Authority and our view of God

Something that has enlightened me over the past few weeks and months is how my view of God has been shaped by the peculiar RP views of authority.

Unquestioned obedience:

RP's like to teach that the "superiors" should enjoy unquestioned obedience from their "inferiors" due to the superiority of their wisdom, gifts and position. Children are taught to obey their parents, members are taught to obey their elders and everyone is taught to obey the governing authorities. This somehow stems from the fact that authority relationships ultimately portray our relationship with God, and we should unquestioningly obey God. However, this is not supportable from scripture. First of all, God doesn't expect us to obey Him without establishing a relationship first. For example, God didn't send Moses back to Egypt without miraculous displays of power and graciously handling Moses's questions. But, many of the people who questioned God got gracious answers and not punishment.

• Gideon questions God and God responds by miraculously manipulating a fleece.
• Samson's father, Manoah asked God to come back and repeat the commands regarding Samson. (Interestingly, God's command first came to Samson's mother)
• Samuel questions God when he is sent to anoint David and God gives him a way to avoid tipping Saul off.
• When God told Hezekiah to put his house in order before his death, Hezekiah prayed that God would let him recover, and God healed him.
• God told Ezekiel to eat cakes baked over human dung. Ezekiel protested that he had never eaten anything unclean, and God allowed him to eat it over cow dung instead.
• The angel who appeared to Mary graciously answered her question about how Jesus would be born when she was a virgin.
• Ananias questioned God when he was sent to heal Saul, but God graciously answered him.

There are surely other examples, and there are examples where people are "punished" for doubting God, but we see that God graciously handles questioned obedience. If we are to be authorities who represent God faithfully, then why do we expected unquestioned obedience?

Letter of the law:

RP's like to think that God's will is served by strict adherence to his commands. We tell kids that their obedience should be willing and cheerful, but that instead creates a two-faced obedience. That two-faced obedience is a signature of Reformed authority. For example, Ted Tripp talks about shepherding a child's heart, but that shepherding is just a second legalistic layer added onto the first legalistic layer. In other words, if I tithe, that is the first layer of obedience, but then the church says that if I tithe without the right attitudes or reverence, thankfulness, etc., then it is also sinful. Instead of cultivating a gracious and loving view of God, we just doubly weigh down people.

My relationship with God was destroyed by his unapproachability. What I took away from what I was taught was that instead of God graciously accepting me where I am, instead, God ungraciously condemns me for every slight infraction.

That also translated to those in authority. That is, those who are under authority have to act graciously and lovingly to those who are their superiors, but those who are superiors have, seemingly, no such requirements towards their inferiors. That is, when a child erred, the parents had the green light to take care of that by whatever means necessary. Parents who graciously redirected their children or calmly explained the error were "spoiling" their kids, while those who took them aside and beat them for even minor infractions were "good" parents. In the same way, the sessions who ungraciously steamrolled the sin out of their congregation showed "the marks of a true church", while those that worked slowly to resolve and reconcile sin were weak. Perhaps it's better to say that enforcing the letter of the law is more important to superiors than the grace and love they show in the enforcement. I've been told by elders that, if I agree with what was ultimately accomplished then I will come to accept the means by which that was accomplished. The ends justify the means. So, is it therefore okay to establish a household of fear and intimidation to get children to obey the letter of the law? What would their view of God be in that case? I would argue, a similar view to the one that I grew up with and had - that home and the church are the places where you put on your righteous happy face and outside of that is where we can be real. There are so many RP children who confessed to this two-faced existence. I don't believe it's an accident. It's encouraged by the legalism and fear encouraged in RP parenting.

Superiority / Worthlessness:

This is a little trickier to explain and defend. We all know and are taught that God is perfect and superior. Yet, we are also taught that we are "united with Christ" and "co-heirs with Christ". We are also taught that Christ and the Father are equally perfect. Yet, they have different roles: father and son. So, we need to be very careful when we talk about the superiority of our roles - elder to member, husband to wife, parent to child, government official to citizen.

