RPC Scotland issues declaration to fast...

https://www.rpcscotland.org/2020/03/24/a-call-to-a-solemn-fast/

The Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland calls its members to observe Saturday 28th March as a day of solemn fasting so that we might humble ourselves before the Lord and plead for Him to lift this recent judgement from our land. It is evident that Covid-19 is a pestilence sent from God and we must heed His voice.

Not surprisingly, the RP view of God is one of an omnipotent and omniscient abusive father. Why is it when good things happen in the world, it's a result of God's patience and grace (not his blessing, mind you), but when bad things happen God must be personally displeased? We should not ascribe to God what belongs to the enemy!

The Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man fearing God and turning away from evil. And he still holds fast his integrity, although you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause.” (Job 2:3)

 We only know the reason for some plagues in the Bible when the Biblical authors pulled the veil and let us see into the mind of God. When Joseph saved Egypt from seven years of famine, there is no mention of the source of the famine. We know that Satan caused the evil to happen in Job's life, despite Job's righteousness. We don't know why Naomi's husband and sons died - nothing is mentioned.

So, it is presumptive to believe that COVID-19 is meant to be a judgment, it is even more presumptuous to put words in God's mouth and claim to speak for him!

We call on our nation to repent of breaking its historical covenants (National Covenant 1638 and Solemn League and Covenant 1643) which began our apostasy from God and from the achievements of the Reformation; to repent of its disregard for the Law of God to pass heinous laws; to repent of the desecration of the Sabbath Day; of its lack of compassion for the weak and vulnerable, particularly in slaughtering the unborn in the womb; for its abuse of the Biblical institution of marriage; and numerous other grievous sins. Our nation has become a hater of God and an inventor of evil things (Romans 1:30).

So, now we know! COVID-19 is God's punishment on the world because Scotland forsook the National Covenant, and thus the rightful state Church of Scotland, the RP church!

How would a good RP then pray? As with the RPCNA, the call to public confession tends to be one of sanctimony. The RPCNA called a day of fasting in June 2015:

The Heritage Reformed Congregations (HRC), member of NAPARC and with whom we are developing a relationship, have invited the other member churches of NAPARC to consider joining them in a day of solemn fasting and prayer before the Lord. The reasons motivating this desire are the U.S. Supreme Court’s upcoming decision regarding marriage, and the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision allowing euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide. (Minutes of Synod, 2015)

At least RPC Scotland calls its members to confess personal sins. The RPCNA is all about fasting and prayer as a show of public condemnation, which is a divergence from their own doctrine, which I think is pretty good.

Religious fasting is an ordinance of God in which the believer voluntarily abstains from food for a season for the purpose of seeking the will of God, strength for service or deeper spirituality. It should be accompanied by meditation, self-examination, humiliation before God, confession of sin, repentance and renewed dedication to a life of obedience. (RP Testimony 21:7)

So, fasting is something I, personally, do to strengthen my personal relationship with God, or to seek his will, or to ask for strength to overcome sin. I don't read anywhere in scripture that fasting is some sort of public hunger strike to try and cajole or manipulate God into action. It is not a bunch of Pharisees organizing a rally and abstaining from food so that the obviously unrighteous tax-collectors can get their acts together. Read carefully! It's not a bunch of leaders telling their subordinates to fast. That's why it is so noteworthy when, for example in Nehemiah, so many get together fasting and mourning their own personal sin after the law is read.

It shouldn't be surprising that by 2010, the time of the approval of the new RPCNA Directory of Public Worship, the idea of fasting being an authoritarian top-down decision is permanently cemented and the idea of personal fasting for personal reasons is a mere footnote.

Special days of fasting, humiliation and prayer are particularly appropriate when God’s judgments are evident in the land, or when corporate sin in church or nation provokes the Lord and invites His judgments. It is appropriate that such days be observed in connection with services preparatory to the Lord’s Supper or on days designated by Sessions, Presbyteries, and Synods for this purpose (DPW 4:2)

How sanctimonious of the RPCNA/RPC to declare a public fast so that OTHERS can repent. Seriously.

