On Hope and voting with your feet

There was a recent thread on one of the posts. I'm not sure what led to the comment, but I felt like given the direction the thread took, I was being called out for being "cynical" about the RP church, and that somehow having "hope" that the RPCNA can reform would dictate a more positive attitude.

When I left the RPCNA, I actually believed that the fundamental teachings were correct, the procedures were correct, maybe incomplete, and the primary problem was a new culture of authoritarianism. I was wrong. I believe that when the fundamental teachings of the RP church are distilled, there is a narcissistic god and the "new culture of authoritarianism" was really reframing the church culture through the lens of a micromanaging, narcissistic god.

"Hope", though is a codeword. The battered wife is told to return to her husband and "hope" and pray that God will change him. The battered sheep is told to submit to his session and his church and "hope" that the culture will change. I don't think it's cynical for the wife to divorce her husband and still hope and pray that he changes, nor is it cynical for the sheep to leave an abusive church and still pray for reform. So, what are options for people who are in the RPCNA hoping for change?

Stay and fight or stay and be a light?

Reform can happen many ways. I think the least helpful way to bring about reform is to stick it out and hope for the best. God chose prophets, gave them Spiritual gifts to proclaim his message, but what was their commission? Hosea was told to marry a prostitute because her unfaithfulness to him mirrored Israel's unfaithfulness to God. Jeremiah was told to preach the destruction of Judah, and what would happen with the leaders? "They will fight against you, but they will not overcome you, for I am with you to deliver you". Yes, occasionally, these prophets brought reform, but mostly they were ignored or rejected. I do believe that God calls many to be his voice in churches that have forsaken him, but I don't think that is the call of every believer in the RPCNA.

I knew I wasn't a "stay and fight" kind of person, but I did have the idea that I could stay and be a light. The issue with this for born-RPers is that being a light in the midst of darkness still requires a strong identity in Jesus. I didn't have that because I grew up in the RPCNA where my identity was cleverly co-opted into what my session told me it was. So, I'm trying to challenge my session and other church members about authoritarianism in the church, and at the same time my identity is being crushed by leaders who I've been groomed to believe more than my own conscience.

Vote with your feet?

Leaving is often shamed by those who choose to stay and claim that they are fighting, but it has a lot of Biblical support: "For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand outside. I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God Than dwell in the tents of wickedness." or "Any place that does not receive you or listen to you, as you go out from there, shake the dust off the soles of your feet for a testimony against them." or 'Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.'"

It requires wisdom to walk out of a church. I certainly did not have wisdom beyond a notion that God had given me gifts to use in service to his kingdom and the church I was attending was rejecting my use of those gifts. That was the kernel of truth that freed me from the RPCNA, but since I've left, I've seen so much more how the RP church is hurting the faithful by peddling a harsh, judgmental and narcissistic god in the name of the gospel. I believe the divide in the church isn't over whether the pastor ministers or teaches ministry, but whether the pastor preaches a narcissistic god who abuses us for his glory, or preaches a loving God who stands with us against abuse.

When is hope futile?

I think there is a parable that is very accurate here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_drowning_man - the essence is that a man wants God to save him from drowning, but he refuses the "ordinary means" - a canoe, a boat and a helicopter - and instead, presumably, expects something miraculous. When the man dies and confronts God, God says, "what did you want? I sent you two boats and a helicopter!"

What I mean by this is that when we want God to reform our church, maybe God responds by showing us a different "our church" vs. reforming the church we are physically present in. I have grown far more in my non-RP church than I did in the RP church, in far less time. My gifts are welcomed and appreciated, and when I'm overwhelmed, I can step back and get a response of thankfulness and not shame. I would love to have hope that the RPCNA will reform, but the further removed I am from the toxic culture, the deeper I recognize that toxic culture pervades. It will take a miracle. Call me cynical, but I see the RPCNA with the pedal to the floor headed towards authoritarianism and toxicity. 

