Twisted Total Depravity, Original Sin and the PCA ruling

As I tried to understand why this PCA ruling bothered me so much, the thing that came back to me over and over again was the concept of original sin. We inherit a sin nature that prevents us from being able to bridge the gap between us and God in our own strength. That sin nature is not a permanent part of our identity, but it remains with us throughout our earthly lives. How God deals with the sin nature varies by each person. As we see with Paul, our "body of death" becomes a consistent struggle during our lives once we are saved.

As I said, on the surface, it seems that the PCA ruling is simply being deliberate and precise when it comes to dealing with our depraved sin nature. They can say that referring to our "body of death" as our identity is theologically incorrect. I get that and I can see where they're coming from. The ruling, however, goes beyond that.

I don't see this precision in the Bible. How can Paul say, "It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost." (1 Tim 1:15) We Reformed people cheer Paul's honesty and humility here, but what Paul is doing is stating an identity. A few verses before, he says what he was - blasphemer, persecutor and violent aggressor.

I think the basis of the concern is normalizing specific identities. This is concerning because the church has compartmentalized effects of sin that are okay and those that are not. Talking about original sin.

Statements one could make about results of original sin:

I'm blind. PCA would probably accept this statement, even though the blindness is part of the original sin, and presumably the bodies we receive when glorified are not blind.

I have Down Syndrome. Again, okay because it is part of original sin, and a characteristic that has physical basis.

I have ADHD. Okay, we're now starting to get into the gray area as far as Reformed beliefs go. There is pretty good evidence that ADHD is innate, but because it is now a struggle of self-control, which is a spiritual fruit, there might be concern.

I am attracted to ... (non-normal attraction). Again, this could be a result of original sin, but if ADHD is gray, we've now crossed the line. Even though self-control is a spiritual fruit, and thus, lacking self-control would be fairly categorized as sinful, this must clearly be wrong.

The difficulty I have is that all of these are fixed in the resurrection, or through some other miraculous means. They can be managed, they can be accommodated, but we don't have the expectation, in this life, that God is going to remove these burdens from us.

My conclusion, then, is that ADHD and SSA can be innate characteristics, just like blindness or genetic diseases, that are a result of original sin, but the PCA wants to refuse that. They want to deny that innate characteristics can lead us to sin, which is a denial of Total Depravity. Total Depravity says that we are born predisposed to sin. Calling out our sinful predisposition is not a "sin identity", but recognizing our depraved condition under the Fall.

Conversely, when the PCA claims that ordained leadership cannot have a sin identity, they are asking leaders and those who aspire to be leaders to cover up their depravity. They will even refuse to recognize the implications of this. Modesty is moot because no true Christian would have a fleshly struggle with women's bodies (despite the fact that the church calls this a universal male struggle). Sigh.

PCA General Assembly rules: Ordained leadership cannot struggle with temptation

In a ruling befitting the Judaizers in Galatians, the PCA ruled the following (wording thanks to https://twitter.com/PCAByFaith/status/1410594510912901123)

16-4 Officers in the Presbyterian Church in America must be above reproach in their walk and Christlike in their character. Those who profess an identity (such as, but not limited to, 'gay Christian,' 'same sex attracted Christian,' 'homosexual Christian,' or like terms) that undermines or contradicts their identity as new creations in Christ, either by denying the sinfulness of fallen desires (such as, but not limited to, same sex attraction), or by denying the reality and hope of progressive sanctification, or by failing to pursue Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions are not qualified for ordained office.

First of all, I'd like to put this up against scripture. Paul says, in Romans 7:

For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.

We don't know the nature of this sin struggle that Paul is talking about, but we understand that being a Christian, and even being a Pastor/Apostle does not remove temptations. Here we see that some temptations are a result of "our own flesh" versus the sorts of temptations Jesus struggled with that were not due to the coexistence of a sin nature.

So, this is the sort of ruling where the conclusion(?) might resonate with many of the leaders, but the reasoning is essentially denying gospel principles. Are PCA leaders limited to those who have, through God's grace, overcome all of their fleshly temptations? Is it, instead, just a name game where it's okay to struggle with besetting sins, but not okay to "identify" with those besetting sins.

