that you forgive him?

I did to an extent, because forgiveness can really be misapplied. Taken within the context of my statement, with the call for justice and with what I have done to couple forgiveness and justice, it should not be misunderstood. But I have found it very interesting, to be honest, that every single Christian publication or speaker that has mentioned my statement has only ever focused on the aspect of forgiveness. Very few, if any of them, have recognized what else came with that statement, which was a swift and intentional pursuit of God’s justice. Both of those are biblical concepts. Both of those represent Christ. We do not do well when we focus on only one of them.

...

The damage of sexual assault is extreme and it is lifelong. As much as someone forgives their abuser, as much hope as is found in the gospel, we don’t get complete restoration this side of heaven. It does not happen—that’s why the hope of heaven is so glorious. But the suffering here on earth is very real, and it does not go away simply because you forgive and release bitterness. These women are going to live, myself included, with lifelong consequences of the sexual assault, and the vast majority of this never needed to happen.

What does it mean to you that you forgive Larry Nassar?

It means that I trust in God’s justice and I release bitterness and anger and a desire for personal vengeance. It does not mean that I minimize or mitigate or excuse what he has done. It does not mean that I pursue justice on earth any less zealously. It simply means that I release personal vengeance against him, and I trust God’s justice, whether he chooses to mete that out purely, eternally, or both in heaven and on earth.

Understanding emotions and their abuse to further the RP agenda

Sorry that this took so long to post. I've been really mulling over how best to make a case and gain understanding. This is really a fundamental disconnect with RPs and many evangelicals and I have pretty much given up trying to approach this in an acceptable way.

I grew up under a brand of RP intellectualism. There were good things that happened and bad things that happened, there were things I wanted and things that revulsed me. Yet, the consistent word was that Christians were called to subject their emotions to their intellect.

For example, if we do not have "joy" in worship, we should subject our emotions to our intellect and somehow create that joy. In fact, if you read Piper, any true Christian ought to have joy by subjecting their emotions to intellect? Abusive boss? Joy! Abusive spouse? Joy! Hit your finger with a hammer? Joy!

In the same way, we are taught that there are "good" emotions and "bad" emotions in very subtle ways. For example, we learn about Jesus in Away in a Manger: "The cattle are lowing, the baby awakes, But little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes." Of course, nowhere in scripture does it even hint that Jesus never cried, or that crying is somehow bad. Crying is one of the few ways babies have of expressing needs. Babies cry when they need to be held, or when they need to be fed, or when they need to have their diaper changed. Babies might express anger or frustration when their needs are not being met - when their need for food is mistaken for needing to be held, for example. Yet, we make judgments about babies based on the emotions they express - good babies don't cry or show their temper. Bad babies are easily agitated, easily angered and don't immediately calm down when given what the caregivers consider to be adequate care and attention.

We have negative terms - "terrible twos", "teenagers" to express important stages of life where children begin to understand and respond in ways that show they are separate people from their parents with sometimes conflicting desires and needs. The church recommends books where these important stages of life are met with firm, consistent discipline meant to show children who is the superior (the parent) and who is the inferior (the child). In fact, one pastor at the International Conference had sage advice. It was the parents' responsibility to upstage the child. If the child shouted, the parent had to raise their voice to talk over the child. It was so important to this pastor that the parents were superior in every way to the child.

Perhaps my experience is different, but I grew up in an RP house where strong emotions were discouraged. My quest to develop into my own person was met with strong resistance, and my negative (bad) reactions to that resistance were met with even stronger resistance. Part of the problem was that my parents were extremely sensitive to loud noises, so their knee-jerk reaction to anger was to squash it. But, this is complicated by the fact that the church generally directs teaching at the person under authority, not the authority itself, and the teaching is not how to "submit in the Lord", but how to "obey". So, not only did my parents squash strong negative emotions, they also squashed strong positive emotions. Not only was this backed by the church that said, if my parents don't require me to sin, I must blindly and unquestioningly obey them, but it was also backed by written and unwritten rules about decorum in the church. People who raised their hands in worship or shouted "amen" were brow-beaten for daring to break the decorum.

What has baffled me recently is how Covie's can so strongly emphasize singing and knowing the Psalms yet completely miss the point of the very words they sing.

(strong joy in the Psalms)
"You have turned for me my mourning into dancing; You have loosed my sackcloth and girded me with gladness, That my soul may sing praise to You and not be silent. O Lord my God, I will give thanks to You forever." Psalm 30:11-12

(strong anger in the Psalms)
"Appoint a wicked man over him, And let an accuser stand at his right hand.
When he is judged, let him come forth guilty, And let his prayer become sin.
Let his days be few; Let another take his office.
Let his children be fatherless And his wife a widow. 
Let his children wander about and beg; And let them seek sustenance far from their ruined homes.
Let the creditor seize all that he has, And let strangers plunder the product of his labor.
Let there be none to extend lovingkindness to him, Nor any to be gracious to his fatherless children.
Let his posterity be cut off; In a following generation let their name be blotted out." Psalm 109:6-13

RP's like to prooftext passages that appear to forbid things like anger, but they refuse to understand the context. For example, this is a favorite:

"Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice." (Eph. 4:31)

Yet, how is that to be understood in juxtaposition with this?