This is, I think, the greatest weakness of those in authority, and it is also the least talked about when dealing with authority. Instead, one of the ways, seemingly, to help us respond appropriately to those in authority is to beat the drum of superiority. Yet, in the passage I keep referring to it's different:

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Matt 20:25-28)

The natural condition of those in authority is to assert that authority and claim dominance (lord it over). Not surprisingly it happens through those means above. Yet, as with many things in the Christian church, authority is portrayed as the opposite. We honor father and mother, yes, but in the church it is the "less honorable" that we bestow honor upon. In the same way, those who are in authority are not served, but are the ones serving. The concept of servant leadership misses this point completely. Servant leadership is like the abusive parent who thinks he is serving his child by punishing him severely.

So, as a parent, I have to be careful to portray the responsibility of their care without claiming superiority. I have to be careful to apply discipline, not to create an environment of unquestioned obedience, but to help them develop the proper understanding of right and wrong. I've discovered with my children that harshness does not convey anything but harshness.

The flip side of this coin is that in painting those in authority as superior, we portray those without authority as inferior. No surprise, since those are the EXACT words used in the Westminster Larger Catechism, and although my pastor friends like to hedge those words when confronted, the message in sermons is loud and clear. Why else would an elder tell me what I should believe and then refuse to listen to my scriptural objections? Why else would a church require an elder to be present whenever there is instruction? Why else would a church refuse to listen to a wife or child claim abuse, or why would they then ask, "well, what did YOU do?". Why would a Presbytery insist on hearing the Session's side of a complaint before the member's?

This also affected me in terms of seeking office. As someone who grew up worthless, I aspired to the eldership, not because I wanted to serve, love and help people, but because I understood it as the only way to not be worthless. Now that I'm older and wiser, I don't feel called to that - not that I'm less knowledgeable or qualified than many RP elders, but that I'm not sure that I have been taught to love, or have grown to love God's sheep as I feel I would need to.

Approachability:

The RP view of God on His throne is that of a majestic king in unapproachable glory. A very true picture, but we need to be complete in our view of God who is also described in more approachable terms:

For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” (Rom 8:15)

We need to be careful, then, to understand that our adopted Father in heaven is yes, the great king on the throne, but also our loving, devoted, proud father. One who wants to know how our day went and the fact that we scraped our knee on our bike and that we got an A on our test. He is the one who allows us to be angry with him and yet runs with open arms to hug us when we mess up and repent. This is yet another picture of godly authority - love, grace and familiarity. When we focus on the picture of the throne room - sovereignty, perfection and judgment, we miss the family room - snuggles, conversations and warmth.

One of my greatest struggles with God is approachability. Because my own father was distant, cold and judgmental, it is hard for me to grow beyond that in my view of the Father. The cold, distant stereotype is so pervasive in the RP church that it is no surprise that the leaders we choose are the most cold and distant. It has been really, really hard for me to grow from being a distant, code and judgmental father into one who is warm and approachable. One who values, loves and shows grace to my children. When my kids scrape their knees when they fall off their bike, for me it becomes a natural lesson in carelessness and not an opportunity to show love. What, then am I portraying about God?

We are struggling with this as an entire society. The recent police violence has been one, I think, fed by the move towards the distant, cold and judgmental officer, rather than police being trained in warm graciousness. We want a country ruled by cold regulations and cold jails rather than charity and grace.

Perhaps this is why Deism has become more of the country's religion. We no longer believe in a loving, warm and near God. Instead, we believe in a cold, distant, judgmental God who snapped the world into existence, and now sadly looks at the state of affairs from an impenetrable distance.

Conclusion:

I thought this especially applicable, given the routine abuse and authoritarianism of the Catholic church:

Synodality, as a constitutive element of the Church, offers us the most appropriate interpretive framework for understanding the hierarchical ministry itself. If we understand, as Saint John Chrysostom says, that “Church and Synod are synonymous”, inasmuch as the Church is nothing other than the “journeying together” of God’s flock along the paths of history towards the encounter with Christ the Lord, then we understand too that, within the Church, no one can be “raised up” higher than others. On the contrary, in the Church, it is necessary that each person “lower” himself or herself, so as to serve our brothers and sisters along the way. ... 