That's honestly what it sounds like, but it is wrapped in anti-gay language. So, play this out. A man wants to become a PCA pastor having had a lifelong struggle with alcoholism. He recognizes that his battle with his flesh means that he needs to abstain from alcohol for the rest of his life, lest he give into the temptation. So, I guess he can say that he struggles with alcohol, or maybe that he is tempted by alcohol, but if he says "I'm an alcoholic" BAM! It's over, no ordination for him! Is that what this is all about - maybe on the surface, but I think it's worse than that.

Let's look at the second aspect. What has the PCA's action been with regard to fleshly struggles?

Tullian Tchividjian was deposed by the PCA for his extramarital affair. At that time, I believe, multiple women had come forward and described his pursuit of them in what can best be described as clergy sex abuse. Yet... the PCA essentially created a restoration team, including Paul Tripp, designed to restore him to ordained leadership. He was approved for a non-ordained leadership position at a nearby PCA church, and his team went on the offensive to recharacterize his sins as relatively minor and forgiven compared to the sins of those around him.

So, in essence, Tchividjian was a clergy sex abuser, but he didn't "identify" as a clergy sex abuser, so he can still be restored, but a pastor who "identifies" as same-sex attracted is disqualified?

There is a third aspect. Temptation is not sin. When studies show that >50% of pastors "struggle with porn", they're not talking about identity or temptation. This means that these pastors are viewing porn. On the other hand, when a pastor talks about same-sex attraction, but remains celibate, he is tempted, yet presumably without sin. The PCA turns this on its head. The porn-addicted pastor is qualified, but the same-sex attracted pastor is disqualified.

This is indicative of a dangerous theology. We, as Christians, become new creatures, yes, and we have the Spirit-given power to resist temptation, but we are not automatically freed from our fleshly tendencies. That is what Paul is saying. We are at war with our own remaining sinful desires, our body of death, as Paul says. The PCA is driving honesty and integrity underground, because denying our sin struggles is the opposite of accountability. Pastors will be afraid to be accountable, lest they find themselves unemployed. The PCA is also perpetuating the authoritarian myth that PASTORS are different than you and me. You see, WE may struggle with our sexual identity, and we may struggle with besetting sins, but the approved pastors do not. They are spiritually shielded from sinful tendencies, and if you dare accuse them, you probably won't last long because they are now in a battle for their lifelong calling and identity as God's anointed.

Jesus and John Wayne

 I got a copy of this book from the local library. I like that the author took the approach of primarily creating a historical document rather than editorializing about the ramifications of the Evangelical push towards Toxic Masculinity (she doesn't even use the term from what I recall).

My takeaways: 

• The church became enamored with the ruggedly individualistic picture of leadership, courage and strength portrayed by movie heroes, generally, and John Wayne, specifically.

• Throughout the 20th century, this image became purposefully used and associated with Christianity and specifically Christian manhood and leadership.

• In the positive sense, the image created this idea that the men of the church should see their primary goal to be the protection of the weak of society, specifically, families and women.

• In the negative sense, this led to putting men in a specific box (the John Wayne) box, including recharacterizing Jesus's life and actions on earth, and using this as a measure of their spiritual condition. So-called "weak" or "effeminate" men could never be church leaders. Patriarchy is portrayed as a godly and Biblical model.

• Also in the negative sense, this led to a toxic masculine leadership model. Our godly leaders must be obeyed, never questioned, and rule by iron fist is the model of righteous leadership, not evidence of domineering.

• Politically, the Evangelical church became coupled to the "hawkish" factions within government. Friends of the military and friends of those who want to use our military to enforce American values (all in the name of protecting the home front).

• Also, in the negative sense, the positive concept of protection of women and children did not come with a desire to be accountable for protecting women and children. Thus, the hero worship took over and leaders tend to be exonerated of their abuse of women and children, and women and children are expected to sacrifice whatever they might hold dear on the altar of the greater mission.

Overall, it's a good read, well researched and definitely helps understand how the church became politicized.

Shame culture and the RPCNA

I recently read a great article about how Southern honor/shame culture has infiltrated Christianity. https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/where-does-the-south-end-and-christianity - titled "Where Does the South End and Christianity Begin? Understanding the role of shame/honor culture in the roots of Christian rage."

