Understanding Galatians as an ex-RP

RP pastors have no qualms about working through Galatians. They see the message of Galatians as kind of a Hebrews-like "NT covenant is better than OT covenant". That is definitely a significant part of the message, but there is more that might not be so comfortable to RPs.

Post RP learning 1: Corinthians and Galatians are essentially the book-ends of the churches. (aside) I highly recommend listening to something like "Immerse: Messiah" - it's simply the Bible read as it might have been at the time, without chapters and verses. I also appreciate The Message translation of the Bible because it is a more grace-focused and readable version - although I typically use NASB for debate purposes as it tends to be more literal. (end aside)

So, Corinthians is the picture of today's liberal church - they are within the bounds of what Paul considers Christianity, but they are focused on celebrating diversity, so much so that they wind up celebrating, I suppose, God's graciousness to a man living an obviously sinful lifestyle. That is too much for Paul and he condemns the church for that, but he also recommends some amount of order in the chaos.

Galatians is, in a sense, the other bookend, but keep in mind that Paul uses strong words and says that what the Judaizers are bringing in is a different gospel - outside the bounds of Christianity. In fact, Paul accuses Peter, who had simply started pulling away from the uncircumcised Gentiles, of forsaking the gospel.

But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? (Gal. 2:14)

So, the Corinthian church is a church that is so invested in "Grace" that they are willing to forsake truth, and the Galatian church is a church so invested in "Truth" that they are willing to forsake grace. However, keep in mind that both Grace and Truth in the sense of these churches are a false caricature, as the reality should not be in opposition. Just like the Pharisees and Sadducees,  the church continues to gravitate towards one of these two positions, but unlike them, Paul condemns the Galatian church of straying from the gospel.

Post RP learning 2: The tollbooth and the path. Recently, I heard a good perspective on grace and truth that got me thinking about how legalism kills the gospel. We as Christians are to follow the narrow path, okay, but the narrow path is protected by a tollbooth, and the fare is too expensive for us to pay. So, first, we need grace because we are not even worthy to walk the narrow path (Total Depravity), but then, we need to be yoked to Jesus because he is the only one who can lead us along the narrow path.

The problem with legalism is that we are too focused on the tollbooth. Once the debt is paid, yes, we can be thankful that it is paid, but the tendency of legalism is to try and prove that we were worth saving because we're better than the unsaved. I think RP sermons/worm theology could come from a good desire to be thankful, but I think while RPs wallow in their worminess, Jesus is holding the yoke and saying, "Come join me on what's next". RPCNA doctrine is so focused on the tollbooth that once we're saved, there's nothing left to talk about, maybe other than RP distinctives and being better than all the other churches.

**EDIT**

To add to this, there is not a lot of discipleship in the RP church. Once a soul is won, it's pretty much, come listen to sermons and come to conferences. Under one pastor, I did attend a men's "discipleship" class, but in true legalistic fashion, each week was: First, point to all our inadequacies in some area of discipleship, let's say reading the Bible; Second, present a relatively unattainable standard for what our proper level of commitment to that area should be; and Third, challenge us to meet the unattainable standard going forward. So, after the series is complete, we're supposed to be spending an hour a day reading the Bible, an hour a day praying, an hour a day meditating, one day a week fasting, and probably an hour a day discipling others to do the same. Maybe these books are appealing to pastors because it seems like a bare minimum to them, not the excruciating burden it seems for others. 

There is definitely a need for a regular rhythm of practicing these disciplines, but I think the focus on "hours spent" is more checking some sort of box rather than how do I develop my relationship with God through daily devotions.

