Recovering from Spiritual Abuse - Part 3: Anger & Bargaining

The two most transformational books I read while recovering from spiritual abuse had extensive discussions of anger.

The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse - said that understanding the abuse we have experienced would inevitably lead to anger, sometimes strong anger. Their recommendation was not to repress the anger, but be very careful about what actions the anger might lead to - especially any sort of antagonism in the church that would lead back into a cycle of abuse.

Boundaries - also said that anger was a natural consequence of the understanding of our boundaries, understanding that our boundaries had been trampled on, and reacting to continued boundary violations. Again, once we recognize the violence against our boundaries, there will be an angry response that leads us to action.

Unlike what the RPCNA leadership wants to claim, anger is a God-given emotion. The Father and Jesus both model purely righteous anger - not for leaders only, but for all. Jesus was not a boundaryless pushover. Anger is not pretty - Jesus angrily overturned the tables and created quite a chaotic scene!

In addition to those powerful books, the best advice I've heard about anger, and even all human emotions, is that we should able to invite God into that emotion. If I'm angry because I did something stupid and got caught, would God agree with my anger? If, on the other hand, I'm angry because a trusted friend broke confidence and shared my pain and anguish with others, I think God wants to be there with me as I experience it. God wants to be near at all times, it's just a question of whether God would say my anger is directed appropriately.

I believe anger is the emotion God gave us to save us from abuse! It was my anger at false teaching (ironically, about anger), and then supported by RPCNA leaders who also falsely taught that anger was inherently evil, that gave me the energy to walk away from the abuse.

But, that's not really the anger I think this chart is talking about. I would say that, for the first six months after I left, I was pretty numbed to what I felt about the situation. Anger pushed me to leave the abuse, but I really didn't understand the depth or breadth of that abuse. After that point, it began to dawn on me just how severe the abuse had been [and I know that many RPs suffer much more personal and traumatic abuse than I did!] The RP church preached to the unsaved - sin, guilt, condemnation, legal requirements, judgment, and the anger of God against all unrighteousness, of which we cannot go a day without displeasing him. My new church preached to the saved - comfort, friendship, blessing, grace, the love of God for all who are his, the Spirit poured out on all, if we would just listen and walk in what we now know is the right path. At first, this was a comforting and warming message, but then I began to realize this was not what I experienced in the RP church. It was not what I experienced in my RP family. I felt like I had been in jail my whole life, imprisoned by those who should know better. At first, I was angry at my captors and myself, but at some point that anger turned to God - first actively - why, sovereign God, did you actively choose for me to be taught an evil caricature of YOU! Why did you bring me up in these chains that still hold me down. In a sense, the bargaining was a question of what my life would have looked like without the chains and abuse. There were significant decision points in my life - Why did I choose to attend Geneva? Why did I stay in the RP church when I felt mistreated at Geneva by RPs? Why did I stay in the RP church after I graduated? What would my life have looked like if I had chosen differently?

I still feel anger when I read the Bible. It is hard not to feel the chains when passages I read lead to the legalistic and abusive RP argumentation. I feel, to some respect, that the very words of the translations have been poisoned with legalism and judgment.

It is honestly still hard to work through the anger. The RPCNA and especially my family did not allow negative emotions. Anger and fear were altogether considered inappropriate. Sadness was "okay" - but led to emotional distance which was reinterpreted as rejection. So, I was never taught how to recognize and work through those emotions. Instead, strong emotions were meant to be suppressed. To point this out more visually, look around at others singing Psalms - the Bible's textbook on emotion. How much emotional repression does it take to sing "HALLELUJAH!" with no visible emotion. Or "Oh how long, Lord, forget me"? Or, pick pretty much any section of the 150 Psalms - all with loud, precise 4-part harmony, but absent any sort of emotional understanding. It's not just the RPCNA, but many, many evangelical churches in our emotionally repressive culture! Not only do we see strong emotions in the Psalms, but we see different tools as the Psalmist works through these emotions in a holy way. We see how God wants to be pulled in as a trusted friend in our happiest and most tragic times - not to reject our negative emotions - but to be our help and support. I remember the poem Footprints where a man sees two sets of footprints in his life when times are good, but when times were difficult and he felt abandoned, there was only one. His conclusion was that God left him in those times to deal alone with the trauma, but instead, when he asks, God says, the time when there was only one set of footprints was when I carried you.