RPCNA response to COVID-19

This is mainly to allow a distinct discussion of how the posters of Gentle Reformation have engaged in vigorous navel-gazing with respect to the current Coronavirus outbreak. The issue hits at the heart of where the RPCNA has positioned itself in the pantheon of Christian religions.

Authoritarianism (aka churchianity) - RPCNA leaders believe themselves to be the vicars of Christ within their local institutional body. When they put on their "office hats", they speak authoritatively to the Christian. The pastor says "thus saith the Lord" from the pulpit. The elder says "The Holy Spirit has made me aware of this sin in your life". That authority is at its climax in the public assembly, where the pastor, enlightened by the Holy Spirit preaches to a congregation assembled in public worship.

That is why, for example, the membership vows include:

 To the end that you may grow in the Christian life, do you promise that you will diligently read the Bible, engage in private prayer, keep the Lord’s Day, regularly attend the worship services, observe the appointed sacraments, and give to the Lord’s work as He shall prosper you? (Covenant of Church Membership #5)

and the first disciplinary form for members is the Certificate of Dismissal for an Indifferent Member: 

The session certifies that you, _______ [name of the member]_________, have not participated in the worship and fellowship of the ____ [name and location of the congregation]__________ Reformed Presbyterian Church for an extended period of time. We are deeply saddened that we must remove you from the church because of your neglect of the ordinances as of this date: ________________________. We remind you that, outside the visible church, there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. (2B)

So, it is intriguing that some RP congregations have maintained smaller gatherings so as not to exceed the CDC recommendations, some have resorted to audio or video livestreaming, and some have cancelled services and pointed members to SermonAudio recordings.

I'm sure that there will be a lot of "grace" applied for RP pastors who have had to cancel by those who assert that gathering is necessary, but this is simply keeping up appearances.

Means of Grace - A theme that has swept through authoritarian denominations is the concept of "means of grace" - meaning that God confers grace (I think what they mean by this is essentially spiritual growth) through means, which the Westminster Confession attributes primarily to what is done by the pastor in public worship. For example, the new Directory for Public Worship says:

 The main purpose of worship is to bring glory to the triune God, particularly for His work of redemption through Jesus Christ. However, God, in His benevolence, also invites and commands His people to draw near to Him to experience all the benefits of their redemption, to declare their dependence on Him, to enjoy His appointed means of grace, to encourage one another, to celebrate their union with Jesus Christ and to be transformed, more and more, into His image. (ch 1 #2 - emphasis added)

or the WLC #154:

Q. 154. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation? 

A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation, are all his ordinances; especially the Word, Sacraments, and prayer: all which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation. 

With such elevation of the minister and the public worship assembly, it is understandably hard for the RP pastor to have any sort of allowance for forsaking the assembly, so we see such claims as:

Yet, at this time of crisis, with mortality at a peak, the last thing we should consider is giving up our Church. Let me give you a number of reasons for summoning self and dragging others to God's House. (https://gentlereformation.com/2020/03/13/the-church-and-corona/)

but then we see the same pastor (Andrew Kerr) suddenly backpedal so as not to condemn himself and his authoritarian friends. I'm sure we just took his earlier post out of context (SMH):

What I think I am saying is this: Hebrews 10:24-25 should not be applied to this circumstance as implying we should meet when pestilence is about! I hope if you are troubled about worshipping on-line that this will ease your mind that you are not letting your Lord down. At this time of crisis Christians should be seen to be sane. It would be a great pity to reduce a great Gospel opportunity to distaste or disdain, in some well-meaning insistence that we must meet boldly and bravely in the midst of plague in order to honour our Lord - this is what I am sure is what all my brothers intend, even if we disagree!(https://gentlereformation.com/2020/03/19/do-not-forsake-the-assembly/) 

It's not surprising that there have been a flood of articles on Gentle Reformation trying to thread the needle on churchianity + authoritarianism + means of grace, happily condemning the rest of the Christian pantheon for their lack of conviction, yet finding justification for RP pastors with the same practices.