The point is that Christianity should be about guilt - a natural feeling that comes about by doing something wrong. Shame on the other hand, is about being something wrong. I have said in the past that the RPCNA twists the doctrine of Total Depravity to trap members into participating in shame culture.

The article has a poignant quote:

In a guilt culture you know you are good or bad by what your conscience feels. In a shame culture you know you are good or bad by what your community says about you, by whether it honors or excludes you. In a guilt culture people sometimes feel they do bad things; in a shame culture social exclusion makes people feel they are bad. 

This is very applicable to the RP church because shame/honor is used as a rod to drive expected behaviors. I want to point out how some comments made on my blog demonstrate how shame culture is used to make in/out black/white divisions. If you're interested in digging deeper, I also want to point out the my regular commenter Chris specifically does NOT engage in the shame behavior, which is, I believe, why we are able to have collegial conversations.

Comment #1:

You sound like a bitter woman, Kathy.

Note that this is loaded with shame. The author, almost certainly a man, is flat out trying to discredit anything I say. First of all, the word bitter has been defined in Evangelicalism as a point of no return. That is, there is no need to treat me as a human because I'm beyond redemption. Secondly, why does the commenter want to point out that I'm a woman? I suspect that this person is steeped in patriarchy, such that woman itself is intended to put me in a lesser category (note to RP women...). Third, calling me Kathy (i.e. Kathy Stegall) is intended to put me in a category of people who have been marginalized and shamed in the RP church. Kathy was, at this point, still a member in good standing in the RP church, so this person is essentially calling me (assuming me to be Kathy) an unrepentant sinner. This person is insubordinate to the RP church.

The other thing of concern... in shame culture, there is typically an IN group - they determine what the community says. In the RP church, that group is typically elders and pastors. So, it's likely, being that this person feels comfortable shaming others on their own authority, that this person is a pastor or elder. This may be another reason why Chris does not choose to shame, or it may play some small part, because Chris is, in my opinion, one of those genuinely kind RP's.

Comment #2:

You rant and condemn the RP, but are not willing to identify yourself. You hide behind the cloak of just1sojourner.

Did I mention that these comments are all uninformed pot shots? Beyond a cursory glance at the site, it should be abundantly clear that I'm not Kathy and I'm not just1sojourner

Again, there's about 1% substance - yes, I choose to be anonymous - and about 99% turn anonymity into some sort of character reference. Keep in mind that we sometimes honor anonymity, for example Silence Dogood and Publius were names used in Colonial times. So, condemning someone for anonymity is an argumentative fallacy, by which they can ignore the substance of the argument by challenging something external to the argument.

Keep in mind that in a shame culture... in and out is determined by the community, so let's say I have friends and/or relatives still in the RP church. Guilt culture would recognize, despite disagreement with me, that my guilt does not fall on my RP connections, but shame culture would use shame to pressure those connections for maintaining their connection to me - someone out of the group. Remember that Jesus was shamed for being "a friend of sinners". That is not guilt culture, but shame culture.

Comment #3:

Kathryn Stegall, the EPC would be a good fit for you. I am sure Mr. Hemphill will put in a good word for you.

Again, this is a subtle shaming. Mr. Hemphill, Kathryn Stegall, and the EPC have apparently been determined to be "out" of the RP circle of true believers, therefore, my being or being associated here is a point of shame.

This brings up an interesting point for you remaining RPs. What does the RPCNA teach about churches that are "in" and "out"? It's really unclear. The NAPARC churches appear to be "in" because there are fraternal relations, but on the other hand, they are "out" because they don't hold to the RP doctrine of exclusive psalmody. At best, they are Christians with an asterisk(*).

There is no reason to actually take time to consider. Here's an example. I've called out specific errors in the Westminster Confession of Faith - primarily that it ignores domineering and abuse by "superiors" - which enables the authoritarian culture we see in WCF churches. The EPC holds to the WCF, which is a significant reason why I would not be interested in the EPC.

The RP church is steeped in shame culture. Your position in the church is based on the community opinion, which is, effectively, the opinion of pastors and elders. In my case, I held a position (women deacons) which was church doctrine, yet my pastor and elders opposed women deacons and used public shaming of me to, I suppose, prevent me from influencing those around me.