I'm still angry that in the times of my life when I felt most angry, most rejected, most abandoned, instead of being understood, supported, prayed for, by the church, I was given a trite Bible verse, told to suck it up, told that others had it worse, told that I was suffering because of my sin, distracted, deflected, whatever so that the church could be full of seemingly emotionless zombies singing Psalms with "fervor" to the Lord.

Recovering from spiritual abuse, part 2 - pain and guilt

I think many will experience this differently. I experienced pain and guilt more while I was figuring out how to deal with the abusive situation than when I finally left. My RPCNA journey reached a pinnacle of sorts soon after I graduated college, and a steady decline.

The guilt I had was in seeing abusive leadership and not trying to stand up against it and protect the abused*. There was some pain in being one of "those people" who, if the leaders were asked, left the RP church because they couldn't stand the strict righteousness required and held some area of sin too closely. Yet, in the process of leaving, I was reprimanded for bringing up my "many grievances". So, I guess the little I did speak up was already too much for the leaders to bear.

I did have a great fear that I would try to escape the pain of church. The first Sunday post-RPCNA, I drove to a church that I had researched online. The sermons didn't have the self-doubt and authoritarian lingo I heard from NAPARC churches. When I turned off the car, a thought washed over me. No one would know if I started my car again and drove away. I had some regrets when I had to walk through the welcoming committee and got pulled aside to get my "Hey everyone! I'm a first time visitor!! bag". But, those regrets soon vanished when the service started and I saw people worshiping in their own individual way. Some sat, some stood, some raised their arms and some swayed. It wasn't like people singing "Oh praise the Lord!" loudly in four-part harmony, but with absolutely no hint of joy on their faces. I heard a pastor preach that it was okay to take our anger, our pain, our negative emotions in prayer before God. That God wanted us to draw near, not like a beggar addressing a king, but like a loving father.

In the next few weeks, I would meet with a few of the RPCNA leaders who tried to find the appropriate way to apply the right amount of guilt to me. What right did I have to take the elders' valuable time and energy when they were so busy dealing with other peoples' issues? If I had just disagreed in the "appropriate" way, I would be listened to. Come back and be a part of the solution (if they didn't listen to me in the past...why would they listen to me now?)

In a sense, the "excruciating" pain came from a mutual process of disconnection. Since invitations happened in the church, I simply didn't get invited. When friendships were centered around church, there was nothing else in common to hold us together. Even going to a church-related family event post-exit was awkward. At that point, there was a pain of being unable to participate in significant events. Marriages, funerals, graduation parties - they were all centered around the church.

Note(*) - While I saw the abuse of the church, I was mostly blind to the impact it had on me. I was mostly concerned about protecting those around me. When I had disconnected from the RP church for maybe six months, my eyes started to be opened to how pervasive the abuse was and how crippling it was. Much of it was hidden in hypocritical/contradictory behavior. For example, we are praised for being this pinnacle of righteousness, yet at the same time berated week after week for our filthy rags and unworthiness. Because I felt worth (pride/self-righteouness) along with unworthiness (not measuring up), it was hard for me to really know how worthless I really felt in the abusive environment.

Recovering from spiritual abuse, part 1 - shock & denial

Since I'm not any sort of expert on recovering from grief, I thought I would share parts of my journey. One thing to keep in mind is that this is not linear by any stretch of the imagination. Sometimes I feel like I'm on an upward trend, then I step into more commitments and fall back into depression and loneliness or anger or pain or whatever.

I think working through a long-term loss is much different than losing a loved one, but the process seems similar, at least from what I've experienced so far.

Shock

I remember the moment I put a name to what I experienced in the RP church. A guest minister was preaching for a high school conference about the need for commitment to the church (an RPCNA-approved message, to say the least). It was about the church as our mother - Mother Kirk - and how our mother may or may not be wonderful or nice all the time, but we still need her and she still is our mother.