Personally, I am thankful for a gracious God who tells me the Sabbath was made for me, not me for the Sabbath. While I mourn the loss of physical Christian fellowship, I'm thankful for the various technologies now available by which I can fellowship virtually with real people. One thing my pastor said that I don't think I would hear from an RP pulpit. "This is the work of the enemy. When we deny the work of the enemy, then we accuse God of terrible things and this is exactly what we're seeing coming out of the church." It would not surprise me to see Gentle Reformation articles suggesting that the COVID-19 outbreak is God's judgment against [insert public sin here].

RP conversion stories and hidden mental illnesses

In researching some of the "Masterson group" of mental illnesses, I found a very interesting summary in Wikipedia:

In line with stressing the importance of maternal availability, Masterson argued that the personality disorders crucially involve the conflict between a person's two "selves": the false self, which the very young child constructs to please the mother, and the real self. The psychotherapy of personality disorders is an attempt to put people back in touch with their real selves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_F._Masterson 

This reminded me of many conference campgrounds where we heard testimonies and conversion experiences from RPs who had gone before. The stories would go something like this:

When I was in high school, I had two lives - at home and church I was obedient and godly, but at school and elsewhere, I swore, I hung out with the wrong crowd, I was mean to other students, I cheated on my homework [etc]. I finally came to the point where I needed to decide which me was me, and thanks to Jesus, I was able to decide to be obedient and godly.

Now, we were taught that this was a wonderful conversion experience. Someone had turned from their "[RP] messed up life" and had embraced Jesus and the gospel and had repented and turned back to the righteousness they were taught.

Unfortunately, I think this is more a story of pervasive mental illness. For those who grew up in the RP church, righteousness was about maintaining a perfect image. It was about keeping the outside of the cup clean. While we were taught that the image represented what was in our hearts, people were not concerned about what was in the heart; instead, external righteousness was all that mattered.

I've heard it described as "the wall" - RPs like to portray an impenetrable wall of exterior righteousness, while inside the wall is a person longing to be respected and loved. RP teaching rarely gets at the heart, except to say that whatever is inside "the wall" must be denied and hated so that the wall can be preserved. That is, a child is told that obedience must be "instant, unquestioned, and heartfelt." An RP adult is told the same thing about God and his ordained representatives - pastors and elders. Heartfelt meaning that a person's "real self" emotions are secondary to the authority's "false self" expectations of emotions. Thus, members in the RP church learn quickly that the church is not a safe place for their real self, leading to these behavioral disorders.

Let's look at this another way. As our children grow up, we can either focus on the internal or the external. If we focus on the internal, we are less concerned with the meltdowns and the blow-ups and the external behavior, because we are training tools to deal with the powerful emotions inside. We accept the positive and negative emotions and we help them understand and express those emotions through more and more positive means. If we focus on the external, we are more concerned with the meltdowns and blow-ups and the socially unacceptable behavior, but we are basically telling the children to "bottle up" their powerful emotions. We are telling them it is not okay to be angry, or sad or upset because those lead to unacceptable behaviors.

This can lead to certain behavioral disorders. Masterson studied disorders like Schizoid and Narcissist, which all have to do with the dichotomy between the "real" and "false" self, and I think, both of these types end up being attracted to or developed by the RP church

The Narcissist has a fragile real self, but a strong desire for validation, and seeks it by portraying perfection in the false self. The overt Narcissist does everything for recognition, cannot lose and cannot accept anything but 100% affirmation. The real self, however, is perpetually on the defensive from criticism. The covert Narcissist still wants perfection, but does so by being associated with the right people. They're on a first name basis (real or imagined) with all the top pastors in the denomination and are constantly bending over backwards to ingratiate themselves with those people. Narcissists, especially male Narcissists are going to find a solid home in the RP church. They can rise to church leadership by demonstrating their perfection, and then they receive the affirmation and support they crave by being part of the elite RPs. Especially since the RP church is small, there is more recognition and affirmation than being part of a large denomination or church. The size also helps covert narcissists because it is easier to be known and recognized by an RP celebrity pastor.

