Bloomington goes to bat for IRPC: Part 1

 Just when you thought the IRPC matter was gone and forgotten, the Bloomington, IN session has decided it's time to re-litigate all the grievances IRPC raised under the pretext of "drawing profit" for the future of the RPCNA. I will say that I believe Synod should deal with them because the represent gross misunderstandings of justice that are going to get hashed and rehashed (presumably when victim after victim is abused in the same manner as those at IRPC) to throw stumbling blocks in the way of the saints.

I'm going to work on a point or two in this document (there are nine), explain how it is relevant to the IRPC case and what lessons we can glean from the proposal.

Point 1: "Clarifying the process by which a congregation may voluntarily leave the denomination"

While this is helpful and necessary, it is likely an implication that the RPCNA should have given IRPC the right hand of fellowship (and the keys to their building) on the way out. This is a difficult discussion because IRPC was not merely in disagreement on some tenet of RPCNA doctrine. I think that would be another matter entirely. In fact, the situation here, and why it was so contentious is that IRPC was effectively under discipline. Every member of their session who chose to circle the wagons around Jared rather than justice either resigned at the behest of Presbytery, was suspended from serving in that office, or deposed. Suffice it to say that, even if the RPCNA had a voluntary dissociation of churches, this would still have been a contentious issue.

I believe that member churches should be held to the same standard as they require of members. Members who are "members in good standing" and aren't avoiding judicial proceedings are allowed to leave. Members who are under discipline, charged or on trial have a different standard, and that tends to be left to the governing body.

So, yes, I believe a church that has become convinced of a position that puts them at odds with the RPCNA, yet is still within the umbrella of what the church would consider true Christianity (i.e. a denomination that a local church would transfer members to) should be allowed to leave and keep their property. A church that is protecting domineering and abusive leaders ought not leave the denomination until the matter is adjudicated. Also, RP churches would rather "transfer" members than "remove them from the rolls". Churches need accountability, too, and thus allowing an RP church to leave to become, in effect, congregational, should be equivalent to a member asking to be removed from the rolls - potentially suspect.

By trying to copy the PCA voluntary withdrawal, the Bloomington session is effectively arguing that a local session should be able to abuse their members with impunity, and then when they get caught, they can just move to some new denomination or go non-denominational, taking their property and name with them.

"(including, e.g., a good faith attempt by the denomination to work toward reconciliation prior to dissociation)."

Bloomington wants to paint the Presbytery and Synod concern about the rape of children and subsequent session coverup as a simple disagreement, resolved through "reconciliation." What does Bloomington have to hide?

Point 2: "Repentance and judicial process"

I've dealt with this multiple times, but "I'm sorry" is not carte blanche to commit crimes within the church. There is a lot to unpack here, so bear with me. I will try to address it point by point.

"the claim by the former IRPC pastor to have repeatedly and publicly repented of sins related to failures of communication and leadership prior to any filing of charges ... Whether or not we believe this to be true, the claim is significant in the light of our Book of Discipline (BOD)"

First, just because JARED claims to have repented does not mean that he repented. The PJC and SJC investigated and presumably determined that his claim of repentance did not match the actions. Repentance is a word like belief. Saying "I believe" (as James points out) does not equate to faith, as the demons believe. Faith is belief and action. Saying "I'm sorry" isn't a magic unwind everything back to the starting point. In my opinion, even a cursory reading of the PJC and SJC documents show that "I'm sorry" was played as a get out of jail free card. Seeing the actions of IRPC subsequently, it is obviously true that there was no repentance. Jared treated the censure of the court as a joke and the other session members walked away from the reconciliation process. In their minds, the punishment did not fit the crime. In the minds of the Bloomington session, the punishment did not fit the crime. So, protecting your pastor and his family's privilege to enjoy all the benefits of church membership, like sending a KNOWN SEX OFFENDER to overnight youth conferences, while paying lip service and not following through to protect the victims is okay elder behavior? Would the RPCNA accept Joe Paterno (who knew of Jerry Sandusky's rape of children and did nothing) as an elder? Yet Bloomington thinks it's okay for IRPC elders to do exactly the same thing.

"A formal trial should not be initiated for the purpose of deciding what censure is appropriate for one who has repented."

When Larry Nassar pled guilty to molesting multiple girls under the guise of medical treatment, he never went to trial; however, his victims still had a right to be heard. It was probably "adversarial" in the sense that the victims were allowed to describe what happened to them and ask for justice. I do agree that Synod does not have the depth of judicial process and statutory history that the justice system does, but I don't think hearing the victims was unwarranted.

