More wisdom from Rachael Denhollander

This was buried deep in Rachael's response to Sovereign Grace Ministries. I think it is critically applicable to how we hear victims of institutional abuse. We see this repeated over and over. From President Trump defending his wife-beating press secretary, Rob Porter, to Sovereign Grace Ministries circling the wagons trying to justify ignoring their statutory requirements as mandatory reporters to protect their own.

I think I've gotten the same response here - just because others have had a good experience in the RP church doesn't mean that the church isn't abusive. I'm sure many, many members in SGM had a great experience, but does that really justify ignoring and denying victims of sexual abuse because that wasn't their experience?

I believe the vast majority of RP members are willfully blind to the spiritual abuse that happens in her midst.

Wisdom from Rachel below:

The Evangelical Response

This is not a case of being asked to be “judge and jury”, anymore than any of us were, or ought to have been, “judge and jury” in other instances where similar allegations and concerns were raised against other institutions. What is being asked is that we apply the same level of intellectual honesty and scrutiny that we apply to groups outside our own community where such allegations are made. Given the standard set in Scripture for what a Christian ought to be and in particular a Christian leader, I would suggest this standard ought to be even higher than we require of, say, state universities.

Put simply, what we ought to have done is treat the concerns and allegations expressed as very serious. As potentially damaging to the Gospel. As potentially deeply damaging to God’s children. We ought to have truly listened and considered that those close to us could have fallen in serious ways or made serious mistakes. We ought to have to urged and required that serious matters like this be subject to a transparent, public, independent investigation that is conducted by a group the survivors also trust, just as we expect and require such accountability for secular institutions.

Penn State University is a byword for sexual assault scandals. Yet it took Penn State a mere six days to commission a truly independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding Jerry Sandusky. It took Michigan State University an excruciating seventeen months to finally request a similar investigation into the Larry Nassar case. Yet, it has been more than seven years and Sovereign Grace has steadfastly refused this sort of accountability in the face of multiple instances of abuse within the organization – even though they have been asked multiple times to clear the air.

Not only has there been no loving but firm pressure to submit to accountability and openness, the very dynamic I warned about in the Christianity Today article has been repeated. My gospel presentation and offer of forgiveness to my abuser was heralded nationally... until I applied those same principles to my own community of Reformed evangelicals.

The skill, precision, passion for truth and commitment to Christ that received wide acclaim was instantly denigrated as “zeal without knowledge”, “false accusations” and acting “without the facts”, damaging the gospel. Yet not a single person who levied or repeated this accusation asked, even once, what facts or research I had done, before making that judgment regarding me. As soon as I raised concerns about issues in my own community, it was immediately determined by some that none of the abilities and attention to detail I demonstrated to bring Nassar to justice had been utilized in raising concerns with Sovereign Grace. That I was carelessly and ignorantly damaging the gospel that I had been praised for articulating so well and courageously to Larry Nassar two days earlier.

This is institutional and community protectionism. Brothers and sisters, this is it. We need to realize that the reason we are gaining a reputation for handling these situations so poorly is not because people hate the gospel and make up lies about us, but because we have a real problem in how we think about sexual abuse and how we think about our leaders and institutions.

Rachael Denhollander on how the church minimizes abuse victims in Christianity Today

For those who don't know who Rachael Denhollander is, she was the first gymnast to publicly come forward, accuse Dr. Larry Nassar of sexual assault, and press charges against him. This led to a cascade of other brave women and girls coming forward to join the accusation, and ultimately, a guilty verdict and 175-year sentence.

The entire article is a great read... I think the interview is really enlightening about sexual abuse specifically, but much of what she says applies to any abuse situation. I think it also provides more color to the discussion about emotions - it's very tempting to, as Rachael says, tell the victim to simply forgive and that all the emotions will just go away, but that just doesn't happen.