Let us never forget this! For the disciples of Jesus, yesterday, today and always, the only authority is the authority of service, the only power is the power of the cross. As the Master tells us: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave” (Mt 20:25-27). It shall not be so among you: in this expression we touch the heart of the mystery of the Church, and we receive the enlightenment necessary to understand our hierarchical service. (Pope Francis, 17 Oct 2015)

If the role of those in the church is to lift one another's burdens, then it is the calling of those in authority to be lifting even more burdens. Perhaps God has given us strength, not so that we can swing the whip harder, but that we can stand more weight on our backs.

Geneva's new president, just like the previous ones.

According to Geneva College's website, Dr. Calvin Troup has been elected to be the next President. http://www.geneva.edu/about-geneva/president/

Consider the backgrounds of the last few Presidents:

Dr. Ken Smith, public university department chair
Dr. John White, Geneva department chair
Dr. Joseph McFarland, Director of Academic Affairs for Kansas Board of Regents
Dr. Donald Felker, public university department chair

Although most presidents suffer from the same issues, one stands head and shoulders above the rest in terms of his accomplishments. Yup, the one who was an administrator and not an academic department chair.

I'm not sure how someone who "leads" an academic department gets to be considered a leader, but I guess in a denomination that doesn't know leadership from autocracy, it shouldn't be surprising that it doesn't take that much to be considered one.

So, if you're a Geneva employee, the story won't change. The leadership will talk about how wonderful you are and how much you exemplify Christian character, but behind closed doors: in the Trustee meetings and in one-on-one conversations, you're a money-grubbing moron.

If you're a Geneva student, same thing. The college LOVES LOVES LOVES you, but unfortunately, they don't have enough money to provide basic maintenance to your dorm room, despite charging 3x going rent rates. If you mess up there will be no mercy (from the administration, not the faculty, mind you). If you complain, you will get a sob story about how tight finances are, while you see thousands blown on the administration's pet projects. Oh yeah, and when you're a senior, prepare yourself for the lecture about how you need to "pay it forward" because of how well you were treated.

Stephen Covey's "The Speed of Trust" has some pretty wise words. If you as a manager really are a soulless jerk, at least be honest about it. Your employees probably already know you are and you're already paying that trust penalty!

The RP church is all about manufacturing soulless jerk leadership.

Looking for the wrong people in leadership

As a result of good sermons and a lot of thinking, I've come to the conclusion that we are looking for the wrong leaders. Is a true leader person who came great because they sacrificed those around them to rise to the level of great accomplishment, or is a true leader the one who sacrificed so that others around them could rise to a level of great accomplishment?

In some ways, we see both of these play out in the life of Jesus. His disciples often quarreled about who was the greatest, and who would be second-in-command when Jesus came to his throne, but Jesus instead showed true leadership by making those around him great.

I don't want to get into politics, but why are we looking at people like Donald Trump as leaders? He has gotten ahead in life by manipulating and using those around him. Which of his employees have risen to the top? even someone like Bill Gates created scores of millionaires as Microsoft grew.

A recent sermon talked about the "subversive" story of the church. The world has its faith in wealth, power and fame, but the church is different. Our faith is in God's riches, God's power and God's name for us. It sounds trite, but it is perhaps the biggest struggle in the church.

Think of the Roman Catholic church. As it grew in its own riches, power and name, it attracted men who also were attracted to those riches power and name. It became as corrupt, if not more so, than other human institutions. The idol of its name and reputation actually became the beginning of its downfall. In the Reformation, the church was so consumed by gaining wealth that it would rather try to kill Martin Luther than give up on indulgences. Even more recently, the church covered up gross sexual abuse by its leaders to keep its name.

So, as we think about leadership, should we look for people in the church who manipulate others around them to get a great name, or should we be looking for people who build others around them up and look to God for their great name? Should we look for wealthy people, or generous people?