As to the specific case, I believe that the actions of Jared and the IRPC session (and underscored by the continued rancor among Jared/IRPC fanbois) demonstrated that there was no repentance to begin with. There was only the slapping down of the "I'm Sorry / get out of jail free" card and the expectation that the Good Ole' Boy network within the RPCNA would now circle the wagons to pat Jared and the well-loved IRPC family on the back for being magnanimous and now start re-abusing and re-victimizing those who were asking for justice.

Also consider:

The following rules for the guidance of Synod are those commonly observed by the courts of all churches in the presbyterian system. Insofar as they are applicable they should be followed also by lower courts. It is not to be assumed that they meet every condition, for “Under extraordinary circumstances, extraordinary things may be done.” (DCG 8:1)

The whole Jared/IRPC matter was convoluted and continues to be convoluted. The idea that some neat, tidy set of rules is really going to lay out a perfect process for dealing with sin is naive, at best. Unfortunately, this is exactly what abusers want. They want to stick black and white rules that limit what can be done against abusive leaders, while creating ambiguity and avenues to abuse the sheep with impunity.

The other concern here is that the judicial process for officers of the church must deal both with sin and the administrative principles. The RPCNA doesn't have this spelled out, but it is pertinent. Let's assume that Jared and the elders repented. The matter is still not over - the court can still decide on what censure is appropriate. As in the case of Nassar, the prosecuting attorney, defense attorney, judge and witnesses were still present. It still looked a lot like a trial, but at issue was what the appropriate punishment was for the crime. I'm sure that the complainers would still have complained if the SJC had accepted Jared's statement of guilt and proceeded to meet to listen to victim testimony and decide on appropriate censures. The procedure is not at the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue is that it's okay for the friendly pastors' network in the GLG to cover up sin and re-victimize victims because deep down, they're all "good people" in need of grace. It must sound unloving for anyone to attack one of the "good people" and call their actions into question. If it's ordinary members, then that is unloving gossip, and if it's the church courts, then it is violation of procedure and injustice.

What does it mean that the matter is closed? Again, this is very unloving. There are over a dozen children who were sexually assaulted, from unwanted touching to rape. For Bloomington to proclaim from their bully pulpit that Jared's supposed repentance means that "all's well" must be enforced with the power of church discipline. That is just an excuse to harm and re-harm the victims. If a victim says "this is what happened to me." church discipline. If a victim has a flashback of trauma, church discipline. If a victim isn't neat and tidy sitting in the pew, church discipline. If a victim has a visceral reaction to the presence of the abuser in church, church discipline.

Again, the emphasis on "forgiveness and restoration" is, at best, naive, and, more likely, abusive. Brushing justice and reconciliation with such broad strokes reminds me of elementary school discipline. Yeah, he called me a slug every day for the past month and I finally got upset enough to punch him for it, but now that the teachers forced us to shake hands, everything is hunky dory! Imagine trying to paint all sorts of abuse with the same brush. For ten years, the church did everything in their power to ridicule everything I said and undermine my self-esteem, but they said "we're sorry" and shook hands, so no harm done, it's over! Time to celebrate! It seems all these IRPC shills want to use the process to sweep the victims under the rug so they can celebrate being back to their arrogant, self-righteous, sanctimonious selves.

Here we see Bloomington trying to force black and white procedures to protect abusers and toxic churches:

- If a church decides to leave the denomination, for any reason whatsoever, we should have a process that allows them to leave without consequences. Even if the church wants to become part of a heretical cult, we should extend the right hand of fellowship and give them their property.

- If someone says they've repented, the matter is over. It doesn't matter whether their actions match their words. We must take the words of an abuser at face value, even if he spent months driving a process of deceit and coverup.

We'll see how Bloomington wants to, on the flip side, hurt victims with procedures and ambiguity in subsequent posts.

Abuser alert: James Odom uses Sparta RPC to spiritually abuse his daughter, complains to GLG Presbytery

Just when you thought the RP church could sink no lower... James Odom has written a complaint against the Westminster RPC Session for admitting his ADULT daughter into membership because Sparta admonished her for, get this, refusing to move home. https://glgpresbytery.org/uploads/2024-spring/GLG%2023-34.pdf

(5) Several months prior to September 12, 2023, [miss] Odom, having refused her parents' instruction to return home for the 2023-2024 (high) school year, requested a letter of transfer from the Session of the Sparta Reformed Presbyterian Church.

(12b) “You, [miss] Odom, because of your failure to respect your parents have brought reproach upon Christ and are in danger of drifting further away from the Lord. This Court of the Lord's House admonishes you to put away your sin, to watch and pray, and to walk faithfully with Christ.”