The Schizoid has a strong real self and a desire for connection, but finds connection dangerous and exhausting. The Schizoid has buried his emotions because emotions were never acceptable. Like the Narcissist, the Schizoid portrays a perfect false self, but not to get attention. Instead, the Schizoid wants an image of self-reliance. The RP church can encourage Schizoid behaviors by its reliance on rationalism and discouragement of emotions - as they seem more "Charismatic". Schizoids can be attracted to the RP church for the same reasons - the doctrine eschews emotions, the services are plain and dry, the preaching is cerebral.

In this sense, the "dual self" conversion stories represent people who believe they have jettisoned their unrighteous self in the name of Jesus, but have instead repressed that self. We pray that God works on that repressed self to remove the trauma and allow full self-expression, but I think we fear that the "real self" cannot be repressed so easily, and that becomes a significant danger to these people if the self is turned inwards (Schizoid), and to the church if the self is turned outwards (Narcissist).

Fight against women has left RPCNA full of spiritual abuse and toxic masculinity

A Vox article I read today talked about how boys are being given conflicting messages regarding masculinity - the public message is about caring and leading, but the private one is, essentially, toxic. I've wondered the same thing about the RPCNA - being more rational/cerebral, I picked up more of the public message, but I see how those promoted to leadership are more reminiscent of the private message.

Hope Reese - Feminism has opened up possibilities for what it means to be a woman. What’s new about what it means to be a man? 

Peggy Orenstein - There is a lot that has changed for young men. Obviously, they’re engaging in the conversation about consent. Obviously, they see women and girls as deserving of their place in the classroom, or in leadership, or on the playing field of professional and educational opportunities. Nobody is going to say, “Girls don’t belong in college,” or something like that, anymore. 

At the same time, when I asked them about the ideal guy, it was like they were channeling 1955. The conventional values like dominance, aggression, wealth, athleticism, sexual conquest — and, particularly, emotional suppression — came roaring back to the fore. 

In some ways, those have actually grown more entrenched. I actually saw a similar dynamic when I was first writing about girls: We were telling them, on one hand, to stand up, speak out, claim your power, all these things. This was in the early ’90s, yet we hadn’t really stopped telling them in a kind of deeper cultural way, in a more entrenched way, that they should see themselves as about their appearance and that they should be more deferential. The contradictions between the new and the old were creating such tension and conflict within them.

So, when the church laments the "feminization" of boys and men, they are reinforcing a cultural stereotype of men as domineering, aggressive, athletic and emotionless. They are reinforcing the stereotype that the only valid male emotions are happiness and anger. When these men take charge in the church, they create a toxically masculine church culture where "negative" emotions are dismissed, whether by men or women.

Hope Reese - When boys are vulnerable, it’s often with women — their girlfriends, mothers, sisters — but you argue that it’s a problem that they aren’t being vulnerable with other guys or with their fathers. 

Peggy Orenstein - For mothers, it can feel really sweet and really good seeing your boy express vulnerability. But if we’re not careful about helping boys process their own emotions, rather than processing their feeling for them, and feeling for them, we reinforce the idea that women are there to do male emotional labor. That can feel really good when you’re talking to your son, your little boy, or your teenage boy. But I think most women can attest that it feels a lot less good when you’re in an adult relationship. Why aren’t they being vulnerable with guys? Because men learn not to be vulnerable with one another. 