Christians should refuse to participate in shame culture. Another good quote in the article about shame culture:

Ancient (and modern) Middle Eastern culture that is the Biblical context, is thoroughly shame-based. But traditional Western (as in European) readings of Scripture are more guilt-based, and have tended to … impose their guilt-based worldview on Scripture. This is why the penal substitution metaphor for the Cross (we’re guilty and deserving of punishment, Jesus takes on our guilt) has so dominated Western theology. Much of the movement of theologians of color, especially from Asian-Americans, has been to recover that original shame-based context and message. So, the Gospel is not just “We’re guilty; Jesus removes our guilt” but “We feel shame—and we have no way to deal with it effectively—but Jesus absorbs our shame.”

If Jesus absorbs our shame, then there is no place for shaming of Christians in the church. We accept each other, as Paul did, as brothers and sisters. We're all "in", unless we act in ways that lead those around us to believe that we are "out", which becomes a matter of church discipline. 

What is JOY and how does the RPCNA destroy it?

I've mentioned before how I believe Reformed/Evangelical legalists equivocate between happiness and joy in a way that destroys people's motivation and self-esteem. I'll briefly revisit that, and then propose a definition of joy that is distinct from happiness and helps put this teaching in perspective.

The sermons on joy seem to go in a definitional circle. First, joy is promoted as an essential of the Christian life [i.e. a legalistic requirement]. If you do not have joy, you cannot be a Christian, because the life of the Christian is a life of joy. Then, joy is juxtaposed with happiness [equivocation part 1] - that is, the non-Christians seek "happiness" [a fleeting emotion], not "joy" [which at this point is some ethereal, non-fleeting emotion and will never be defined] and that is ultimately a worthless endeavor. Examples of joy are given. People are described in terms indistinguishable from happiness. Paul sang in prison, martyrs sang while being burned, people work demeaning jobs with a smile on their faces. Examples are paraded of people who were not brought down by horrible circumstances  The unstated definition of "joy" throughout is "spiritual, deep, non-fleeting happiness". This is then brought full circle by the reiteration that we Christians should experience joy in all circumstances, which as far as we can understand from the sermon equates to, "Christians need to "look and feel happy", no matter the circumstances." Sometimes there is even the claim that God provides harsh circumstances for the Christian to put us face to face with our lack of joy.

The conclusions are that: (1) joy is deep, emotional happiness, exemplified by a happy demeanor. (2) The church has no responsibility to encourage or create joy in us because the way to create joy is to put us face-to-face with our lack of joy. (3) We should not try to avoid or change joyless circumstances, other than find a way to divorce our emotions from our worldly circumstances.

My definition: Joy is an emotional response of being a valued member of a larger group.

I like this definition because it shows how the Reformed church misses it completely.

1) Our joy in Christ. We Reformed Christians are supposed to find joy in our relationship with Christ and God; however, the Reformed church destroys our sense of value. Yes, we are adopted heirs, whatever, but when it comes to value, the church shoves Total Depravity in our faces. Worm Theology is ultimately one that removes our joy by making our relationship with God one that is valueless. Yes, in a sense, we are not worthy. That is true! BUT! In Jesus we are MADE WORTHY! We can claim worth and value through Christ. The church blurs and ignores that message to maintain abusive control.

We should have joy in Christ, because we are a valued part of God's redemptive plan. He loves us and wants to overflow our lives so that our joy can flow into others. While I do believe that God can remove our joy in something that is replacing our joy in him, I don't believe that is a primary method, especially in a church/family system where shame and legalism are present. Imagine the story of The Horse and His Boy, but instead of Shasta, newly discovered son of the king and heir to the throne, being treated like royalty, the king says, I need to treat you like a slave so that you can find your own joy within. NO! He was treated like a slave his entire life, why would the king treat his son like that?