I asked myself... but what if that mother is abusive? Should we still cling to an abusive mother? Then I pondered more deeply. What would abused children in the church look like? I thought about abused dogs. They would probably cower in the corner to avoid confrontation, but when confrontation was avoidable, they would probably lash out in odd and unexpected ways. They would probably be emotionally draining. The more I thought about it, the more I saw myself as abused by my church.

As a "blue-blood" RP, my world pretty much shattered at that point and soon after. I was raised in the best denomination - one that loved God so much that it would not stray from what he explicitly approved. I was raised by godly RP parents who others praised and sought advice from on their methods. That single word: ABUSE pierced through my heart and suddenly everything was broken. My upbringing wasn't superior. At the same time I was taught to live by an unimpeachable moral code, everything I did was minimized and picked apart. Nothing was ever good enough. The grades I earned, the honors and awards I earned were the work of an unfaithful servant just doing what was required. My churching wasn't superior. I was taught of a distant and judgmental god, for whom nothing was ever good enough. My service to him was just the work of an unfaithful servant just doing what was required, and at every misstep, he was there to make sure I knew I was doing wrong.

Disbelief

At the same time I couldn't understand... I had a good education, a good job a stable life. I wasn't engaging in destructive behavior. Is it really possible that someone who was abused could turn out "okay"? I sought answers within and without the RP church. The RP church, person after person, would say things like: "I don't think that's wrong. You must have done something to deserve that sort of treatment" "I need to hear both sides - what's the other side of the story?" My family members said, "Well, it wasn't the best, definitely, but I wouldn't call it abusive" Those outside of the church had a completely different opinion. "That's really bad. I'm sorry that happened to you and I hope you can heal." or "Normally, I would recommend that people stay at their churches and try to resolve disagreements, but I don't think you want to go back there."

I think along the same lines of what my family said - just because our story isn't as bad as the bad stories out there doesn't mean it wasn't abusive. Abuse is inherently an attempt to manipulate and control others through the use of force - be it emotional, financial or even physical. I suffered less force because I was more compliant. The environment was still abusive.

To exacerbate this, my affiliations pretty much flipped upside down. I saw the people I was taught to respect in a different light - they were cold and harsh - while those people I was taught to avoid and disdain seemed warm and approachable. Those were reinforced by things I heard and read by and about them.

Aimee Byrd, OPC and NAPARC - the patriarchal veil is lifted

I have the utmost respect for highly capable women who are finding their way within the bounds of complementarian/patriarchal churches.

• Beth Moore is a member in the SBC and has repeatedly affirmed the SBC complementarian stance and reminded detractors that her mission is specifically to Christian women. Yet, the comp/patriarchal leadership in her denomination and elsewhere continues to undermine her platform and message.

• Rachael Denhollander is also a member of a complementarian denomination. She has publicly stated that pastors and church leaders are cordial to her face, but backbiting behind closed doors.

• Aimee Byrd is a member of the OPC. She has the full support of her pastor and elders. Yet, again, behind closed doors in a private Facebook group, OPC and NAPARC pastors, elders and members are engaged in disrespectful and inappropriate behavior.

This fits in with the authoritarian/superiority theme. First off, these men are not arguing "roles" - they are simply pushing a framework of male superiority. They are pushing unwritten rules for how women fit into the family and church. These vile men are now trying to damage control since their comments have been made public. Keep in mind that the administrators of the group, including Shane Anderson (Ruling Elder, OPC) can delete any comments they find offensive! Although Anderson is probably one of the worst offenders.

Aimee Byrd's callout: https://aimeebyrd.com/2020/06/19/genevan-commons-and-the-qualifications-for-church-office/

Christianity Today writeup: https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2020/june/complementarians-closed-rooms-aimee-byrd-beth-moore.html

Commentary on the announcement of her new book:

- seriously, this is just vile


- PCA Pastor


Inappropriate lampooning of another book by Ms. Byrd




















^ OPC church planter










[Doesn't he seem to be acknowledging that this is inappropriate?] - Ruling Elder, OPC


Commentary on the actual cover photo:

- Associate Pastor PCA

 
more vileness


Comments about her press photo:


Conspiring to drum up official church trouble:

Kevin Medcalf, Jim Stevenson - OPC Pastors

More vile slurs (This is about Rachel Green Miller):

Steven Carr - Pastor RCUS


Note that the real fear seems to creep in "honored pastors" - the concern here is that Aimee's critique of misogynistic and patriarchal preaching in conservative denominations will somehow free women of their patriarchal manipulation and control. More comments about her look. More smears against women (sandwich + eisegesis).