"I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate [cut off their male organs] themselves." (Gal. 5:12)

This is just one of the places where Paul's anger is clearly shown in Galatians. So, how is it okay for Paul to write, on the one hand, to put away anger, and on the other hand to very clearly demonstrate his anger?

Paul doesn't go very far in Ephesians before he enlightens us... "Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak truth each one of you with his neighbor, for we are members of one another. Be angry, and yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not give the devil an opportunity."

Interestingly, Calvin takes the shoving emotions position, which pervades the RPCNA:

Most appropriately, therefore, did Paul, when he wished to describe the proper limitation of anger, employ the well-known passage, Be ye angry, and sin not. We comply with this injunction, if the objects of our anger are sought, not in others, but in ourselves, -- if we pour out our indignation against our own faults. With respect to others, we ought to be angry, not at their persons, but at their faults; nor ought we to be excited to anger by private offenses, but by zeal for the glory of the Lord. Lastly, our anger, after a reasonable time, ought to be allowed to subside, without mixing itself with the violence of carnal passions. (Commentary on Eph. 4)

So, Calvin's solution to anger. (1) ignore the injustice committed by someone else and instead blame yourself - victim blaming. (2) ignore that the wrong committed against you potentially came out of a heart that is black and instead of "judging the tree by its fruit" naively separate the person from their sin. (3) it's not okay to be angry when you are personally offended, and only okay to be angry if you're angry on God's behalf - maybe this is why it was okay for John Calvin/RPCNA leaders to be angry because any wrong against them is against "God's Elect". (4) If more than 24 hours has gone by and you're still angry, shove it in a box. I don't think that is what Paul is saying in this passage, but it's clear how this approach to anger pervades the RPCNA:
1) Victim blaming. The person who breaks the peace of the church is the sinner, not the person who committed the wrong.
2) Sin leveling and minimization. Someone who has done life-changing sin ought to be forgiven and restored. We're all sinners, so we ought to be ready to forgive even the most vile sin in our midst and welcome the sinner. For our own sin, we must recognize that it comes out of our personal idolatry and evil, but for another, of course, we must assume (despite what scripture says) that their intent was really pure and it was an honest mistake.
3) Maintaining an inordinate focus on theological error and insubordination while ignoring significant personal sins. (For example, coddling an elder known to be domineering, while ostracizing a member for holding an 'incompatible' theological view)
4) Sin statute of limitations.... members who bring up offenses that are not ongoing or within the last few weeks are called bitter, sin harborers, uncharitable, etc.

How is anger satisfied Biblically? Through justice.

"When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also." (Rev. 6:9-11)

I think this is one of the most powerful answers about anger. Here we see that, even in the perfection of Heaven, there is this unresolved anger. The saints are angry because the wrath that their enemies deserve has not yet been poured out in full. Heaven recognizes the temporary injustice, while God completes history and brings final justice.

This is what the church misses. It's easy to use Biblical double-speak and spiritual authority to shut people up and drive anger under the surface, but it's justice and reconciliation that actually brings conclusion to the anger. Churches that turn the victim into the offender (bitterness, anyone?), instead of bringing truth and reconciliation, drive the bitterness under the surface to fester.

In fact, this just another aspect of the same oppression we've seen of the weak by the powerful.

"‘Cursed is he who distorts the justice due an alien, orphan, and widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’" (Deut 27:19)

"Woe to those who enact evil statutes And to those who constantly record unjust decisions,
So as to deprive the needy of justice And rob the poor of My people of their rights,
So that widows may be their spoil And that they may plunder the orphans.
Now what will you do in the day of punishment, And in the devastation which will come from afar?
To whom will you flee for help? And where will you leave your wealth?" (Isaiah 10:1-3)

The church leadership is no stranger to this. Under the guise of caring for the sheep, they enact decisions to protect the wolves in leadership from the flock. They cover over child abuse, member abuse, and spousal abuse, maybe in some deep way so that they can keep tithes coming in from the powerful, maybe to preserve the hierarchy, I don't know. They preach a gospel of captivity to church leaders, and then emotionally and physically drain the members who believe it for their own benefit. Yet, when members speak out against this oppression, they are called angry, bitter and mean.

Again, to focus on Christ, we need to understand human emotions from the perspective of a human who, first of all, had these emotions, and yet expressed them perfectly. Does that make sense? If anger is a sinful emotion, then how did Jesus, in a demonstration of his sinless humanity, express anger? If sadness is a sinful emotion, why did Jesus cry? If anguish is wrong, why was Jesus anguished?