Getting stuck in dysfunctional family roles

 This is probably also applicable to people who grew up in the church and were never allowed to break their childhood persona, but I was reading yesterday and found this quote to be very insightful:

In Charles Whitfield's book, Healing the Child Within: Discovery and Recovery for Adult Children of Dysfunctional Families, we are given a list of rights we all have. It is titled, "Personal Bill of Rights," and it is found on p. 116-117. One of the rights I love on this list is:

"I have the right to change and grow."

As I previously mentioned, in shame-based systems, we often get put in a certain role. No matter how hard we try to get out of that role and change, we are still seen in the same role. If we were the screw up, we are always seen as the screw up. If we were the one who kept all the communication growing, it became our task in the system to continue to do that. If we were the heroes, we could do no wrong. When we try to discuss having a problem or a struggle, we are often dismissed.

We have the right to change and grow. We have the right to look at our old roles and change them. We have the right to learn and make changes based on what we are learning.

What we can't control is how other people view us. We may have the right to change and we might change, but it does not mean others will acknowledge or honor the changes.

Barb Tonn, MA - Shine the Light of Truth on Shame: Daily Reflections p.409-410

In reading about dysfunctional families, it seems rare that children are ever able to graduate from what role they were assigned. I expect the same is true in dysfunctional churches, which is sad because we supposedly believe the Holy Spirit is an agent of even miraculous change, but somehow miraculous change is not enough to overcome the shame-based assigned roles. 

 

 

 

Reformed beliefs on mental illness and Christian Science

We good Reformed people recognize that Christian Science is a cult that mistakenly believes that all sickness is a result of our lack of faith, and that if we believed the "right things", we could escape sickness.

Students of Christian Science are learning through their daily study of the Bible and the Christian Science textbook that sickness is not a stubborn reality which must be endured because it cannot be cured. Sickness is only an erroneous concept of God's perfect handiwork;
Source

We should compare that to the teaching of Biblical Counseling, which is prevalent in Reformed circles

Also, as a counselor listens to the pain of sexual assault, it is easy to get so wrapped up in a counselee’s pain, and this may mean you sidestep the topic of your counselee’s failures. Now don’t hear me wrong. The sexually violated woman is never, repeat never, at fault for her abuser’s sin against her. Yet in response to the trauma of sexual violation, she may also sin.

Reframe her story. She is no longer a victim. In Christ she is a victor. 

An essential part of defaming her story has three parts and is based on Ephesians 4:22-24:

Discarding old patterns of ungodly thinking

Thought reconstruction

Adopting new patterns of godly thinking Source

The similarities are pretty striking. To first understand why they are so similar. The Biblical Counseling word "victim" must be examined. Let's reframe this story from mental/emotional to physical. Let's say the "violation" is instead a car accident caused by a drunk driver that leaves the woman wheelchair-bound. So, the rhetoric is now:
"The paraplegic woman is not, repeat not, at fault for the accident caused by the drunk driver [true]. Yet, in response to the trauma of having her legs amputated, she may also sin [true]. Reframe her story, she is no longer paraplegic. In Christ she is able-bodied. [uhhh. Hmmm.]"

So, we see that the spiritual and temporal get mixed in much the same way as with Christian Science. Yes, God created a world without sickness, just as he created a world without trauma and victims. YET! The world isn't there today. Just as someone can be born with missing limbs, someone can lose limbs. Some are born with mental distress and some become mentally distressed by a natural response to abuse.

We know, when considering this physically, that a victim of a drunk driver may require extensive surgery, followed by months, if not years of physical and occupational therapy. Obviously some accident victims will never fully recover in this life.

So, why does the church and Biblical Counseling insist on a six week mental/emotional recovery program? Why does the church and Biblical Counseling insist that modern psychology, counseling and psychiatry are detrimental, and that Christians should never be state-licensed mental health professionals?

In a sense, the Christian Scientists are more theologically consistent. They believe the body AND mind to be reversibly damaged, whereas, Evangelicals believe that only the mind is reversibly damaged. In other words, both faiths believe that the solution to a broken mind is faith. I wonder what they believe about Alzheimer's and senility - if that's a lack of faith or part of a broken body, but the evidence is pretty clear that something is different between the body and mind.