Now the hard questions... The CRC was kicked out of NAPARC because of their egalitarian views. I think we should be pretty confident that the OPC and PCA will not act against these pastors and elders. What does it say for the sister denominations in NAPARC to hold full fellowship with a denomination whose leaders display such vile behavior.

Remember, Byrd is complementarian. What these pastors are saying is far beyond complementarianism and is much more akin to patriarchy and subjugation. These themes come out:

• Byrd's husband should be shutting her up
• Her session should be shutting her up
• She should go back to being a housewife and "sandwich maker"
• [Not imaged, but in the blog] Women should not be educated
• It's not okay to call these men's teaching into question

I hope this comes up front and center in church searches. Someone who wants to know the character of the OPC or PCA should find these comments - and know what to expect.

It would be something else if these were ordinary members in the OPC/PCA, but these are men who are seminary-trained, examined by their churches and denominations and found to be exemplary, and chosen by their congregations. These men TRULY REPRESENT the OPC and PCA denominations, and that is scary!

An article about Christian nationalism sheds light on RPCNA practices...

I'm not generally a big fan of Al Jazeera, which seems to be a pro-Islam media site, but this article really resonated with my RPCNA experience.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/power-worshippers-american-religious-200422144158404.html

It is, in fact, modern in its methods and doctrines, which "notwithstanding their purported origins in ancient texts have been carefully shaped to serve the emotional needs of its adherents, the organisational needs of its clerical leaders, and the political needs and ambitions of its funders".

Translation, there is a triangle of power inherent in Christian fundamentalism. The adherents give money to support politicians and church leaders in exchange for the feeling of moral superiority and being part of a righteous movement. The church leaders get money, power and prestige in exchange for preaching political talking points and delivering members as a voting bloc to politicians. The politicians get votes, money and power in exchange for championing moral legislation and appearing onstage with religious leaders.

Al Jazeera: What are some of the ways in which the emotional needs of adherents are exploited by movement leaders? 

Stewart: Among the emotional needs of some adherents is a desire for a certain empowerment as members of a special or uniquely virtuous group of people. So religious nationalism goes overboard in insisting on the unique virtues of the religion and culture with which its followers identify.
   An additional emotional need of some adherents, exploited by leaders of the movement, is to validate feelings of grievance and resentment, and to focus them on some imagined impure "other," a scapegoat.
   Christian nationalism, like other forms of religious nationalism around the world and throughout history, delivers a set of persecution narratives that represent the "good" religious people as under threat and as victims of an evil "other".

So, religious nationalist organizations, like the RPCNA, encourage their adherents by creating a cultural narrative that is equated with righteousness. In the RPCNA, it is "National Reform" - that is, a focus on theocracy (a national covenant), and a political focus on specific moral issues, especially abortion.

Al Jazeera: How have the doctrines been shaped to meet the needs of the movement's clerical leaders?  

Stewart: Fundamentally the doctrines of religious nationalism reinforce authority - of scripture, of course, but also the authority of religious and political leaders.
  This is what religious nationalism does around the world. Their doctrines make an absolute virtue out of obedience to a literalist or strict interpretation of their religion.

Wow, she pretty much nails the RPCNA here. Under the guise of faithful obedience to God, the church promotes a narrow interpretation (WCF and RPCNA Constitution), especially as it relates to the authority of, and unquestioned obedience to, the church and her leadership.

Al Jazeera: Who funds the movement, and how have the doctrines been shaped to meet their needs?

Stewart: The movement has multiple sources of funding, including small-dollar donors, various types of public subsidy and funding, and affluent donors.
  Many of those affluent donors belong to super-wealthy hyperextended families. So it is not surprising that many of the doctrines the movement favours are about money. They say the Bible and God oppose progressive income taxes, capital gains taxes and minimum wage laws. That the Bible favours low taxes for the rich and minimal rights for the workforce. They argue that environmental regulation, regulation of businesses, and public funding of the social safety net are "unbiblical" or "against the biblical model".
  In this way, I think, Christian nationalists have betrayed what might have been their strongest suit. Christianity, as most people understand it, has something to do with loving our neighbours. But leaders of this movement have thrown in their lot with a bunch of selfish economic reactionaries who tell us we don't owe anybody anything.