Learning that *I* don't matter, a lesson in pain.

My goal in this blog was to work through some of my history in a way that was therapeutic for me, but also remain anonymous and hopefully find others struggling with the same issues. I think that was too much. To be able to heal, I think it's better for me to process the things that happened, and writing general, angry articles is really just stoking anger without healing. I'm going to try something different.

Childhood Lesson #1: Provocation is not punished, but visible sin is.

Part of growing up in an aspirational "core" RP family is that we were always on display when we were in public. Infractions that might be overlooked when we were at home were punished, sometimes severely in public.

From a young age I knew that Sunday, the Sabbath, was the day that we had to be on our best behavior, and that was especially true in worship. While my parents were up to the task of keeping us in line, my siblings were determined to act perfect, but also enjoyed seeing how far they could push me before I would blow up in some way that would be disruptive. My parents, would respond by painfully reminding us what was appropriate. That might be the "vulcan neck pinch" or a vice-like grab to the soft tissue just above the knee, or in desperate circumstances, I'd get taken out and spanked.

Spanking in an RP church was not necessarily a private discipline. I think many parents these days want it to be discreet and private, but in most RP churches I've been in, there simply is not enough sound barrier between the best spanking spots and the sanctuary.

So, there was a painful lesson I learned early on by what was punished and what wasn't. It's not wrong to goad someone else into disrupting the service. It's wrong to disrupt the service. My siblings were rarely, if ever punished for making faces or drawing silly pictures and showing them to me, or grabbing my knee and pinching, despite my protests. It was always my visible lack of self-control that received discipline.

Adult reflections: Interestingly, this still seems to hold in a slightly different way. For some reason everyone has skin in the game of hiding sin. It's the person who finally exposes it that receives the condemnation of the community. Isn't it fascinating how many of the recent pastor scandals involved elders who knew about the sin and yet remained silent? Were they simply deceived, or did they actually realize that exposing the pastor would cost them everything?

Childhood Lesson #2: Only the authority's version of the truth matters.

One of the most memorable and humiliating disciplines I endured was in front of my church friends. With multiple siblings there were always breakdowns in communications. This specific Sunday there was a covered dish dinner after the morning service. As usual, the kids hung out while the grownups set up the tables and got the food put out. Then my dad came storming out of the church. "I've been looking all over for you. I told you to come downstairs for the meal and you didn't come." I protested, "you didn't say anything to me, I've been with my friends the whole time", but that just fueled his anger. I got spanked HARD in front of my friends. Interestingly, I never remember my church friends receiving much more than a reprimand in front of me.

Adult reflections: This one seems obvious. Once the leaders have decided what happens, there is never any defense. This is a major flaw in the RP Book of Discipline. It allows for elders to prejudice themselves under the guise of "informal discipline" without giving the member the ability to defend himself. By the time there is a formal trial, not only has guilt been decided, but also generally what punishment will be served. If this is ever appealed, the prejudice of the Session is never an issue.

Childhood Lesson #3: No one is on my side.

I'm not saying I was a perfect little child, but, having older siblings who knew how to manipulate the parental discipline system made me painfully aware that I had no recourse. At one point being spanked unjustly was such a common occurrence that it was hardly worth trying to protest the injustice, yet, stupidly, I still protested and I still was spanked harder for protesting.

All I knew about authorities were the adults at church, so I listened and waited for a way to let them know about this injustice. Instead, all I heard were others gushing over how well behaved we were. That was it. I knew that no adult would ever listen to my story. No adult would ever believe a snot-nosed kid over his pillar-in-the-community father.

Adult reflections: I've seen this time and again in the RP church and more broadly. In fact, this is written in the law and order of the church. If a "member" appeals or complains against the decision of a Session, the member's appeal must be in writing. It must first be sent to the Session (who then receive a head-start in defending their position) before being transmitted to the higher court. At the higher court, the "member" has no standing, and typically is not even present. However, the Session is represented by at least the pastor and an elder.

Childhood Lesson #4: I exist to feed the ego of my authority

I had some talents as a kid, but being punished for not being "perfect" in public created a bad side-effect. An intense fear of performing. One day I was commanded to perform on the spot for someone my dad wanted to impress. My fear overruled that and I refused. As I was receiving the spanking of my life I realized that my intense fear would be no match for my dad's ego.

Adult reflections: I've shared this story to very few RP leaders as something I thought was a clear example of abuse. Surprisingly, the reaction I got was the authority must have been right. No clarifying questions were asked, there was no theological defense or even questioning of my account. Just complete utter refusal that this could have been abuse. This is really the culmination of the last three lessons. This, more than the spiritual abuse I've suffered, is why I think the RP church is supporting abuse and abusers. In fact, I see kids of elders with that same blank look of fear on their faces as I must have had. Almost emotionless. For me, it was a cry for help that never came.

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?