I'm not a fan of John Piper, who I think follows the same approach, but read a Neocalvinist rebuttal of Piper:

Do true believers, who have turned toward God in repentance, and come to Christ in faith, and know the joy of sins forgiven, seek after happiness?  Of course not!  They have been redeemed by the precious blood of Christ, adopted into the family of God, and know God as their heavenly Father; their names are written in the Lamb’s book of life; they are risen with Christ, and they seek those things which are above, for ‘their life is hid with Christ in God’ (Colossians 3.1-4).  Believers are exhorted to ‘put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and holiness’ (Ephesians 4.24). The joy of serving the risen Christ is the greatest joy known to man this side of heaven.  True believers do not seek after worldly happiness, for they know the blessings of their heavenly Father.

There is not one hint of value here, only legalistic duty and, quite frankly, the juxtaposition of happiness and joy (Do true believers ... seek after happiness?) suggests that the mere thought of Christians desiring happiness is evil. (Another equivocation, mind you, now happiness and joy are opposites!)

2) Our joy in the Church. The visible church is an organization that seeks to provide a place of growth and service for the individual Christian. The church should demonstrate and represent Christ's love to the world, but also to the individuals. We should receive joy as part of the church to see how God builds up his saints and how our individual gifts contribute and matter to the greater good. It is fundamentally joy destructive for Christians to be treated as unnecessary or unimportant or sideline observers in the church, yet this is a tenet of the Neocalvinist church where the "ministers" do the ministry and the laity obey their leaders and praise them at every opportunity.

This is also why authoritarianism is so tempting in the visible church. People desire joy and see their leaders as being joyful because they are fulfilling their ministerial call, so they want to be leaders themselves. We have a lot of people becoming leaders simply because the church does not value non-leaders. Not only that, but when non-leaders complain about a lack of joy, they are told that their relationship with God should be their source of joy and they are unrighteous to seek joy within the church - an equivocation, and unspeakably evil.

3) Our joy in the family. Our family is our closest bond and common purpose. The church should be encouraging parents to raise their children with joy - meaning that the children are valued, their purposes are valued and that they are an important part of the family mission. Instead, the church teaches a system of emotional and physical abuse where the children are taught that they are worthless and don't matter. Parenting books talk about breaking the will, they talk about the child being constantly at odds with God, they talk about the need to downplay their accomplishments and punish every infraction. Children are taught "I'm third" - God first, others second, me third - a message dripping with worthlessness.

So, why are we surprised that every RP generation is a lost generation. When we are, at every turn, beaten away from a sense of hope and purpose, and it is replaced with reminders of our own worthlessness and inability, it's not surprising that there will be many that will seek hope and purpose outside the RPCNA.

Comment on seminary training

I received this comment and thought it would be best to devote some attention to it. 

Others will know much more than I about the system of educating NAPARC pastors, but what I have seen is not very impressive. I know of a man who had no education beyond high school, who got an Associate degree in business from an online place that no longer exists, and somehow was accepted by a respected reformed seminary. He now has an MDiv, and gets to "pastor" a church. He, like many others, seems to believe that his sole purpose in life is to be studying. Then he "serves" his congregation by "preaching and teaching." This entitles him to a salary and to be the head of the "session," which makes all of the decisions for said tiny church, with no accountability to the members, although they give lip-service to the idea of accountability. The church has no outreach into the community, but is quite a comfortable little enclave for those who think that the church is a little mini-seminary/book club where the only hope for people is held tightly, inerrantly, and rather exclusively. Sermons frequently mention what the Catholics/Lutherans/Baptists/ people who don't study their Bibles like he does are getting wrong. I could say much more about how the church has accepted the idol of perceived scholarship in the place of elders as described in Scripture. But my original point is that these men are perceived as "educated", but truth is, many of them are seemingly not acquainted with the realities encountered by people who must hold to knowledge/skill sets in order to produce something of tangible value in the world to provide for their families and support the church. This ignorance would be fine if it were accompanied by a humility and kindness, but the church seems to love to put people who lack those qualities in leadership positions.

All of this affirms the scriptural assertion that "knowledge puffs up". I think stamping achievement onto men simply because they succeed at reading and regurgitating and communing with others that do the same is part of the problem.

I think there is a flawed system in place here. I've had many debates on this subject and am more convinced that this is a core problem in the church today. The Apostles were trained in a mentorship/apprenticeship model by Jesus. There is good evidence that the next generation of pastors were trained in the same sort of model - walking alongside the Apostles. At some point, however, the church "discovered" that the apprenticeship model wasn't working(!!) Pastors were not being properly trained in basic Christian truths, and thus an educational model was necessary. This led to the seminary model where pastors were given a base level of knowledge necessary to pastor a church. Our church history has been filled with examples of trying to find that right balance between the book smarts and apprenticeship model.