Basically, as boys grow up, the only emotion that is validated for them is happiness or anger. The whole bucket of emotions that involves sadness or betrayal or despair gets funneled into anger. One of the things that we can do with little boys is to actually label their feelings and say, “It seems like you’re really sad,” or “That must be very frustrating,” to give them a broader emotional range. 

Hope Reese - Boys learn early on to dismiss girls’ feelings. How does that happen? And do they dismiss their own feelings, too? 

Peggy Orenstein - Part of how American boys learn to define masculinity is as adversarial toward femininity. They learn from the kind of incessant bombardment of images from the media and from their own friends about male sexual entitlement and female sexual availability.

It's not hard to see what effect this is having on the RPCNA.

When "dominance" is praised and praiseworthy men are selected for office, it should be no surprise that churches are quickly becoming more domineering.

When "rationalism" is praised and leaders who can only be happy or angry are selected for office, it's obvious that anyone who is hurt by the church will see rejection. "Hurt" is not a valid emotion. Even "anger" isn't a valid emotion if it comes from a place of hurt. We see the church ignore spiritual and emotional abuse - if people are supposed to be rational and emotionless, then calling someone "worthless" is not a problem. Emotional manipulation to create a culture of fear and fear-based control is not a problem.

It is also intriguing that the church then has to deny God's female personifications. Jesus likened himself to a mother hen who sought to hold Jerusalem under his wing. He said, "Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds" (Matt 11:9) - a reference to Proverbs where God portrays himself as wisdom, a woman calling out in the streets for people to engage and learn. "El shaddai" - a name for God introduced in Genesis 17:1 when Abraham is being blessed with fruitfulness and abundance, is considered by many to mean "God of breasts". Seems a closer match than "God of violence/destruction" in my opinion.

So, it seems that fighting off the "emasculated male" concept has left the church mired in toxic masculinity, mired in domineering leadership, and ripe for spiritual and emotional abuse for which members and leaders are completely unequipped to deal with.

[P.S. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that bringing my own history of emotional and spiritual abuse to the attention of RPCNA leaders resulted in, essentially, a call to suck it up and be a man.]
Also worth noting the character of more and more pastors - how many are primarily thoughtful academics and how many are primarily, for lack of a better word, jocks?

Red hot coals and punitive discipline

I had heard this second-hand, but when I finally listened to the sermon, it seemed worse than I initially thought:

[Sermon on the holiness of God] Now at this point, I know, maybe some aren't happy and maybe the question is, "well, look pastor, where is the grace and all this? I mean, where is the grace? It just feels too rigorous it feels too daunting. Maybe you're saying yes, I don't really want to feel like Peter who pulled up the net." Well, 
I want to say something. The grace is in the hot coal. Isaiah said I'm cut off. I don't think this was his conversion. I don't think this was his original call. What was it? I'm beginning to wonder if it was his prideful mouth. That he came to understand was indeed a prideful mouth, but regardless whatever it was the angel takes from the altar the burning coal. What is that? It's the consuming wrath of God on that altar takes the coal from the altar and touches his lips and says, "you are forgiven." Now what's that all about? Well, let me paint it the way I've been painting it for the conference. You have this indescribable incomprehensible and immeasurable God, and you have man, and there is a great distance between you a chasm between the two. And that coal upon the lips of that prophet was but a taste of what it would cost, in a vision mind you, of what it would cost to bridge that gap. He was invited into the experience in that vision, into the experience of what it was to experience the wrath of God that would bring forgiveness and it seems to be that because at that point we find Isaiah ready to pursue holiness and what Isaiah understands is that he cannot accomplish this atonement in and of himself.

While this scene is very gracious, and indeed, even the coal is gracious. The problem is the description of the experience of the coal. This pastor makes explicit that Isaiah is invited into the "experience of what it was to experience the wrath of God". That is quite scary. Keep in mind that Isaiah is saved at this point. This is not the beginning of his prophetic ministry. Not only that, Isaiah has just confessed his sin and repented, and after that, the coal is taken and touched to his lips.