I've always wondered this... why does the RPCNA argue against welfare, when the OT provided welfare - and it wasn't about reforming welfare, but eliminating it altogether.

The article goes on to trace the origins of the Christian nationalistic movement, and it is deeply troubling. The RPCNA, which held deep convictions against slavery and racial injustice, with churches serving as stops on the Underground Railroad, got duped into supporting pro-segregation southern theologians like Jerry Falwell and Bob Jones, who were looking for another source of tax-sheltered funding, because "segregation" lost as a worthy cause of support.

Despite the fact that most evangelicals were initially in favor of abortion laws, Falwell and Jones were able to galvanize support under a "pro-life" stance, which delivered the power proposition to conservative denominations and political leaders.
---

This article really put things neatly together. For example, I've had minor skirmishes with a few RP pastors over the teaching of the Bible, the WCF and the Constitution. Practically, what I found was that their authority trumped all of the above. When I backed them into a corner, that was the argument ender - not the Bible, not the church standards, but their claim to superiority.

I also had a rude awakening to the whole scheme when the local Right-To-Life chapter refused to endorse an obviously pro-life candidate. They had a FAQ on their website that explained that "electability" was one of their criteria in endorsement. So, their goal was not to endorse all issue-qualifying candidates, but to deliver a bloc of voters to the candidate of their choice. In fact, that was a lie, too. The next election was a pro-life incumbent Democrat vs. a pro-life Republican. They endorsed the Republican, despite the electability. Hmmm.

Since then, I realized that pro-life is such a galvanizing issue among Republican politicians that they dare not do anything to change the status quo. This is done under the guise of virtue signaling - that is, they cannot allow the state to give out free condoms that are proven to reduce the abortion rate, because they must take the moral high ground. Of course, they compromise on welfare laws, they compromise on healthcare, they compromise on educational funding and homeschooling laws, they compromise on protection of rights, but for some reason, abortion is all-or-nothing, or at least abortion can only be dealt with by making it harder to get, not by making it unnecessary in the first place, through better sex education, better consent laws and better reproductive services.

More calls to fast...

Racial injustice has come to the forefront with the murder of George Floyd at the hands of the police. Organizations everywhere are looking outward and inward to see how they have overlooked or ignored institutional racism.

Not surprisingly, in the tradition of Reformed introspection, Geneva College has called for a fast. President Calvin Troup has made the following statement:

Here are some categories for prayer:

• Our Own Hearts: Pray that the LORD might root out sin in our own hearts, particularly cleansing us of prejudice and every form of pride. That we might turn toward our brothers and sisters to serve one another with grace and outdo one another in showing honor—thinking of others as more significant than ourselves, looking to the interests of others rather than our own interests, and seeking the good of our neighbor.

• Geneva College: Pray that that the LORD will make Geneva College a home of healing and hospitality and refuge against racial injustice, where we can experience the wholeness of Christ’s body, learning what is good—to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God…together.

• Beaver Falls: Pray that the LORD will lead us through the City-College Alliance to dismantle racial injustice and to cultivate peace in our local community through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

• Government: Pray that the LORD might establish justice in practice through governing officials that identify and replace unjust laws, enforcement practices, and policies; replacing them with laws that reflect biblical principles of justice and righteousness.

So, note that in every category, there is the implied presence of culpability and sin. Our hearts house prejudice. Beaver Falls has racial injustice to dismantle. Our Government needs to replace unjust laws... But Geneva... yeah, Geneva has no need to repent or consider introspection of her sins contributing to racial injustice.

I think this reflects perfectly the Reformed response to cultural sin. The problem is not the RPCNA church or its leadership. The problem lies in individual, non-ordained members, or outside.

I believe racial injustice is simply a reflection of the tribalism and xenophobia present in our culture, in sinful combination with the authoritarian bent. It is not just racial injustice. Authoritarian police brutality knows no limits.