Keep in mind that Odom is an elder in Sparta on a Session of three. The moderator cannot vote, and presumably Odom, a party in the case cannot vote, so one elder gets to decide whether "moving back home because your parents told you to" is disobedience. [edit note: the moderator does get to vote, according to DCG 4.4]

In the paper, Odom defends his stance on adult daughter obedience:

(3) Answer for congregations the “no small dissension and disputation” over the question raised by this action: Whether or not, at the attainment of a particular age determined by Scripture, the civil magistrate, or culture generally, willing obedience to the lawful commands and counsels and submission to their corrections under Ephesians 6:1 and other Scripture, and summarized by the answer to Westminster Longer Catechism Q. 127, is still a duty owed by offspring to the authority of father and mother as governors of families. 

 He's also done it on Facebook:

Note he can't even bring himself to admit what he is doing ("No."), instead framing it in the less abusive "obey wise counsel and instruction" - if it is counsel and instruction, then there is no obedience required, just listening. If it requires obedience, it is not counsel, but command.

I remember a conversation at Geneva around obeying husbands: "What if my husbands commands me not to attend church? Is it really a sin to not attend church? If it isn't a sin, don't I have to obey?"

Thankfully, WLC Q127 can only be understood in light of Q129:

What is required of superiors towards their inferiors?

Answer: It is required of superiors, according to that power they receive from God, and that relation wherein they stand, to love, pray for, and bless their inferiors; to instruct, counsel, and admonish them; countenancing, commending, and rewarding such as do well; and discountenancing, reproving, and chastising such as do ill; protecting, and providing for them all things necessary for soul and body: and by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary carriage, to procure glory to God, honor to themselves, and so to preserve that authority which God has put upon them.

and Q124:

Question 124: Who are meant by father and mother in the fifth commandment?

Answer: By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not only natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts; and especially such as, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth.

It should take too long to prove Odom's case by contradiction. Odom defines "lawful command" as:

That is one aspect of lawful, but he conveniently ignores the other part of lawful - "that authority which God has put upon them", and "by God's ordinance". In other words, the Westminster documents don't require me to obey any command from parent, civil magistrate, people born before me, and people who are more intelligent, wise, etc., simply because what they command is not "forbidden by God or forbidding what is commanded by God", but they must have legitimate authority to command it. I can illustrate this by example. What if an older sibling comes to me and says, "give me all your money!" No threat of violence, just the command. Well, he is my "superior in age", and giving him all my money is not "forbidden by God", therefore I must give him all my money?? Of course not! What authority has God given an older sibling to command that from me? NONE! In the same way, Odom misses the requirement for positive authority when making commands. To back this up from scripture, Numbers 30 talks about vows women make, and the idea that a father or husband can override them. The literal translation says "women [802] in her youth [5271]" so, the Bible DOES propose a time when the authority of the parents changes - when the daughter is not "in her youth". The Bible does not say, until married, or even beyond, as Odom claims:

In civil law, the "lawful authority" has been tried and re-tried. I do not have to obey a police officer who commands me to open my trunk, without a warrant. A soldier does not have to obey and order that is not lawful: "Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it." (link) So, a lawful order or command, of necessity, includes the authority of the person giving the command to command it.

This leaves the question of when a son or daughter is no longer "in their youth". The census of Israel numbered "every male, head by head from twenty years old and upward, whoever is able to go out to war in Israel" so, we can set a Biblical limit at 20 years old, which the daughter has attained.

The other question is how Westminster RPC handled the transfer. In my opinion, the "exception" listed on the transfer is clearly out of order, and thus Westminster RPC satisfied themselves that Miss Odom was not failing to respect her parents, but rather trying to honor them while dealing with the fallout of disobeying an unlawful command.

We saw the warning flags that he was abusive when he defended the actions of the abusive IRPC session and now we see his abusiveness of claiming parental authority over his adult daughter and then subsequently using the church to spiritually abuse her further.

I will ask the GLG Presbytery a simple question in light of his current and previous complaints. WHY IS JAMES ODOM STILL AN ELDER IN THE RPCNA?"

RPCNA has a misogyny problem, harassment and spiritual abuse for women who leave

Some ex-RP people put this together in the last few weeks. We were sharing our experience of leaving the RP church. As we talked about our stories and the stories of those we know, a sickening pattern emerged. Every male in the discussion as well as others I knew were generally given their form, and few of the forms had the ominous "outside the church there is no ordinary means of salvation." Generally no follow up texts, e-mails or calls came from the church.

Women, however, had a completely different experience. They pretty much all got the warning on the form, and not only that, they were repeatedly called, texted and e-mailed (harassed) between the time they sent their notice to the church and the time the church "allowed" them to leave.