Post RP learning 3: The RP church is the Galatian church. RP pastors like to focus on the "issue" at Galatia being a rejection of the new covenant for the old, and that is the case for that church, but I don't think the point of that letter being in scripture is merely about people wanting to be circumcised and follow the OT law. Here are some hints to the broader purpose:

Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba! Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. (Gal 4:6-7)

They eagerly seek you, not in a commendable way, but they want to shut you out so that you will seek them. (Gal 4:17)

[and for reference] So a young man ran and informed Moses, and said, “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.” Then Joshua the son of Nun, the personal servant of Moses from his youth, responded and said, “My lord Moses, restrain them!” But Moses said to him, “Are you jealous for my sake? If only all the Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put His Spirit upon them!” (Num 11:27-29)

The Galatians passage and the Numbers passage are the same pattern. God enables freedom through the Holy Spirit and those who want to maintain control and honor try to squelch the freedom and thus the work of the Spirit. We see both sides. Moses recognizes the pride/control issue immediately and, I believe prophetically, looks forward to the new covenant promise of the Holy Spirit being poured out. In Galatians, the Spirit has been poured out and the Judaizers are trying to re-establish control by squelching the work of the Spirit.

Sorry to say, but that is exactly what is happening in the RP church. Instead of following Moses's are you jealous for my sake? the elders and pastors want to shut members out of the freedom of the new covenant so that they will be sought. The shutting out and the seeking are both woven into the fabric of the RPCNA. The further away I get from the cognitive dissonance fog in the RPCNA, the more clearly I see that there is little to no hope of reform.

I've talked about this earlier, but it is still applicable:

But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut the kingdom of heaven in front of people; for you do not enter it yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. (Matt 23:13)

Post-commentary: 

As a former lifelong RP, I've worked through the grief of walking away from the relationships, the fun conferences and especially the beauty of singing God's word a capella. I appreciate that it is an insurmountable barrier for acquaintances and friends who have knowingly chosen a life of being shut out over the heartbreak of walking away.

I also recognize that not every pastor and elder in the RPCNA is a neo-Judaizer, but those who aren't, in my opinion, are the voices in the desert. Maybe not even voices in the desert because they are well aware of the RP idols and have chosen to gently push people away from the idols rather than attempt to chop them down or speak against them. Far more have so intertwined being RP with a quest for power and admiration that the gospel has become slavery to an institution, not freedom in Christ. My reading of the tea leaves - who is training the next generation of pastors, what issues come to Synod and what is the outcome, who are the powerful voices in the courts - is that the RPCNA is on the wrong trajectory. That said, as time goes on, I'm less connected and less interested in what the RPCNA is doing, so unless I get a comment or an e-mail or have a conversation that gets me interested in something, I don't obsess about what is happening in RP-land.

Probably the best litmus test for neo-Judaizer vs. voice in the desert is whether this verse needs an extra comma at the [?].

for the equipping of the saints[?] for the work of ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ (Eph 4:12)

The neo-Judaizers have so claimed the seeking for themselves and the shutting out for the laity, that only professionals can minister, while the laity observe, a rejection of the priesthood of all believers.

Aimee Byrd gives up on reform within the OPC

Aimee says it better than I could:

 https://aimeebyrd.com/2021/10/22/leaving-the-opc/

I reached out to Aimee when the actions of OPC ministers and the Geneva Commons came to light. My encouragement was simply that she listen to what God had to say and not dwell on what conclusions others would draw from her choices. Some would counsel her to say and some to leave, and, of course, whatever path she chose would generate the same sort of support or antagonism.

It seems like she has wisely chosen an approach, and she has recognized the treatment of the higher courts (not her local church or session) as spiritually abusive. I believe her tenacity and candor have exposed the OPC courts for what they are - as I said, not a bunch of country bumpkins trying to do the right thing with limited understanding, but people who will abuse others in the name of their theological sacred cows. It's troubling that the sacred cow of many in the OPC is patriarchy. It mirrors the case of Dr. Hemphill as well, where justice and due process were jettisoned in the name of preserving the patriarchal system.

I pray that she gets the time and space to heal.

I've appreciate her writings and her perspective. I was thankful for the brief time she used her platform to call out the patriarchal and authoritarian abuse prevalent in the OPC. I find it disturbing that her position is well within the bounds of OPC doctrine, yet the higher courts did nothing those who persecuted her for not being narrowly complementarian and patriarchal like they were. These men and women of Geneva Commons openly ridiculed her. They were allowed to openly call her a wolf (insubordination), despite the fact that she was a member in good standing of the OPC.