For the body, Evangelicals believe that medical treatment is necessary, good, and helpful. It's good to take medicine because medicine can help things. High blood pressure can be corrected, cancer can be fought, drugs can alleviate pain and make life better. For the mind, however, any drug, despite how studied and widespread is just covering over some sort of sin. A psychiatrist might prescribe anti-anxiety medicine to help a sexually violated woman deal with flashbacks and crippling fear, but the Biblical Counselor would simply call that "sin" (not a natural psychological response to trauma) and if it isn't fixed in six weeks then the person isn't leaning enough into Jesus's "victory".

In the same way, Evangelicals would think nothing of a member who has torn an ACL signing up for a year of physical therapy to strengthen the joint after surgery. They wouldn't blink an eye at a member with a back injury having to have regular injections for the rest of their lives. Yet, the idea that it might take years of counseling or therapy to recover from a severe trauma like sexual violation, or complex trauma like growing up in an abusive home, is considered scornful. The idea that someone with Bipolar Disorder might have to take medication for the rest of their lives is considered a lack of faith.

I would also say that just as a person's body would be harmed by the church refusing to recognize a medical condition, the same is true for the mind. What would happen if a church told a member with a broken ankle that they were sinning if they didn't play volleyball for the church league that weekend? Wouldn't that be cruel and irresponsible? But churches and Biblical Counselors (as seen above) tell abuse victims to "reframe" their mental state. What does that mean? It seems that it means acting as if the abuse never happened, just like playing volleyball on a broken ankle. It often plays out like this - the church gets the abuser to repent, and then pressures the victim to forgive and act as if nothing happened. If the victim doesn't feel safe being in the same room during worship, that's not forgiving. If the victim files a restraining order, that's not forgiving. If the victim won't submit to joint counseling, that's not forgiving. Just like a broken bone, if the victim isn't good as new in six weeks there's probably something wrong with her.

Maybe the church needs to recognize that the mind, just like the body, suffers under the curse, and just like bodies can be born disabled or harmed later in life, the mind is similar, and just as the church accepts much of modern medical treatment for the body, they should recognize that there are valid medical treatments for the mind.

Update on Immanuel RPC happenings at 2023 Presbytery and Synod meetings

RPCNA Synod met last week, and during the week the GLG presbytery met. There have been a lot going on since last years' verdicts:

Immanuel RPC:

IRPC voted to leave the RPCNA. This was rejected at presbytery's last meeting. The Constitution allows for two paths toward exit - transfer to another denomination and dissolution. The underlying issue was what happened to the IRPC church building that was held in trust by the Presbytery.

Since that meeting, IRPC voted again to leave vs. transfer, so apparently GLG Presbytery decided that dissolution was the chosen path. I doubt IRPC will be able to keep their building at this point.

Former IRPC Elders (Keith Magill, Ben Larson, David Carr):

These men pled guilty of their charges, were suspended from their offices for a year, and an oversight committee was assigned to bring reconciliation and restoration. Apparently, these men, as part of the IRPC church rebellion, declared that they were "unable to work with the committee".

Synod voted to depose these men from their office. They are no longer ordained officers in the RPCNA.

Jared Olivetti:

Jared also stopped working with his committee, and rejected his discipline (suspension from communion) by accepting communion late last year at IRPC. Synod voted to excommunicate Jared.

IRPC Elders who served communion to Jared:

Another complaint came because IRPC's session voted to serve communion to Jared. These men were rebuked at the Presbytery level. A complaint against this action (that it was not sufficient discipline against clear insubordination) was sustained by Synod.

IRPC Next Steps:

A reliable source told me that IRPC voted to leave and reorganize under the name "Redeeming Grace" (why, oh why, do abusive churches seem so attracted to the word grace??!!) with former pastor James Faris as the moderator of their session. I'm wondering if their goal is to split the friendly churches off of the RPCNA to form a new denomination.