A former OPC member said that her previous pastor and elder knew she worked at Starbucks, and started meeting each other regularly for coffee when she left the church.

I think there is a sick and twisted doctrine behind this and, while I endured a bit of it, I think when it comes to women, the RP leadership has decided to double down. When I informed my church I was leaving, a couple of elders asked to meet with me. I had no real issues at that point. One tried to enumerate my sins and suggest he would be happy to work on them with me (hard pass!). The other, however, talked about how we had similar concerns and how we could jointly be a positive influence for change. What he said afterwords, though, was shocking and disgusting. He said that he saw making membership vows to be a "marriage", and that the church should "give me away" to my new church, like a father gives away a bride to a spouse. (Don't think women would sign up for being given away by their ex-husbands!!!) Others who left have also been subjected to this line of reasoning.

That's why I think women are so much more harassed then men. Maybe the dots don't connect so nicely when when the church wants to give away men, but when it's WOMEN, it must feel to these men like their daughters are eloping. How dare they! In that way, they feel like they really need to push for a proper "wedding", even if it requires harassment and abusive pressure. That's how many women have described the leaving process:

1. Immediately, the resources of the Session are devoted to winning the person back. That might be constant texts, knocks on doors, e-mails, visits from other members talking about how important they are, etc.
2. Fear and legalism. People are told (erroneously) that they must leave the church "the right way" - that their membership vows are permanently binding. That they must meet with the Session and "request" to leave or transfer.
3. They're told that they must inform the Session where they intend to go. (Don't do this!) Women have said that their RP pastor contacted or met with the pastor of their new church and poisoned the well.
4. Some have been threatened with discipline if they don't follow "the process" (the process is whatever hoops the Session decides they must go through, BTW)
5. I know some families that were manipulated into shaming their daughters/sisters. I think the fact this is a common tactic creates a familial pressure within the RPCNA, and part of the reason this blog is currently anonymous - for me and my family's sake.

This harassment is not just aimed at people who have left Christianity, but many who have reported harassment have remained Christian and just wanted to leave their abusive churches.

Disenculturation vs. Deconstruction

A little bit of a rabbit trail led me to this article, which is surprisingly good given the source.

 https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/deconstruct-culture-not-faith/

I think this gets to the root of the disagreement in the last comment thread. RPs, NAPARC, and much of US Evangelicalism is trapped in a cultural context that includes the gospel, but has wrapped the gospel in a layer of cultural moralism.

As I pointed out, in the 1800's, churches in the US split over the issue of slavery. We look back at that time and wonder why Christians thought it was good and right to own slaves. It was because the cultural context of the slave states justified slavery and racial oppression. Abolitionists had to read past the Bible verses on slavery and ask, "does the Bible really justify and encourage slavery, or is the Bible merely discussing how Israelites/Christians operate in a cultural context of slavery?" It's a real question and just throwing out prooftexts doesn't get to the heart of the matter.

That's why I think it is entirely valid to question the Biblical perspective on things like I have mentioned. The Bible already questions and refines its own conclusions. When the Pharisees questioned Jesus on divorce, he said, "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery." Many sermons take this as the final statement on divorce, but then Paul says something different: "Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace." Even the WCF recognizes that desertion is grounds for divorce, and that a wife divorced due to desertion does not sin (commit adultery) if she remarries.

In the same vein, God allows and even seemingly recommends polygamy (kinsman redeemer) in the Old Testament, but then Jesus says, "the two shall become one flesh" as if to say that polygamy was never God's intent, and Paul underscores that later to say that an elder must be the "husband of one wife" (pastors say 'one woman man'). So, Israel, Abraham, David ... and others are examples in faith that Paul would exclude from being elders in the church.

So, now when we look at the Bible, we need to not only understand our own cultural lens that we use to interpret, but we also need to understand the cultural lens of the people the scriptures were written to. In a sense, simple, yet complicated. We can understand "love your neighbor as yourself", but Paul points out that "don't muzzle an ox while she is threshing" isn't as much about farming as it is about allowing people to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

So, all these things you want to accuse me of heresy about...

Reputation management vs. righteousness

Growing up RPCNA in a "core" family meant that we were immersed in the culture from a young age. We knew that good kids sat quietly in the pew and listened to the message. It was okay to have something to keep our hands busy, but silence was a must. At home, we critiqued various aspects of our church experience. It might be theological flaws in the sermon, or the discussion at presbytery that came to a decision without any logical rationale just based on emotion and a few persuasive pastors.