I think it is the same for our governmental leaders. We call them public servants, but haven't we turned that on its head? The public servants are the one who expect to be served. There is so much hypocrisy today. Those who speak out against gun control do so behind metal detectors and armed guards. Those who speak out against the 1% ARE the 1%. Those wanting to shrink government want to expand the military. What should we expect? Haven't we voted for unfaithful men and expected them to govern faithfully?

More thoughts on authority, or, how the Roman Catholic church destroyed Western Culture

As I pointed out in the last article, Jesus flipped the concept of authority on its head. Authority was about service and protection, not control and submission. This concept, however, got skewed over history to become again, flipped on its head. The servant became the servant-leader and the protector became the abuser. Instead of maintaining the leadership model of Christ, the church adopted the leadership model of the world. This leadership model has become, perhaps, the most destructive force in our Western culture.

Consider this in Ezekiel 34:1-10

Then the word of the Lord came to me saying, “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy and say to those shepherds, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock? You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat sheep without feeding the flock. Those who are sickly you have not strengthened, the diseased you have not healed, the broken you have not bound up, the scattered you have not brought back, nor have you sought for the lost; but with force and with severity you have dominated them. They were scattered for lack of a shepherd, and they became food for every beast of the field and were scattered. My flock wandered through all the mountains and on every high hill; My flock was scattered over all the surface of the earth, and there was no one to search or seek for them.”’” 

Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: “As I live,” declares the Lord God, “surely because My flock has become a prey, My flock has even become food for all the beasts of the field for lack of a shepherd, and My shepherds did not search for My flock, but rather the shepherds fed themselves and did not feed My flock; therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will demand My sheep from them and make them cease from feeding sheep. So the shepherds will not feed themselves anymore, but I will deliver My flock from their mouth, so that they will not be food for them.”’”

With that in mind, consider this passage:

John 21:1-11

So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus *said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He *said to him, “Tend My lambs.” He *said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He *said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” He *said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus *said to him, “Tend My sheep.”

Peter was to be a shepherd of the sheep, a high calling. He was to protect and feed the sheep from wolves. In fact, Paul is forced to call Peter out when Peter sides with the Judaizers and begins to dissociate with the Gentiles.

This brings me to the point of the article. The authority church leaders have is not primarily in forcing their will on the sheep, but is instead for the protection of the sheep. But, that authority soon became what was condemned in Ezekiel "with force and with severity you have dominated them". This is the theme of Western culture, the superiority and dominance of the authoritative.

There are two sides of this shown in 1 Cor 5:1-8:

It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

It should be no surprise that Western Christians see this as Paul authoritatively asserting his judgment and condemnation, but instead, this is a call to protect the sheep. "A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough" - instead of being faithful shepherds and protecting their flock, they fed themselves at their sheep's expense (became arrogant). Then it seems, they go overboard in their continued punishment. In a passage that many see as a conclusion to the matter (2 Cor 2:5-8).

But if any has caused sorrow, he has caused sorrow not to me, but in some degree—in order not to say too much—to all of you. Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority, so that on the contrary you should rather forgive and comfort him, otherwise such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. Wherefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him.

If this is truly the same person, we can see that the purpose of church discipline is not "making an example" or "punishment", but protection of the flock and seeking the lost sheep, and those leaders who are "arrogant" are the ones who are more concerned about being well-fed rather than serving those around them.

This is important to understand because it puts the Papacy in perspective. Early in the history of the church, the leadership forgot about service and remembered obedience and being served. There became hierarchies of church leaders and finally, the Archbishop of Rome declared himself to be the supreme leader (Pope) of the church. From there, matters got worse, much worse. Is it any surprise that the church did everything it could to protect the abusive shepherds who molested children rather than protect the sheep? To a lesser extent, the Presbyterian form of government, which is meant to protect the sheep, commonly protects abusive shepherds instead.

This perspective overflowed into Western culture as a whole. The "Divine Right" of kings is to require complete obedience of their subjects, immediately and without question. The hierarchies of corporations are supposed to protect customers and employees, but instead cover up abuse and protect the leaders from scrutiny. We see this problem when policemen kill innocent civilians and then their superiors, who are sworn to protect the citizens, instead defend the guilty.