I'm happy that she has been able to forgive her abuser and let go of the bitterness and anger. The answers, I think, hint at the length of the process involved for her to get there. It was not overnight. Instead it was a long process of first understanding, perhaps a different God than she was taught, using that knowledge to study scripture and put things in perspective and ultimately to be willing to trust in the God of goodness and love to provide true justice, whether it was only eternal or temporal, too.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/january-web-only/rachael-denhollander-larry-nassar-forgiveness-gospel.html

A few excerpts:

Was there a particular Bible verse or passage that you felt spoke to your situation?

One was from John 6, where Jesus asks Peter, “Do you want to leave too?” Peter says, “Where else would I go, Lord? You have the words of life.” There was a point in my faith where I had to simply cling to the fact that although I didn’t understand or have the answers, I knew that God was good and that he was love. Whatever else I didn’t understand couldn’t be a contradiction to that.

Beyond that, it was learning more about God’s justice, that contrast between darkness and light, and how to properly interpret God’s sovereignty and Bible verses that command us to give thanks or reveal God’s promises of bringing goodness out of evil. When those verses are interpreted properly they are glorious and beautiful truths. More often than not, particularly in the case of sexual assault, they’re really used to mitigate and to minimize—almost as if the victim handles it “properly,” if the victim just forgives, all of the feelings are going to go away. That’s not true and that’s not what Scripture teaches.

In your impact statement, you mention that it took you a long time to reveal your own abuse with other people. Was church included in that?

Yes. Church is one of the least safe places to acknowledge abuse because the way it is counseled is, more often than not, damaging to the victim. There is an abhorrent lack of knowledge for the damage and devastation that sexual assault brings. It is with deep regret that I say the church is one of the worst places to go for help. That’s a hard thing to say, because I am a very conservative evangelical, but that is the truth. There are very, very few who have ever found true help in the church.

Given your concerns that Christians can use God’s call to forgive as a weapon against survivors, did you feel at all apprehensive telling Nassar that you forgive him?

I did to an extent, because forgiveness can really be misapplied. Taken within the context of my statement, with the call for justice and with what I have done to couple forgiveness and justice, it should not be misunderstood. But I have found it very interesting, to be honest, that every single Christian publication or speaker that has mentioned my statement has only ever focused on the aspect of forgiveness. Very few, if any of them, have recognized what else came with that statement, which was a swift and intentional pursuit of God’s justice. Both of those are biblical concepts. Both of those represent Christ. We do not do well when we focus on only one of them.

...

The damage of sexual assault is extreme and it is lifelong. As much as someone forgives their abuser, as much hope as is found in the gospel, we don’t get complete restoration this side of heaven. It does not happen—that’s why the hope of heaven is so glorious. But the suffering here on earth is very real, and it does not go away simply because you forgive and release bitterness. These women are going to live, myself included, with lifelong consequences of the sexual assault, and the vast majority of this never needed to happen.

What does it mean to you that you forgive Larry Nassar?

It means that I trust in God’s justice and I release bitterness and anger and a desire for personal vengeance. It does not mean that I minimize or mitigate or excuse what he has done. It does not mean that I pursue justice on earth any less zealously. It simply means that I release personal vengeance against him, and I trust God’s justice, whether he chooses to mete that out purely, eternally, or both in heaven and on earth.

Understanding emotions and their abuse to further the RP agenda

Sorry that this took so long to post. I've been really mulling over how best to make a case and gain understanding. This is really a fundamental disconnect with RPs and many evangelicals and I have pretty much given up trying to approach this in an acceptable way.

I grew up under a brand of RP intellectualism. There were good things that happened and bad things that happened, there were things I wanted and things that revulsed me. Yet, the consistent word was that Christians were called to subject their emotions to their intellect.

For example, if we do not have "joy" in worship, we should subject our emotions to our intellect and somehow create that joy. In fact, if you read Piper, any true Christian ought to have joy by subjecting their emotions to intellect? Abusive boss? Joy! Abusive spouse? Joy! Hit your finger with a hammer? Joy!