In a sense, we were not an "A-list" RP family, but we were well-known. It was good that I wasn't popular enough to be selected for the presbytery youth leaders or asked to speak or be a counselor at a presbytery youth camp.

Even then, my sense of my own relationship with God was heavily tied to what, in retrospect, was a inseparable blend of integrity, works righteousness, and reputation management. So, the most "assured" I felt was when I went to all the church events, tithed, read my Bible and prayed every day, and pretty much tried to "keep my nose clean" as my current pastor associates with lackluster Evangelicalism.

What I realize now is that in the authoritarian system. My authority - father, pastor, session - functionally replaced my need for relationship with my Father. So, keeping up on my spiritual disciplines and being a "nice Christian" got smiles from my church, and thus, I must be okay with God.

Much of my struggle since I left the RP church was in first recognizing that those authorities were not stand-ins for God. I needed to have a relationship with God, and as I pursued that relationship, I realized that those stand-ins for God were spiritually abusive, and, as a result, my view of God was also spiritually abusive. Not only did I have very little of a relationship with God, but as I discovered what I wanted in a relationship, it was completely uncharted territory. I was a Christian in the sense that I recognized my sin and prayed for Jesus to forgive it and lead me, but much of my experience was a poisoned view of who Jesus was, what he wanted from me, and especially who my Father and the Holy Spirit were.

One of the hardest things right now is picturing my Father with a smile on his face, and seeing how he will make me more "valuable" to the kingdom as my body loses it's strength, my mind loses it's edge and my emotions are worn by the constant battering of the evil in this world. What if I never get over the picture of God as the perfectionistic narcissist the RPCNA taught and exemplified?

I think of this picture when there was a Facebook discussion about children in worship. On one hand, "of course God wants children in worship", but then comments come out about how it's really not acceptable for those children to, well, be children. So, then we see just what Jesus was rejecting when he said, let the children come to me! The people who want only adults in the service. It's okay if they're six month old adults or three year old adults or even middle-school-aged adults, but they better act like adults because... well, I guess God is not pleased when children act like... children... in his presence.

One of the "this is the church where I can learn about God" moments happened pretty early on. My kids were, I guess, testing the boundaries of what was appropriate at my new church. They were drawing and giggling a bit, and couldn't keep still. I was completely frustrated because at any RP church, there would have been the intense pressure of the many furled brows wondering why I wasn't controlling my family. After the service a woman who was sitting behind us, and most likely the one who would have been the most offended by my children's behavior, made a point of telling us how wonderful it is that we bring our children with us into the service and how much she loves seeing children being children. It was completely the opposite of what I would have expected hearing in the RP church. RPs would be sure to remind me about the nursery, cry room, or "training" room as some churches have, where children don't have to be physically removed from the sanctuary to get swatted when they get the wiggles.

For you ex-RPs, I wonder, how has that journey been for you from thinking you're a top tier Christian as an RP to, I guess, the awakening that the so-called "God" you served all your life was a horrible caricature of the real God. In a sense, as much as I want to rid myself of the false idol and get to know the true creator and his love for me, it seems that everything is poisoned against that.

When the Regulative Principle of Worship becomes an idol...

I want to comment on the sadness of what this article, and especially its comments, represent:
1) The tendency to parse the scriptures for any practice that can be made into a command.
2) The tendency to then attempt to claim that practice has been a litmus test of orthodoxy throughout church history, and thus should be the same today.
3) The tendency to elevate such practice and reinterpet all other things (e.g. size of church) in light of the new-found command.
4) Complete and utter blindness when gently corrected (e.g. why is "table" commanded, but "reclined" not, when they are in the same verse?)

I'm am so thankful that I've matured enough in my understanding of who God is to understand that this level of "care" for his worship is really about straining gnats and swallowing camels. I remember, with sadness, the time in my life that I knew all the checkboxes, and many of the checkboxes within the checkboxes that set the truly elite on a separate tier reserved for the RPW purists.

That said, I do understand why this is such an important debate for RPs. I believe RP pastors want to have a large following. They have the best theology and of course the best spiritual gifting, so why don't they have lots of members? Well, things like "the table" can easily explain that away. A pastor cannot have more than about 50 people in his congregation before they have to step down from the pinnacle of "pure" communion. So "obviously" it is not that the RPCNA is a legalistic, cult-like church where most Christians would smell the aroma of brimstone and stay far away. It's not even that the RPCNA fills a niche within Christianity where those who desire a small, tight-knit congregation can find a good fit. No, of course, it's because the RPCNA is faithfully parsing the scriptures to find the precise model for the "pure" church, and that most pure expression of the Christian faith can only be done in a congregation that can fit around a table.

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.