Just to recap, Jared's relative raped a bunch of kids. The church leadership circled the wagons around Jared while pretending that he had been recused from oversight of the situation. The leadership then downplayed the rapes as "normal teenage hormones" - re-victimizing the victims, failed to report the crimes to the authorities, and subsequently refused any counsel from presbytery. The leadership's complete disregard for what was right led to a huge expose in the Indy Star and disgrace for IRPC, the presbytery and denomination. Now they want to recast the church as "grace" - the opposite of what they displayed to the victims and their families. Instead, it's always about what the leadership wants for themselves, not for their congregation. It's a doubling down on the abuse. Not only will they abuse the victims, but when those in leadership face accountability, they demand grace, or else walk away. How brainwashed do you need to be to stick with a church that obviously cares only about protecting its leaders?

The Patriarchal Empire Strikes Back

 Not sure how familiar people are with the RCUS - another NAPARC denomination that is about 1/5th the size of the RPCNA. They are a "Three forms of unity" church, which holds to the Heidelberg Confession, Belgic Confession and Canons of Dort, which I understand to be along the same lines as the Westminster Confession.
Sam Powell was a pastor in the RCUS, brought up on charges for teaching "false doctrine", and because the RCUS doesn't appear to have the same procedural protections as the RPCNA does, Sam was found guilty of unspecified charges and told to repent. The Clerk could not tell him what he was supposed to repent of. The whole situation is just a witch trial and kangaroo court. He's essentially the RCUS equivalent of Bruce Hemphill, except that Bruce Hemphill was given specific charges.
Sam talks about the situation in this article: https://myonlycomfort.com/2023/03/22/heres-what-happened/
It comes down to his position on this overture that came into the PCA:

Overture 15: “Men who describe themselves as homosexual, even those who describe themselves as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy by refraining from homosexual conduct, are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America.”

Now, I've discussed this before. Sam's response is in this article: https://myonlycomfort.com/2022/06/24/a-sad-day/ which, I think, rightly puts the emphasis back on the position of the church.

56. What dost thou believe concerning the “forgiveness of sins”?

That God, for the sake of Christ’s satisfaction, will no more remember my sins, nor the sinful nature with which I have to struggle all my life long; but graciously imputes to me the righteousness of Christ, that I may nevermore come into condemnation.

Essentially, he's saying the same thing. We will ALWAYS struggle with the flesh. Our struggle with the flesh can take on many different forms, some struggle with greed, some struggle with lust, some struggle with anger, some struggle with sexual sins. What would we say about a pastor who is happily married, has never looked at porn, has never had an affair or dated a woman who is not his wife, but then gets up in front of the congregation and says he "struggles with lust" - well, since that's exactly the premise of "Every Man's Battle", and many churches promote that book, we assume that "struggles with lust" is not a disqualification for pastors.

So, Sam Powell got brought up on charges because the patriarchs of his denomination believe that not all sinful natures are created equal. Some flesh is just too evil for God to work with. Some desires are just unforgivable. If that were the case, don't you think that greed, lust and anger are also unforgivable? Jesus said the person who is angry has committed murder in his heart. The person who has lust has committed adultery. Murder and Adultery are also capital crimes in the OT, so why is same-sex-attraction on a different level than anger and lust? There's no reason, and I would argue that his accusers (e.g. Stephen Carr) have done more than had lustful and angry thoughts. Their whole approach to women in the Geneva Commons has been lustful, angry and greedy. Actions, not thoughts. So, for these men to claim moral superiority over any potential pastor because of sinful flesh which has never seen the light of day, demonstrates exactly where their hearts are - far from Jesus who died so that men could conquer sinful flesh.

Church membership, Biblical or not?

The RP Witness article is beyond a paywall, so I can't respond directly, but you can find the article here: https://rpwitness.org/trunk/page/article/your-covenant-and-the-new-covenant

A similar article that I'll respond to more directly is here: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/is-church-membership-really-required/ the argument is very similar to John Edgar's argument in the RP Witness.