1) I believe this is sacramental. In the sacraments, we do not "participate" in the sacrament, but we commemorate and recognize, in a tangible way, what is symbolized. That is to say that baptism is not participation in the cleansing of sin, but recognition and commemoration of the cleansing. Communion is not participation in Christ's death, but commemoration of his suffering for our sakes. This is important, in this respect, because we cannot cleanse ourselves, and we cannot atone for ourselves, we can just be reminded of that work which is done on our behalf. So, saying that Isaiah was suffering the wrath of God in a real sense in his spirit in a vision first suggests that somehow man can atone for his own sin.

2) Remember that Isaiah is saved. Isaiah suffering God's wrath after he is saved and has specifically repented suggests a God that is not the one portrayed in the Bible - one ready to forgive and remove our sin far from us. For example, the RPCNA Book of Discipline says, (Ch 3:3) "If the sinner confesses and repents, there must be forgiveness and reconciliation, and the matter shall be closed. You have won your brother. Such closure may include counsel or censure appropriate to the circumstances." So, if God is forgiving Isaiah, why would he insist on burning his lips off first? I think this is part of the justification for overly harsh discipline - both parental and church. The lesson has been learned, but the parent still has to "punish the crime". One of the best things I've read about discipline is that the discipline comes before the message. That is, the purpose of the discipline is to help the child hear and understand the message. That is different than what we hear in RP circles, and this is probably justification for that. Discipline in RP circles is more about letting a child stand before an open window into the wrath of God - exactly what we see here in this interpretation, and probably the idea of the "appropriate censure".

3) The pastor later says, and I agree, that this is a commissioning of Isaiah for ministry. I think it is gracious and sacramental - a comforting sign that the wrath of God has been satisfied, not in burning Isaiah's lips, but already in the sacrifice of Christ, and Isaiah's lips are cleansed, not because they were cauterized in the heat of the coal, but because, again, symbolically, the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing repentance and restoration. It is like simultaneously participating in baptism and communion. He's being comforted, not spanked, after he is instructed and brought to recognize his own sinfulness.

Sacerdotalism in RP sermons

I had to do a bit of research on sacerdotalism after seeing it referred to in multiple comments. My thesis has been authoritarianism, which is slightly different, but along the same track.

Authoritarianism would say that the pastor is NOT a priest in the purist sense, but that we obey the pastor because his office represents Christ in an authoritative way. It can be manipulated into pretty much the same thing as sacerdotalism, but there is a slight difference.

Sacerdotalism would say that the pastor IS a priest - that the OT office never really went away, perhaps.

Thinking about this honestly when it comes to RPCNA sermons, I would say that the debate between the two is somewhat moot. An authoritarian or sacerdotal minister cares not whether he comes by his power by being a priest or by being an unquestionable authority. The point is that he has that power. But, listening to RP pastors preach, it is probably an exercise in futility trying to figure out where that power comes from.

Here is a quote from a recent RPTS-trained RP pastor:

And again, I think we need to notice that these apostles who were the leaders of the early church who went out as Christ messengers, it is noteworthy that the scripture records all of their failures. And I could tell you that's that's comforting as a gospel minister and I can guarantee that's comforting to your ruling elders. Because Jesus does not call perfect men to serve his church and to be his messengers and I think that's a powerful thing that's often neglected that these are imperfect men who have weak faith just like everyone else and yet Jesus commissioned them to be his messenger. Scholars almost universally agree that behind the New Testament office of Apostle was the well-established Jewish office of Shaliach. We need to remember that. There were some well-established concepts and customs that were known to John's original readers that are a bit foreign to us but I think this is worth just considering for a moment. A Shaliach in that Jewish culture represented his master. Kings, very often had Shaliachs and in the time before modern communication. It's not hard to see why this was so necessary - you needed someone who would go out and carry out your affairs with your authority. A Shaliach that Hebrew word basically means the same thing the Greek word apostle means. A Shaliach was a sent one. An apostle is a sent one. And what the original readers of this gospel would have understood is that you are dealing with the king's Shaliach. That was tantamount to dealing with the king himself.