In the same way, we are taught that there are "good" emotions and "bad" emotions in very subtle ways. For example, we learn about Jesus in Away in a Manger: "The cattle are lowing, the baby awakes, But little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes." Of course, nowhere in scripture does it even hint that Jesus never cried, or that crying is somehow bad. Crying is one of the few ways babies have of expressing needs. Babies cry when they need to be held, or when they need to be fed, or when they need to have their diaper changed. Babies might express anger or frustration when their needs are not being met - when their need for food is mistaken for needing to be held, for example. Yet, we make judgments about babies based on the emotions they express - good babies don't cry or show their temper. Bad babies are easily agitated, easily angered and don't immediately calm down when given what the caregivers consider to be adequate care and attention.

We have negative terms - "terrible twos", "teenagers" to express important stages of life where children begin to understand and respond in ways that show they are separate people from their parents with sometimes conflicting desires and needs. The church recommends books where these important stages of life are met with firm, consistent discipline meant to show children who is the superior (the parent) and who is the inferior (the child). In fact, one pastor at the International Conference had sage advice. It was the parents' responsibility to upstage the child. If the child shouted, the parent had to raise their voice to talk over the child. It was so important to this pastor that the parents were superior in every way to the child.

Perhaps my experience is different, but I grew up in an RP house where strong emotions were discouraged. My quest to develop into my own person was met with strong resistance, and my negative (bad) reactions to that resistance were met with even stronger resistance. Part of the problem was that my parents were extremely sensitive to loud noises, so their knee-jerk reaction to anger was to squash it. But, this is complicated by the fact that the church generally directs teaching at the person under authority, not the authority itself, and the teaching is not how to "submit in the Lord", but how to "obey". So, not only did my parents squash strong negative emotions, they also squashed strong positive emotions. Not only was this backed by the church that said, if my parents don't require me to sin, I must blindly and unquestioningly obey them, but it was also backed by written and unwritten rules about decorum in the church. People who raised their hands in worship or shouted "amen" were brow-beaten for daring to break the decorum.

What has baffled me recently is how Covie's can so strongly emphasize singing and knowing the Psalms yet completely miss the point of the very words they sing.

(strong joy in the Psalms)
"You have turned for me my mourning into dancing; You have loosed my sackcloth and girded me with gladness, That my soul may sing praise to You and not be silent. O Lord my God, I will give thanks to You forever." Psalm 30:11-12

(strong anger in the Psalms)
"Appoint a wicked man over him, And let an accuser stand at his right hand.
When he is judged, let him come forth guilty, And let his prayer become sin.
Let his days be few; Let another take his office.
Let his children be fatherless And his wife a widow. 
Let his children wander about and beg; And let them seek sustenance far from their ruined homes.
Let the creditor seize all that he has, And let strangers plunder the product of his labor.
Let there be none to extend lovingkindness to him, Nor any to be gracious to his fatherless children.
Let his posterity be cut off; In a following generation let their name be blotted out." Psalm 109:6-13

RP's like to prooftext passages that appear to forbid things like anger, but they refuse to understand the context. For example, this is a favorite:

"Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice." (Eph. 4:31)

Yet, how is that to be understood in juxtaposition with this?

"I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate [cut off their male organs] themselves." (Gal. 5:12)

This is just one of the places where Paul's anger is clearly shown in Galatians. So, how is it okay for Paul to write, on the one hand, to put away anger, and on the other hand to very clearly demonstrate his anger?

Paul doesn't go very far in Ephesians before he enlightens us... "Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak truth each one of you with his neighbor, for we are members of one another. Be angry, and yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not give the devil an opportunity."