Narcissistic Pastoring Part 2 - the making of a slave

Background:

I read it in a comment and I experienced it myself. Dana was a happy, cheerful and devoted RP. Now she has been arrested and charged with Child Endangerment. Her husband Paul has additionally been charged with first-degree rape.

The story that the preliminary charges tell: Paul raped a child and Dana stood by and did nothing to stop it. https://www.examiner.org/belle-center-couple-charged-in-alleged-child-sex-abuse-case/

How do two lifelong [I believe] RPs wind up in such a horrible situation? I believe it falls squarely on the shoulders of narcissistic pastoring and Complementarianism. For Paul, the message was one of entitlement and lack of responsibility, and for Dana, it was sacrifice and culpability.

Let's first talk about male entitlement within comp. theology. Males are in a hierarchical relationship above women. Generally, all males and all females, but more specifically, husbands and wives. The "superior" in a hierarchy is assumed to be superior in all ways (morally, intellectually, spiritually) unless proven otherwise, and the inferior is assumed to be inferior unless proven otherwise. Likewise, the "needs" of the superior trump the "needs" of the inferior.

We can read this in complementarian books all the time. The man's need for respect trumps any desire the woman might have for any of her needs. The man's need for sex trumps any rights the woman has to say no, to heal, to have her own desires. And, when men's needs are not satisfied, the woman is blamed for what results - abuse, neglect, adultery, even incest!

In pure complementarian theology, the last time the woman has a real right to say no is at the altar, and even then there is intense pressure to say yes (because he is superior unless proven otherwise!)

Pursuit:

Pursuit is a common theme in abusive marriages. Women talk about being swept off their feet. No extravagance was spared while dating. He was always there to meet every need, answer every call. The man worships the ground she walks on.

Paul moved to Belle Center, I believe, for the sole purpose of pursuing Dana. It took a long time - at first it was "absolutely not" (I've heard this before, as well), but over time, and with presumably superior pastoral insight from Pastor Phil Pockras, she eventually said "yes".

Even the marriage was a red flag. Apparently, he couldn't wait a couple of months for the wedding they were planning, so they got a few witnesses and Pastor Phil Pockras married them on the spot. I'm not even sure if parents were able to make it.

Pastor-sanctioned abuse:

It would be one thing if Paul whisked Dana away from any oversight (this happens sometimes in Muslim/American marriages where the wife is taken to Saudi Arabia and trapped in their Sharia law). But no! Paul buys a house directly across the street from Pastor Phil Pockras. Paul, a hard-working builder and architect left their house in shambles while he went off to fix other peoples' houses.

It shocked me that they never moved away from Belle Center. He had an architecture job that presumably paid a living wage, but it was far away, so he gave it up (instead of moving away from Pastor Phil Pockras) and chose hourly/day labor jobs that barely paid the bills. According to comments, Dana had to work as well to make ends meet.

Again, my belief is that the constant comp. preaching and demeaning of women/wives that happened at Belle Center trapped Dana in a financially, spiritually and emotionally abusive marriage. Second-hand, I heard that she described abusive things, and when she was asked whether it was okay to be treated that way, well, she probably deserved it. That's the message coming from the pulpit.

Entitled rape:

This is entirely speculation, but it is not unprecedented. In Sovereign Grace Ministries, there's "Taylor's story" where her husband is raping their 10-year-old daughter. The husband is offered grace, while the wife and daughter are blamed for their "part" in the situation. The wife is told not to report the rape to the police, to be available (male entitlement) for her husband and lock their daughter's bedroom.

In the SGM situation, the comp. culture of the church, the leaders and all their friends led her to believe she was doing the best thing by staying silent and respecting her husband's needs.

And, this is the persistent story in complementarianism. The male needs sex. If he is not satisfied, it is primarily the fault of his wife. She needs to lose weight, go to the gym, get some work done, or generally do whatever she can to be attractive enough to satisfy him.

Given that they lived across the street from the pastor, I'm sure she has been the target of shaming because of her "role" in all this.

What's next?

I pray that in their situation, she wakes up. If Pastor Phil Pockras has been supporting this sham of a marriage for 15+ years and probably blaming her for not being submissive and available enough, she needs to divorce him, take the kids and find a better life. There is nothing but shame left in the RPCNA for her.