Why do we see pastors rail against the "ME" generation? Yes, there is perhaps a problem with this innate selfishness, but perhaps it's the rejection of false authority that irks pastors the most. People who say "Why?" instead of "Yes, sir!".  Is it significant that the priest sex abuse scandal broke during this generation? Do we blindly assume that the church never had a problem with molestation until the last 30 years? Is it significant that authoritarian churches are imploding when members stand up to their abusive pastors? Consider Bill Gothard who hid his impropriety in plain sight for decades until the "Me" generation exposed him. Those from generations past are still trying to defend him. In fact, RPCNA pastor Roy Blackwood served on Gothard's board for much of this time.

Thoughts on authority

Growing up in an authoritarian denomination, authority is all about who makes the final decision. We were reminded that submission meant following the leader, whether it was the best decision or not, and that authority was being responsible for those decisions.

It's surprised me, then, that I've never been in a position to do that as the "authority" of my family. Not only do I value my wife's opinions, but I have never tried to overrule her. We have often had heated discussions about the best approach, but we've never gotten into a situation where I was forced to make a decision against her will. I don't even know if that's biblical.

But, that is what we learned in the church. Authority is primarily about who calls the shots and who submits. Why? Well let's look at a family argument.

We, as good RPs, decided that homeschooling was the way to go. The public school was public enemy #1, and parents who gave their children over to the state were handing them over to the devil. Since homeschooling was "God's Way", we should expect that everything would work out, but in second grade, homeschooling our eldest was heading for disaster. We opted for an "enrichment program" for third grade that was created even more friction. Two months in, my wife had enough and wanted to enroll her in public school. We discussed it quite a bit and we both gave in somewhat. We researched the schools around us and decided on our top preferences. The top school had a waiting list a mile long, the second school was good, but we couldn't get her in until the next Fall, and our default school had relatively poor ratings of teachers and administration. So, I gave up the homeschool is best philosophy, and my wife stuck it out until the Fall to enroll in the school we both agreed was better. After that, we've never looked back, even for the other children, all of whom opted for public school.

Now this seems like a reasonable approach, but things could easily have been different for the RP macho husband and the RP submissive wife. Consider Doug Wilson's article here (he did "retract" it here, although only this specific example rather than the thrust of his argument)

She can learn on a representative problem. She would be overwhelmed with a requirement that she change everywhere, all at once. If, for example, the problem is one of poor housekeeping, he should require something very simple, i.e. that the dishes be done after every meal before anything else is done. 

The first time the dishes are not done, he must sit down with his wife immediately, and gently remind her that this is something which has to be done. At no time may he lose his temper, badger her, call her names, etc. He must constantly remember and confess that she is not the problem, he is. By bringing this gently to her attention, he is not to be primarily pointing to her need to repent; rather, he is exhibiting the fruit of his repentance. 

He does this, without rancour and without an accusative spirit, until she complies or rebels. If she complies, he must move up one step, now requiring that another of her duties be done. If she rebels, he must call the elders of the church and ask them for a pastoral visit. When the government of the home has failed to such an extent, and a godly and consistent attempt by the husband to restore the situation has broken down, then the involvement of the elders is fully appropriate.

So, here, the role of the authoritative husband is to tell his wife what her duties are, in this case, keep the house clean. If she neglects her duties as assigned by her husband, he needs to remind her that those are her duties (because he said so) and that she needs to do them. If she persists in her "rebellion", then he needs to call for reinforcement (church discipline).

Even if the situation is far-fetched, the idea of authority is not. There is no real difference between wife and child, except perhaps for the means of discipline. The husband picks the stuff he wants to do, assigns the rest to his wife and when she fails to accomplish it takes her before the church. While many husbands and wives do enjoy the "traditional" separation of duties, Wilson baptizes them with some well-twisted scripture and makes them Biblical roles.