Interestingly, Calvin takes the shoving emotions position, which pervades the RPCNA:

Most appropriately, therefore, did Paul, when he wished to describe the proper limitation of anger, employ the well-known passage, Be ye angry, and sin not. We comply with this injunction, if the objects of our anger are sought, not in others, but in ourselves, -- if we pour out our indignation against our own faults. With respect to others, we ought to be angry, not at their persons, but at their faults; nor ought we to be excited to anger by private offenses, but by zeal for the glory of the Lord. Lastly, our anger, after a reasonable time, ought to be allowed to subside, without mixing itself with the violence of carnal passions. (Commentary on Eph. 4)

So, Calvin's solution to anger. (1) ignore the injustice committed by someone else and instead blame yourself - victim blaming. (2) ignore that the wrong committed against you potentially came out of a heart that is black and instead of "judging the tree by its fruit" naively separate the person from their sin. (3) it's not okay to be angry when you are personally offended, and only okay to be angry if you're angry on God's behalf - maybe this is why it was okay for John Calvin/RPCNA leaders to be angry because any wrong against them is against "God's Elect". (4) If more than 24 hours has gone by and you're still angry, shove it in a box. I don't think that is what Paul is saying in this passage, but it's clear how this approach to anger pervades the RPCNA:
1) Victim blaming. The person who breaks the peace of the church is the sinner, not the person who committed the wrong.
2) Sin leveling and minimization. Someone who has done life-changing sin ought to be forgiven and restored. We're all sinners, so we ought to be ready to forgive even the most vile sin in our midst and welcome the sinner. For our own sin, we must recognize that it comes out of our personal idolatry and evil, but for another, of course, we must assume (despite what scripture says) that their intent was really pure and it was an honest mistake.
3) Maintaining an inordinate focus on theological error and insubordination while ignoring significant personal sins. (For example, coddling an elder known to be domineering, while ostracizing a member for holding an 'incompatible' theological view)
4) Sin statute of limitations.... members who bring up offenses that are not ongoing or within the last few weeks are called bitter, sin harborers, uncharitable, etc.

How is anger satisfied Biblically? Through justice.

"When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also." (Rev. 6:9-11)

I think this is one of the most powerful answers about anger. Here we see that, even in the perfection of Heaven, there is this unresolved anger. The saints are angry because the wrath that their enemies deserve has not yet been poured out in full. Heaven recognizes the temporary injustice, while God completes history and brings final justice.

This is what the church misses. It's easy to use Biblical double-speak and spiritual authority to shut people up and drive anger under the surface, but it's justice and reconciliation that actually brings conclusion to the anger. Churches that turn the victim into the offender (bitterness, anyone?), instead of bringing truth and reconciliation, drive the bitterness under the surface to fester.

In fact, this just another aspect of the same oppression we've seen of the weak by the powerful.

"‘Cursed is he who distorts the justice due an alien, orphan, and widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’" (Deut 27:19)

"Woe to those who enact evil statutes And to those who constantly record unjust decisions,
So as to deprive the needy of justice And rob the poor of My people of their rights,
So that widows may be their spoil And that they may plunder the orphans.
Now what will you do in the day of punishment, And in the devastation which will come from afar?
To whom will you flee for help? And where will you leave your wealth?" (Isaiah 10:1-3)

The church leadership is no stranger to this. Under the guise of caring for the sheep, they enact decisions to protect the wolves in leadership from the flock. They cover over child abuse, member abuse, and spousal abuse, maybe in some deep way so that they can keep tithes coming in from the powerful, maybe to preserve the hierarchy, I don't know. They preach a gospel of captivity to church leaders, and then emotionally and physically drain the members who believe it for their own benefit. Yet, when members speak out against this oppression, they are called angry, bitter and mean.

Again, to focus on Christ, we need to understand human emotions from the perspective of a human who, first of all, had these emotions, and yet expressed them perfectly. Does that make sense? If anger is a sinful emotion, then how did Jesus, in a demonstration of his sinless humanity, express anger? If sadness is a sinful emotion, why did Jesus cry? If anguish is wrong, why was Jesus anguished?

Learning that *I* don't matter, a lesson in pain.