As you may pick out, the equivocation is already clear - the gospel minister is an apostle. So, if the apostle speaks authoritatively for Christ, so does the minister. The fact that we now have the Bible - the very Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is secondary to the work of the gospel minister.

And these same men who by the power of the Holy Spirit would go out and preach that same word bringing the message of the gospel to all people. Now this is a timely message for the church today, because we are really being taught here how we should receive the gospel ministry. We're being taught here what Christ's program is for building up his church and building up disciples and establishing us firmly in the faith. The common view today in much of American Christianity is that the method of growth is simply me and my Bible. That if I just have a Bible I can go out on my own and I can read it. I can understand it and and I'll grow and that's how God's people will grow. But I think when we look closely at the scriptures we find that that idea is foreign to the Bible. Jesus has established his program he's the king it's his prerogative.

So, again, the Reformers argued for the sufficiency of Scripture, the clarity of Scripture, the Priesthood of all Believers, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but the pastor here waves it all away by saying that "God's model" is that we submit ourselves not to the Holy Spirit indwelling us, primarily, but to the gospel minister.

These men were commissioned by the risen. They went with his authority. Now, there are no more apostles. These apostles had the tasks by the Holy Spirit of writing down what we now have as the New Testament. So there's there's no more apostles and so we might ask what is the continuing relevance of all of this to us. Well, this commission still continues today because, while there are no more apostles, when it comes to gospel ministers when it comes to elders in the church none of them, no true gospel minister, no true elder is ever self-appointed. And the church has acknowledged this principle through the practice of ordination. There's an ordination process where wherein men undergo examination to see are they really sent.

Again, the pastor acknowledges that the apostle is not the gospel minister, but then ignores the concept of office and authority, focusing on the word sent. That is, the minister, the elder, is to be obeyed.

A man named Pierre Marcel puts it this way and strikes a wonderful balance between the necessity of the private reading of the word of God and the necessity of preaching. He says, "the commission of Christ implies that the private reading of the scriptures is not sufficient to lead us to salvation. Scripture is revelation, but the revelation must be proclaimed preach and put in a present day conflict. The private reading of the word must go hand in glove with the preaching of it. The graces obtained by personal reading depend on the grace of the preached word." This commission is carried out in the power of the Holy Spirit the spirit attending to and giving his blessing to the word.

This is pretty scary the balance between private reading and preaching is that private reading is insufficient without preaching. On the other hand, listen to what Ligonier Ministries says about the Sufficiency of Scripture:

Sola Scriptura also leads us to the doctrine of biblical sufficiency. To say that Scripture is sufficient is to say that the Bible contains all that we need for determining what we must believe and how we are to live before God. Scripture must be interpreted if we are to understand what we are to believe and how we are to act, but the sufficiency of Scripture indicates that we need no other source of special revelation for faith and life in addition to the Bible. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/biblical-sufficiency/

So here we have an RPCNA minister speaking against Sola Scriptura. The Bible cannot be both sufficient and insufficient at the same time. Yes, the work of the Holy Spirit is required to bring salvation, but the Holy Spirit does not require the Bible plus the preaching of one sent.

This is where it becomes dangerously close to sacerdotalism, yet retains the constant claim to unique giftedness and authority. If this pastor is claiming that God cannot work, but through the one sent, i.e. the pastor, then the pastor is, by definition, a mediator between God and Man.