Remember, the primary Evangelical tools of cognitive dissonance are equivocation and false dichotomy. With that, let's dig in:

The argument of church membership being mandatory is not whether we should or should belong to the "body of Christ" that is, the invisible church, the collection of all believers. The question is whether Christians are commanded to make vows to a local organization called the church. For example, in the RPCNA, you cannot make a profession of faith without also joining the church where you are making that profession. It is a reason why I did not profess faith when I felt a personal connection to Jesus beyond being raised to belief - I did not want to join my parents' church.

Israel is the church and the church is Israel - when Reformed theologians look at the church, they see an unbroken connection between the OT and NT church. Moses was a Christian just as Cornelius was the heir of Abraham. In the OT, the Jewish leaders confused ethnic Israel with salvation, just as the modern-day church has struggled with the connection between membership and salvation (remember Doug Wilson's "Federal Vision"). For both OT and NT, membership in the church was either by birth and acceptance of the covenant - what Rick Gamble would call "age-appropriate faith", or by accepting the sign of the covenant (circumcision or baptism) as a new believer.

So, let's understand that the "congregation" of Israel was never some individual isolated community, but was a nation, an ethnicity*, and a religion. I will say that the ethnicity itself is fluid. Deut. 23:3 says "No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the Lord; none of their descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall ever enter the assembly of the Lord," now, remember that Ruth was a Moabite, meaning that her grandson, David would be a second-generation Moabite, yet David was definitely part of the 'assembly of the Lord'. So, it seems the conclusion is that Ruth became Jewish by accepting the covenant (your people will be my people and your God will be my God (Ruth 1:16).

It's therefore important to understand that the ecclesiology in the OT and NT have to match. It took a number of families to form a synagogue, and there was no guarantee that there would be enough people when the Jews were scattered to form these synagogues everywhere they might migrate, yet, they were still children of Abraham. In the same way, we send missionaries to foreign countries to establish churches, yes, but even if a church doesn't get established we wouldn't force a few converts to move somewhere else to join a local body.

The synagogue is an example of the local church, and the local church is an example of the synagogue - our modern church adopted the synagogue model, which was pervasive in the first century. I believe that there is evidence that the synagogue is not inspired as the model of the church. Jesus taught in the synagogues, and Paul's practice was to preach first at the synagogues (e.g. Acts 17:1-2). So, there's definitely the idea that the synagogue was a good place to share the gospel. However, many of the people Jesus converted, like Jesus himself, were rejected by the synagogue. For example, John 9:22 says, "the Jews had already agreed that if anyone confessed Him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue", so that synagogue was definitely not a "church". John 12:42 says that the Pharisees made people afraid to confess belief in Jesus, lest they be kicked out.

In some ways, Jesus and Paul acknowledge the importance of the local church / synagogue to Judaism/Christianity, but they also don't make it a matter of faith. The church should keep this in mind. What happened to the blind man who was kicked out of the synagogue? Did he lose his salvation as the RPCNA "outside of the church there is no ordinary means of salvation" would suggest? The Bible makes no such argument, in fact, the blind man worships Jesus and chooses Jesus over the Pharisees.

So, it's obviously going to be better to be in a local body of like-minded people who want to serve Jesus but we need to take another look at the synagogue. How many synagogues accepted Jesus? Perhaps one, the synagogue at Berea, but that is even in question, because the Jews from Thessalonica came and stirred up the synagogue against Paul. The track record is extremely poor for synagogues being places truly looking for the coming messiah! What if the same holds for the local church? That would be tragic, and I think we are looking at an Evangelical tragedy.

The visible church is ultimately a collection of like-minded people serving God, not a hierarchy or a boot camp - I want to be careful here. First, Jesus did not threaten those who would leave. In fact, it seems like he almost invited people to leave. After Jesus preaches a difficult sermon, comparing himself to manna, many of his disciples leave. He does not threaten or pursue him. He seems sad, and he asks the disciples, "you do not want to go away also, do you?" (John 6:67) Peter's response is the response of the Christian in a local church today, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life." Jesus also says, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me" (John 10:27) and "A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers."