She did not bring this upon herself. She was repeatedly victimized and abused by those who should have most modeled the freedom and love of Jesus, but instead, she was trapped and abused.

Like SGM and Piper, Pockras will dissociate himself from any wrongdoing as a result of his cultic and toxic teachings and will continue to play the sympathy card.

Yet - it's a catch-22 for him if someone looks carefully enough - If he couldn't provide pastoral oversight to the family living across the street, he's incompetent. If he provided that pastoral oversight, then why is the husband charged with rape and the wife with child endangerment, and the house in shambles? I believe the most accurate picture of Phil Pockras's pastoral legacy is the view across the street.

Narcissistic pastoring in the RP church - part 1

 

This is a situation that has me so angry. I'm going to start with the most innocuous bit of the whole saga that shows how callous, uncaring and evil this RP pastor is and then start walking though what led to this situation.

Background: RP Pastor Phil Pockras is the pastor of Belle Center OH, RPC (the fact this is in Great Lakes - Gulf Presbytery should come as no shock as the level of narcissism is befitting only those who remain in that presbytery).

Two long-term members of Belle Center were arrested recently, according to https://www.facebook.com/LoganSheriffOhio/posts/4447913998599956

Paul Soma, for 2 Counts Gross Sexual Imposition and his wife, Dana Soma, for Endangering Children

I will talk about the charges in a later post, but look at the response. Their pastor, for decades, Phil Pockras is "feeling heartbroken". Not for any victims, not for the faithful RP wife who obeyed her abusive and allegedly sex predator husband to the point of fleeing from the police with him, but for himself and for his church.

For his church - "Major distress in our church", but note that he is ready to accept pity for himself. Major red flags here. In this situation, you have sexual assault victims, a member of the church accused of sexual violence and another accused of child endangerment and his sadness is primarily for the affect on his church. (And since the pastor is the spiritual equivalent of the church, against, this is all about him.

I'm also fascinated what is behind this response, but I think there will be much more to work through on this one in later part(s).

I don't want to leave you too much in the dark about where I'm going with this. I want to point out that there is a lot of history of Evangelical/Reformed churches creating a safe space for abusive men and how their wives are not only victimized, but gaslighted and spiritually coerced into aiding and abetting criminals.

For example, Katie Sitler, wife of convicted pedophile Stephen Sitler and member of Doug Wilson's church in Moscow ID, was first encouraged to marry him knowing that he was a convicted pedophile, presumably to cure him. After they had children of their own, she allowed him to molest the children, despite being appointed as a court observer [seriously??] to prevent him from doing just that.

One of the reports that came out of Sovereign Grace Ministries was a wife whose husband was molesting their teenage daughter. She was discouraged from going to the police (the elders also failed in their duty as mandatory reporters to report him), and instead they recommended she make herself more sexually available to him and lock the daughter's bedroom door at night. When she was finally fed up enough to be part of a lawsuit against SGM, the statute of limitations had run out.

What I think is heartbreaking is when women and children are gaslighted into a crazy system where they have to choose between their religion (i.e. patriarchal authority and blind submission to whatever the authority says, even if it's wrong) or their morality (I'm sure these women know in their heart that what they are doing is wrong, but every authoritative voice in their life says otherwise).

As the comment suggests, Phil Pockras is not some innocent observer to criminal behavior. He, the GLG Presbytery, and to a lesser extent, the RPCNA, have created an environment where abusers flourish and are protected from scrutiny. Abuse-suffering children are not believed (I can attest to this!). Abuse-suffering wives are not believed, or even if they are believed, they are told that God wants them to suffer for his sake. Both wives and children are taught that God cares more about the "institutions" of marriage and family (meaning patriarchal authority), than he does about the people in those relationships. (It's a bait-and-switch, but that is where they double down)

Edit: It seems pretty obvious what gender matters in Belle Center, evidence for the comment above:

To be clear, many women commented that they were praying for him, too, but I guess they don't count.

Also, I found the charges. The date of the offense is listed as 1/1/2012 for both Paul and Dana. There are no other details, but this is very concerning, given that nine years have passed between the time of the offense and the time that arrests were made.

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.