My goal in this blog was to work through some of my history in a way that was therapeutic for me, but also remain anonymous and hopefully find others struggling with the same issues. I think that was too much. To be able to heal, I think it's better for me to process the things that happened, and writing general, angry articles is really just stoking anger without healing. I'm going to try something different.

Childhood Lesson #1: Provocation is not punished, but visible sin is.

Part of growing up in an aspirational "core" RP family is that we were always on display when we were in public. Infractions that might be overlooked when we were at home were punished, sometimes severely in public.

From a young age I knew that Sunday, the Sabbath, was the day that we had to be on our best behavior, and that was especially true in worship. While my parents were up to the task of keeping us in line, my siblings were determined to act perfect, but also enjoyed seeing how far they could push me before I would blow up in some way that would be disruptive. My parents, would respond by painfully reminding us what was appropriate. That might be the "vulcan neck pinch" or a vice-like grab to the soft tissue just above the knee, or in desperate circumstances, I'd get taken out and spanked.

Spanking in an RP church was not necessarily a private discipline. I think many parents these days want it to be discreet and private, but in most RP churches I've been in, there simply is not enough sound barrier between the best spanking spots and the sanctuary.

So, there was a painful lesson I learned early on by what was punished and what wasn't. It's not wrong to goad someone else into disrupting the service. It's wrong to disrupt the service. My siblings were rarely, if ever punished for making faces or drawing silly pictures and showing them to me, or grabbing my knee and pinching, despite my protests. It was always my visible lack of self-control that received discipline.

Adult reflections: Interestingly, this still seems to hold in a slightly different way. For some reason everyone has skin in the game of hiding sin. It's the person who finally exposes it that receives the condemnation of the community. Isn't it fascinating how many of the recent pastor scandals involved elders who knew about the sin and yet remained silent? Were they simply deceived, or did they actually realize that exposing the pastor would cost them everything?

Childhood Lesson #2: Only the authority's version of the truth matters.

One of the most memorable and humiliating disciplines I endured was in front of my church friends. With multiple siblings there were always breakdowns in communications. This specific Sunday there was a covered dish dinner after the morning service. As usual, the kids hung out while the grownups set up the tables and got the food put out. Then my dad came storming out of the church. "I've been looking all over for you. I told you to come downstairs for the meal and you didn't come." I protested, "you didn't say anything to me, I've been with my friends the whole time", but that just fueled his anger. I got spanked HARD in front of my friends. Interestingly, I never remember my church friends receiving much more than a reprimand in front of me.

Adult reflections: This one seems obvious. Once the leaders have decided what happens, there is never any defense. This is a major flaw in the RP Book of Discipline. It allows for elders to prejudice themselves under the guise of "informal discipline" without giving the member the ability to defend himself. By the time there is a formal trial, not only has guilt been decided, but also generally what punishment will be served. If this is ever appealed, the prejudice of the Session is never an issue.

Childhood Lesson #3: No one is on my side.

I'm not saying I was a perfect little child, but, having older siblings who knew how to manipulate the parental discipline system made me painfully aware that I had no recourse. At one point being spanked unjustly was such a common occurrence that it was hardly worth trying to protest the injustice, yet, stupidly, I still protested and I still was spanked harder for protesting.

All I knew about authorities were the adults at church, so I listened and waited for a way to let them know about this injustice. Instead, all I heard were others gushing over how well behaved we were. That was it. I knew that no adult would ever listen to my story. No adult would ever believe a snot-nosed kid over his pillar-in-the-community father.

Adult reflections: I've seen this time and again in the RP church and more broadly. In fact, this is written in the law and order of the church. If a "member" appeals or complains against the decision of a Session, the member's appeal must be in writing. It must first be sent to the Session (who then receive a head-start in defending their position) before being transmitted to the higher court. At the higher court, the "member" has no standing, and typically is not even present. However, the Session is represented by at least the pastor and an elder.