Remember, the Bereans were applauded for searching the scriptures, not as an addition to the apostolic message, but to see whether these things were so. (Acts 17:11) The apostles were subject to scripture, not scripture to the apostles. As I mentioned in the article on gaslighting, this pastor is creating an environment where the members cannot be trusted to read their own Bible, and this comes out in an earlier sermon, where Marcel is quoted again:

One of the ways we can prepare ourselves for worship is to be in the word during the week. It sharpens us, it familiarizes us, it exposes us to the word, and then we come in on the Lord's day and we have it pressed upon us in an objective way, and believe me, this happens to preachers as well. When we read our Bibles on our own, so often we can wiggle out from underneath what it's teaching. How often do we read a passage of scripture and we think oh, my wife really needs to hear that or my son or my daughter really needed to hear that? I don't know that it comes naturally to us, we want to let ourselves off the hook, and that's the benefit of preaching. It's that means wherein God objectively presses his word onto his people and conforms us into his image, convicts us of our sin, shows us that there is forgiveness and hope in Christ.

The word 'objective' is significant. It is contrasted to our private reading. The preaching is objective - factual, where our private reading is not. We are conformed to the image of God by preaching, and not by our private reading. The congregation here is being gaslighted and groomed. 

RP grace is a red hot coal... the theology of suffering

A few weeks ago, someone related how an RP pastor dealt with the complaint that the RP church lacked 'grace'. His explanation of grace was through the eyes of Isaiah, who, in chapter 6 views the throne room. Grace, in that instance was the red hot coal that was touched to Isaiah's mouth. The image of that is the searing pain which purifies Isaiah's lips.

Interestingly, neither Calvin, nor Henry, in their commentaries feel the necessity to talk about pain - it was not until adulthood that I heard the theory that somehow the coal had seared Isaiah's mouth. Henry says: 

Here is, A comfortable sign given to the prophet of the purging away of his sin. The seraph brought a live coal from the altar, and touched his lips with it, not to hurt them, but to heal them—not to cauterize, but to cleanse them... [emphasis mine]

Calvin says:

And applying it to my mouth. We see how God condescends to meet the weakness of human sense. He puts the tongs into the hand of a seraph, that by means of it he may take a coal from the altar and apply it to the Prophet's mouth. This was, no doubt, done in vision; but by the aid of the outward sign God assisted the Prophet's understanding.

So, why would the RP church want to claim that searing pain is, in fact, gracious?

I believe it has to do with the theology of suffering. For example, Joel Beeke says:

If righteous Jesus had to suffer so much to learn obedience, how much more do we need to suffer in order to purge away our sins and grow in his likeness?

and

Therefore, preach to your people a theology of suffering that places all our trials in the hands and will of a loving Father. Hebrews 12 teaches us to view our sorrows, even the persecutions of wicked men, as part of God’s fatherly discipline

https://www.crossway.org/articles/the-importance-of-preaching-the-theology-of-suffering/

While I do believe that suffering and discipline are important aspects of the Christian walk, I don't believe that they are the single lens through which life should be viewed. For as much as learning comes through suffering and discipline, it also comes through joy and gladness. Yes, God is a stern king and awesome ruler, yet, he is our daddy! He runs to his prodigal son! He wants to protect us from our enemies! He sings over us. He leads us to still waters and gives us rest!

Jesus said that God desires mercy and not sacrifice. It was the Pharisees that expected suffering.

How does this play out?

Evangelism... RPs believe that suffering and discipline are the keys to repentance. The believe is that God can only be found at the end of someone's rope. Therefore, we witness to people by shoving their face in their sin and misery and perhaps, if they don't recognize it, being a demonstration of God's justice. Imagine the surprise when Jesus 'hung out' with the religious outcasts!

Adoption... This is perhaps the least emphasized doctrine - as it places us in God's family and assures us of his ongoing love, favor, mercy, grace and all those other things that RPs are scared will not produce adequate righteousness in light of fear. Grace is that we are siblings and friends of Jesus and rightful children.

Sanctification... This is where RPs point out the suffering and discipline aspects of sanctification and not, for example, the Spirit-led insight. I enjoyed much of school. I enjoyed learning sports. I enjoyed working beside mentors.

It shouldn't be surprising, therefore, when someone walks into an RP worship service and finds a scene that could just as easily be at a funeral.