The two common tenants of this institutionalized injustice...
1) Might makes right - whether this is "spiritual authority", "parental authority", "governmental authority" or simply financial or physical superiority, our culture assumes that the lesser should defer to the greater.
2)  Generalization, categorization and confirmation bias - it is hard to be fully informed about all these issues, so we tend to accept the opinions of others and then are tuned to experiences that confirm our generalizations. As an example, we hear talk about "liberal Christians", and despite the fact that many of them love Jesus just as we do, we associate all these stories of their theological struggles as evidence that they are simply desiring to justify their sin.

My experience with Geneva. They hired off-duty, WHITE, police officers from the Beaver Falls police department as security guards. They allowed the police unfettered access to harass and threaten students in the presence of the Student Development department, including the Dean and Assistant Dean of Students, without so much as a raised eyebrow or a request to tone it down, or even reminding students of their Constitutional rights.

In exchange for this access to students, the Beaver Falls Police Department allowed the college to internally investigate and punish crimes without any sort of public disclosure that might damage the college's reputation. This isn't limited to Geneva, many colleges and universities either have their own police department, which does damage control, or has close relations with a local police department. For example, BYU had a relationship with the local police department. The police department illegally forwarded reports by rape victims who were students at BYU, and then BYU would expel the women for "morality code violations" they found in the reports. These sorts of scandals have been exposed at The Master's University, Bob Jones University and even public universities like MSU where Larry Nassar had unquestioned access to molest his patients.

Helpful post on how churches protect evil

This came out today on a blog I follow:

https://graceformyheart.wordpress.com/2020/03/30/why-do-they-protect-evil/

Some insightful tidbits:

While these churches would be very careful to deny any hope of salvation by works, they still teach that our relationship with God depends on good performance. Good performance, by this teaching, can be measured and compared. Thus, some people are more spiritual than others, some are closer to God than others, and some are more assured of Heaven than others—even within the church.

What’s the primary fear of those involved in the performance system? No, it’s not sin. It’s exposure. The greatest fear for many who consider themselves Christians is that others will find out the truth of their compromises. The draw toward sin is just part of the daily battle, but exposure of sin is shameful and humiliating. The risk of others learning the truth is the risk of weakness and failure. To be seen as weak is to become unworthy, even to be rejected. To be rejected is to lose honor, privilege, and power.

First, exposure of the individual’s sin is exposure of the system’s weakness. The truth is that performance spirituality, the attempt to find acceptance with God through the law or works, does not change the heart. The compromises of the flesh continue to reign in the hearts of those who follow the system. Sin is hidden, but not overcome.

So, when the abuser is found out, the failure of the system is exposed. If the sin of the abuser can be covered however, the failure of the system can also be covered.

But there is another part of the answer, one that reveals even more of the evil of the performance system. The flesh admires strength. Which person appears stronger, the victim or the abuser? A man who has abused women and has been able to cover his sin for a long time will be regarded as both strong and smart by those who look through the flesh. Victims, on the other hand, are considered weak and gullible by the flesh.

Now, I happen to think that restoration of pastors and church leaders who abuse is the wrong goal. Losing a ministry, being out of a job, suffering humiliation from others: these things are small losses under grace. We know that selling insurance or managing a fast food restaurant is not less spiritual than being a church leader. The right goal is repentance, subjection of the flesh, and walking with Jesus. If that means a person can no longer be in ministry, that’s okay.

Please go and read it for yourself. There is much more wisdom there, but this is what I found especially applicable to the RPCNA system.

First off, we see how legalism is wrapped up in the gospel - although the RP church would claim that we are all saved by grace and that our works have no merit, they fall into the trap of measuring people by their performance and alternatively praising those who measure up and condemn those who don't. Or, stated a different way, praise those who cover up and lie about their inadequacies and condemn those who are sincerely trying to conquer sin and grow.

Second, we see how much performance is wrapped up in the image of the church. That is why much of church discipline, especially discipline of pastors and elders, is hidden behind closed doors. The most legalistic of sessions are those who are continually pushing against the requirements for open meetings.

Third, we see how domineering and abusive ministers and members are lifted up in front of the people, rather than condemned. They are powerful vs. the weak victims, and exposing them would expose the church as no better than other "lesser" denominations.