To add some insight into this, there is a book by Peter Colin Campbell, called The Theory of the Ruling Elder, or the Position of the Lay Eldership in the Reformed Churches. This book is public domain and available online. This book completely floored me. Campbell had access to the minutes of the Westminster Assembly. This is his understanding of what happened in the Westminster Assembly:

While the Grand Committee declare unanimously in favour of the institution of lay rulers in the Church, they carefully exclude from their conclusion not merely the term presbyter, in reference to lay rulers, but even that of elder, as liable to be confounded with "presbyter," and refuse to quote I Tim. v. 17, in regard to the office. The conclusions of the Committee are recorded thus by Gillespie and Lightfoot: — 

1. That Christ hath instituted a government and governors ecclesiastical in the Church. 

2. That Christ hath furnished some in His Church with gifts for government, and with commission to execute the same when called thereunto. 

3. That it is agreeable to and warranted by the Word of God that some others besides the ministers of the word be church governors, to join with the ministers in the government of the Church. Rom. xii. 7, 8 ; i Cor. xii. 28.

Some members had expressed a wish to rest the institution simply "on a prudential ground" — that is, on expediency — and some were opposed to the citation even of the two above-mentioned texts, although none except Dr Temple and Lightfoot voted for their being omitted. But the attempt of Whittaker and Gillespie, renewed the following day, to procure the citation of i Tim. v. 17 as applicable to the office of lay ruler, met with no success; and the conclusions of the Committee were sent in to the Assembly in the form in which we have given them above, with the following addition : "That in the Church of the Jews there were elders of the people joined to the priests and Levites in the government of the Church." 

The conclusions, or, as they were styled, "votes," of the Committee were brought up for the consideration and approval of the Assembly on the 14th November 1644, preparatory to their being transmitted to the Houses of Parliament; when, as Lightfoot tells us, "there fell a debate about naming church governors, whether to call them 'ruling elders' or no; which held a very sad and long discussion: at last it was determined by vote thus, — such as in the Reformed Churches are commonly called 'elders.'" Gillespie made a last attempt to obtain the recognition of the theory, and, with obvious purpose, moved that the Assembly itself should call them "ruling elders;" " but this," Lightfoot tells us, "prevailed not."* The battle of the presbyter theory had been fought and lost. 

* It would have been well had the caution happily exercised by the Westminster Divines in the citation of Scripture in reference to church government been shown on other occasions. The craving for express Scripture warrant, in matters where common sense is a sufficient guide, was natural in the position of the Reformed Churches, but it led sometimes to an unjustifiable and even ludicrous straining of the Word of God. 

* There is a blank in Gillespie's Notes, extending from the 25th October to the 15th November 1644. 

The following is the chapter on the subject in the 'Form of Church Government ' as finally authorised by the Assembly: — "Other Church Governors. — As there were in the Jewish Church elders of the people joined with the priests and Levites in the government of the Church, so Christ, who hath instituted government and governors ecclesiastical in the Church, hath furnished some in His Church, besides the ministers of the word, with gifts for government, and with commission to execute the same when called thereunto, who are to join with the ministers in the government of the Church, which officers Reformed Churches commonly call 'elders'. 

Nothing can be more significant than this sound and well-guarded language. Equally guarded and significant is that of the Confession of Faith in its allusion to lay rulers. It knows nothing of them as presbyters or elders in the proper sense. 

The conclusion of Campbell's book as that Gillespie et. al. returned to Scotland and misrepresented the position of the Westminster Assembly, thus establishing the Ruling Elder as an ordained office and through it, "Classical Presbyterianism", when Westminster came to the exact opposite conclusion.

There are definite conclusions regarding ruling elders, but consider what the implications are for the Teaching Elder.