This is the same way we think of church authority(in fact all authority). The pastor and leaders decide what they want to do and then direct the church to do the rest. Those who drop everything to submit become the next generation of leaders, and those who don't stay bottom-feeders or worse.

If the dishes need to get done and my wife is putting the kids to bed, will God strike me down if I dare get my hands soapy? Or is the family a team effort? Is this within my authority?

The symptoms can of course vary. He may be distressed over her spending habits, television viewing habits, weight, rejection of his leadership, laziness in cleaning the house, lack of responsiveness to sexual advances, whatever.

Seriously? "Hey honey, you seem to have gained a few pounds, go get on the treadmill or I'm gonna call the pastor on you!" Is that the model of leadership Jesus displayed? In John 13, we first see an affirmation of Jesus's authority:

Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God, got up from supper, and laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself.

Also consider Mark 10:

Calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them.  But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all.

In our standard Pharisaical way, we flip this on our head - you see the husband "serves" his wife by the proper use of his authority (i.e. lording it over her), just as the church leaders "serve" their congregation through dictate and fear of church discipline. Jesus instead demonstrated his authority by taking the job all of his disciples considered beneath them.

In fact, I think this may change the way we should look for church leaders. Instead of looking for people who are found leading every charge, maybe we should be looking for the ones who are found cleaning up afterwards?

Understanding abuse

We considered one facet of an abusive system - that is changing the value system from our value in Christ's economy to a false value system based on some proxy. Different abusive systems will place different stumbling blocks in front of the victims from which their value is defined. Mostly those stumbling blocks revolve around providing the abuser a sense of worth.

So, yes, in the RP church, there is an abusive system where the leadership desires recognition of their superior spiritual gifts, their superior theological knowledge and their superior external righteousness. The system is very comfortable for those who play by the unwritten rules, but very uncomfortable for those who don't send the proper warm fuzzies to the leaders and self-deprecate themselves.

But... what tools do RP leaders use to abuse their members? Really, it is the core of the abusive system. Abuse happens because of the corrupted value system, but the abuse itself is defined by taking improper authority to oneself and/or enforcing authority in improper ways.

Let's consider child abuse. A parent tells a child to clean the room. This is well within the rights of the parent. If the child refuses, there are God-appointed mechanisms the parent can use to encourage the child to submit to the proper authority. But... let's say the parent locks the child in a closet for the rest of the day. What would we say to that?

So, here we might say that the parent has a God-appointed right to enforce a family rule - a clean room. But... how the parent enforces that rule goes well beyond scripture and is actually abusive.

I'll avoid parenthood a bit to explain the other facet. Two cyclists were riding side-by-side on a road in Ohio. An Ohio police officer told the riders to ride single file. When they refused, he tried to arrest them and ultimately tasered one of the riders. http://www.ohiobikelawyer.com/uncategorized/2010/07/tasered-cyclist-settles-civil-rights-lawsuit/

In this case, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that, while officers have the right to arrest and taser if they are properly enforcing the law, the officer was enforcing a law that did not exist (riding single file), and the escalation of the law enforcement was illegal. In other words, if "riding two abreast" was illegal, the officer would have acted appropriately, but since "riding two abreast" was legal, the officer had no right to enforce the law. He was usurping authority.

So, we see here the two facets - abuse being claiming a right that does not exist, and abuse being enforcing a right using improper means.

In the RP church, both these happen regularly. I want to reiterate that not all RP leaders are abusive, but many of those who aren't don't stand against the abuse that happens. They assume that other leaders have a good heart and want the best for their members, not that perhaps those other leaders are upset because they got called out on some sin or have a member who doesn't pat their back as well as the others.

I think we all have examples of how our leaders went beyond their biblical authority, or enforced something in an abusive way. The RP church, of course, denies this simply by waving away many of the boundaries that the leaders should have. In other words, the boundaries do not matter as long as the process followed is correct. If I spank my child for not licking my feet, does the fact that spanking is okay make a difference? Well, not really, but that is the posture the church often takes. Presbytery and Synod generally only overrule in cases where the church is grossly overstepping its bounds or when there is an obvious breach of process. So, the most abusive leaders tend to be the ones who are the best at knowing and following the processes. But, there are sly abusers that can totally ignore the process as long as they can pretend to have a real "heart" for the sinner. Then, they get a pass on ignoring the law and order of the church because they were really trying to do the right thing.