So, first, we establish that those of the flock follow the voice of Jesus. I believe they also follow Jesus's voice when heard through those who are faithful to Jesus, whether brother or sister, deacon, elder or pastor. When people do not follow the leadership, there are two main possibilities, the sheep don't hear the leaders talking with the voice of Jesus, or the leaders are speaking with the voice of Jesus, but the people are not sheep. There can be other mixtures of truth and error, of course.

So, when we talk about elders, there seems to be more of an organic nature to elders than the modern church portrays. Elders are people who are older in the faith, who have a life that demonstrates faithfulness and love towards the brethren. They do not need the force of membership vows or church courts or arbitration clauses, because they speak with the voice of Jesus and the sheep listen and heed. That's the bulk of it. I do believe that there needs to be a mechanism of accountability for all Christians, although mainly to protect the church from wolves - spiritual, emotional, physical and sexual abusers. The church needs to be able to say, be careful of Frank - he's emotionally abusive. Frank will most likely walk out the door, so they may need to tell other churches the same. I don't know quite how that works. What we see in practice, however, is that the main thing elders should be doing, holding each other accountable, is the last thing they want to do in the modern church. Instead we have the Catholic church moving abusive priests from church to church, the Southern Baptist Church moving abusive pastors from church to church, and the more conservative churches trying their best to hide abuse, protect abusers and trap the abused.

I also want to say that like-minded means followers of Jesus. There should be no other bounds. Many of the doctrines we fight over are of no eternal significance, so why not hold your own beliefs, but agree to partner with people from diverse backgrounds? Am I more effective as a Christian if my church is scattered all over town and I visit only those friends, or am I more effective if I join with a church that is less theologically in agreement, but has members nearby where we can fellowship and invite neighbors?

To equip against the Evangelical arguments, what we will expect to see is first, an equivocation between membership in the invisible church and membership in a particular visible church, and second, we will see a false dichotomy where membership = salvation and not being a member is damnation.

The RP church in a nutshell - from Jesus

 This passage stuck out to me yesterday at church:

You examine the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is those very Scriptures that testify about Me; and yet you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. I do not receive glory from people; but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you accept glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? (John 5:39-44)

The last sentence is exactly where the RPCNA is right now. The RP leadership is a bunch of people seeking the admiration and approval of... each other! Maybe some are deluded into thinking they're serving God but that's not what's happening in practice. 

I overheard an elder at his own relative's funeral talking to another elder. "Hey, it's probably not the best time, but I really want to know what everyone thought about the Presbytery report I wrote." I was pretty shocked, to say the least.

The rest is just spiritually abusive. A bunch of people that are trying to win each others' approval, but then trying to convince the flock that they are really 100% devoted to serving Jesus. So, when they parade their buddy in front of the congregation and nominate him as the next elder. It's about serving Jesus. When they remind people they need to unquestioningly obey elders, it's in the name of Jesus. When they bemoan people leaving the church, it's all because they loved them to the best of their ability and not because they were faithfully tithing while members.

As I said before, not every elder is an abusive wolf, but the system is maintained by and for abusive wolves. When the wolves want the ends, the means are not a concern, but when the wolves are unhappy with the ends, the means must be critically assessed. The people who write complaints about presbyteries "binding their consciences" are the ones who gleefully tell people what they must and must not do from the pulpits.

To look at Odom's paper in light of this. The RPCNA handling of IRPC did not achieve Odom's ends, therefore the means are suspect. He attempts to expose procedural errors the GLG made. However, when talking about how the elders of IRPC handled the case, the means must be flat out ignored because they were trying to attain (by his estimation) the right ends. When you unravel the IRPC fiasco, it's just a bunch of powerful good old boys protecting each other. Faris, Olivetti, Magill, Larson, Odom, Perrin, all trying to win points with each other. I'm sure there are others in that network. Faris listed a bunch of names who approved of the "grace" offered to Olivetti by serving him communion.