1. There is no warrant for "young" teaching elders. The name elder itself suggests age and wisdom, not youth and knowledge.
2. There is an expectation that the church should see the fruit of their parenting, not have pastors with infants.
3. There is an expectation of a life lived within a church and demonstrated faithful witness, not seminary training and a 25yo pastor.
4. The Biblical model has always been people chosen from the congregation by the congregation and not candidates approved by the leadership and forced on congregations.
5. The seminary model and cost/"benefit" of seminary training paid by the church lead to a push to train younger and younger pastors for a lifetime of ministry rather than, let's say, a 50yo man who has had a successful career and raised his children well.
6. The church has fallen into [what the church claims!] is the failed messianic model of education where morality and character can be imputed through book knowledge.
7. What does a 'plurality' of elders [pastors] mean when RP churches are often separated by hundreds of miles from the next-nearest RP church.

There is much more to say about this, but the more you think about the implications of what transpired in the quote, the more staggeringly we've fallen away from even Westminster.

To reference an earlier comment, as much as we may be upset with "Pastor McPedigree" - that model is so much closer to the Biblical model, and, I believe, we see much more faithfulness and pastoral qualities in the 2nd and 3rd-generation pastors who were raised under their father pastors and had essentially an apprenticeship. What we see in the young hotshot pastors is exactly what you've related. They cannot wait to wave over a congregation. They cannot wait for the adoration and obedience they see pastors command, and once they are in that position, the thought of pastoring -shepherding and walking with people - is the furthest from their mind.

The book, The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse also points to wisdom and Spirit-guided life experience as the hallmarks of the office of elder/pastor. These are things that cannot be trained in seminary.

The Reformed church likes to claim that study of the Bible in the original languages of Greek and Hebrew is necessary to be a pastor, but this seems to be mainly an Islamic or even old Catholic claim. The history of the church shows that there was an early effort to translate scriptures into the common languages of the day, and we still see that today. The Holy Spirit works beyond language, and thus claiming that a pastor must know Greek and Hebrew to be effective is more a slap in God's face than anything else.

Recovering from Spiritual Abuse - Part 4: Depression, Reflection, Loneliness

Hi all, welcome back after the Christmas break :) Today's topic is a hard one for sure, and is probably why it was so long in coming. I think it will be hard to separate externally-forced stage 4 grief from internally-forced stage 4 grief, but I will try. I think in handling personal grief, such as the loss of a loved one, there is a sadness once the loss is truly recognized. When leaving an abusive church, I'm sure there is that, too, but also, there is the sense of active abandonment. There is a distance with people like Chris who would not share the same fellowship with me now compared to the past, especially knowing my journey.

So, the external grief is very hard - there are people I saw week after week, invited over for dinner and was invited over regularly. There was a shared sense of purpose, of friendship, and even though we perhaps had similar views of the failings of the church, when I left, there was a rift. When I look back at the fun at conferences and church picnics and all of the fellowship common to RPs, it's hard not to feel left out and abandoned. When I left it was a very clear choice - I could stuff myself into the RP mold for me so that my family and I could have the RP experience, which was mostly good for the others in my family, or I could follow God without compromise and accept the consequences. There have been a lot of consequences - mainly bad from RP-land and mainly good from non-RP-land.

Internally is somewhat different, and I can't really say which stage I'm in - it seems to change from day to day. Much of the depression comes from being between a rock and a hard place with family and church. For both, there was fellowship and fun times and a sense of belonging, but at a cost of knowing and accepting my place. The places where I was supposed to be accepted offered that acceptance at a price too high to pay - shame and silence.

There is also a related self-shame spiral. I was as legalistic and hate-filled as any RP towards those who compromised truth for comfort. I thought of the people who left the church as weak and inferior, because I believed the RP church was the most pure. Even if I could try to right that, what would the response be? How do you apologize for something you never said or did, but felt in your heart? It seems the best I can do is promise to do better with my new-found freedom. But, even with freedom, there is conflict - what if following that freedom puts me in direct opposition to the born-and-raised RP position on exclusive psalmody and a capella singing?

Isolation has become a struggle because I don't feel like I can invite anyone into my processing of grief. On one hand, it would be good to have some help with the load I carry, on the other hand, if I show anyone the load, I doubt they would want to help carry. I think that is why online spiritual abuse groups have become a lifeline for so many, even if they cannot share things in person, they can still hear and commiserate.