All in all, the RP church is an abusive system that is set up to protect itself and its leaders. There are truly Godly men and leaders in the RP church, but I think they are brainwashed into thinking that their peers are just as Godly. Or they are convinced that unity within the church is more important than justice for an obstinate member. Or whatever. The point is that the abusive system survives because the leaders do not hold each other accountable and they prevent members from holding their leaders accountable. When those members vote with their feet, they slander them behind their backs - they were holding onto some unrepentant sin, they were insubordinate, they didn't value the wonderful RP distinctives. Maybe they were abused over and over and finally got fed up and left.

A false economy, part 2: theological knowledge

As I said in the previous article, part of an abusive system is shifting our focus from our worth and value in God's eyes to our worth and value according to some human scale. We can get blinded to the problem, because that thing is not, in and of itself, sinful, but finding our worth in that thing rather than our value in God allows the abuse to happen.

The second area I think the RP church struggles is in theological knowledge, or at least the assumption of theological knowledge. Again, interactions between Jesus and the Pharisees show some insight into this:

They brought to the Pharisees the man who was formerly blind. Now it was a Sabbath on the day when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes. Then the Pharisees also were asking him again how he received his sight. And he said to them, “He applied clay to my eyes, and I washed, and I see.” Therefore some of the Pharisees were saying, “This man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath.” But others were saying, “How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?” And there was a division among them. So they said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.” The Jews then did not believe it of him, that he had been blind and had received sight, until they called the parents of the very one who had received his sight, and questioned them, saying, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? Then how does he now see?” His parents answered them and said, “We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but how he now sees, we do not know; or who opened his eyes, we do not know. Ask him; he is of age, he will speak for himself.” His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone confessed Him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue. For this reason his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.” So a second time they called the man who had been blind, and said to him, “Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner.” He then answered, “Whether He is a sinner, I do not know; one thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.” So they said to him, “What did He do to you? How did He open your eyes?” He answered them, “I told you already and you did not listen; why do you want to hear it again? You do not want to become His disciples too, do you?” They reviled him and said, “You are His disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where He is from.” The man answered and said to them, “Well, here is an amazing thing, that you do not know where He is from, and yet He opened my eyes. We know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is God-fearing and does His will, He hears him. Since the beginning of time it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind. If this man were not from God, He could do nothing.” They answered him, “You were born entirely in sins, and are you teaching us?” So they put him out. (John 9:13-34)

The Pharisees claimed greater theological knowledge than this seemingly inferior formerly blind man. Yet, that man is able to demonstrate a better knowledge of the truth than they had. One might think that the Pharisees would see the wisdom in his statement, but instead, they take offense and put him out of the church. The Pharisees are the biblical poster children of a spiritually abusive system. They put many human measures in the place of true value, and they made sure they had the top spot in those measures.

But, this still happens today. Theological knowledge is not withheld from anyone who takes the time and energy to study God's Word. Yet, those with a certain pedigree or certain credentials in the RP church like to place themselves in a superior position above those without the pedigree or credentials. Symptoms of this in the RP church include:

• Inordinate focus on the preached word as a means of grace (Thanks, Westminster!)
• Concern that all formal and informal teaching in the church be done by ordained leaders
• Leaders who listen only to respond - completely one-sided theological conversations
• Discouraging discipleship that happens outside the formal church programs
• Discouraging debate on "controversial" theological issues except by approved leaders
• Churches that simply give in to whatever convictions the pastor holds
• Focus on the "spiritual gifts" and office of the leaders as a means to silence opposition
• Public shaming and disrespect of those who hold different theological views
• Looking down on those liberal Christians elsewhere who don't hold to RP distinctives.
• Potential leaders must be pushed on the congregation by the leaders