Childhood Lesson #4: I exist to feed the ego of my authority

I had some talents as a kid, but being punished for not being "perfect" in public created a bad side-effect. An intense fear of performing. One day I was commanded to perform on the spot for someone my dad wanted to impress. My fear overruled that and I refused. As I was receiving the spanking of my life I realized that my intense fear would be no match for my dad's ego.

Adult reflections: I've shared this story to very few RP leaders as something I thought was a clear example of abuse. Surprisingly, the reaction I got was the authority must have been right. No clarifying questions were asked, there was no theological defense or even questioning of my account. Just complete utter refusal that this could have been abuse. This is really the culmination of the last three lessons. This, more than the spiritual abuse I've suffered, is why I think the RP church is supporting abuse and abusers. In fact, I see kids of elders with that same blank look of fear on their faces as I must have had. Almost emotionless. For me, it was a cry for help that never came.

Friends of sinners or whitewashed tombs?

I think Paul Tripp rightly describes churches as a hospital. A hospital is full of sick people who need healing. Tripp also says that pastors should not go into ministry thinking that everything will be wonderful. In his books, he talks about pastors who think that other churches will be messy, but their church will be a happy place.

So, here is the question, why is there so much pressure for Christians to portray themselves as well?

Think about it. I go to the hospital doubled over in pain from my burst appendix, but when people start asking me for my symptoms... well, I've got this cough and my head hurts a little.

In the church, this is a learned response. There is little shame in having bad thoughts about our boss making us work the weekend, or forgetting to have our quiet time because our kid fell out of bed and had to be calmed down. But, if one of the 50% of religious men who is addicted to porn walks in, what would be the response? Open arms or shame?

In fact, the sins that lock us into a self-imposed shame cycle are the very sins that would make us outcasts in the church. I've experienced that sort of shame - those whose sin-free facade was torn off and we finally knew some of what was inside. Did they experience love and grace in the RP church, or were they outcasts? You see, the RP church is for those who have it together. The neatly wrapped package of a "together" life, good theology, great signing voice and excellent volleyball skills. Okay, maybe grace for the non-musical and non-athletic, but limited grace for those whose life isn't wholesome and whose theology isn't quite there.

Have you heard grace or scorn for those questioning Exclusive Psalmody, Instruments, or gasp! the Regulative Principle? Is there any patience for those who hear Infant Baptism proclaimed every time a baby is sprinkled, and Session-Controlled Communion every time the elements are passed, and still don't agree with the arguments?

Jesus lived the opposite. He was scorned as a friend to the tax collectors, prostitutes and sinners, but called the religious elite who had their ducks in a row "whitewashed tombs"! I'm afraid that sinners walk into the RP church looking for healing, only to find an empty coffin and a wet paintbrush. Would Jesus walk into the RP church and find us to be friends of tax collectors, prostitutes and sinners, just like he was, or would he find pews full of whitewashed tombs?

Hey RPs, is your elder or pastor someone you would trust your darkest sin with, or do you think you'd end up being on the wrong side of the session? Is it only those whose sins have already been reported to the congregation who then confess their sins to be restored?

Out of the hundreds of testimonies you've heard from lifelong RPs, how many were anything other than "I lived the RP double life and God told me I had to choose"?

The statistics are staggering. According to Barna (an EVANGELICAL survey organization), 79% of Christian men 18-30 view porn monthly. In another survey, 63% of pastors admit sexual addiction or compulsion.

What should take more energy at Synod? Freeing the perhaps 63% of pastors in the denomination addicted to porn and other sexual addictions, but hiding it in shame, or dealing with the one pastor with a theological position contrary to the church?

Did Jesus spend his ministry years purifying and perfecting Jewish case law, or did he spend them giving beautiful life-giving freedom to those trapped in the worst sins?

I recently talked with someone about why there is such an inordinate focus on seminary. Why do we expect pastors to hold a Masters' degree and understand the original Greek and Hebrew? Does that prepare them for a life in the trenches of freeing people from sinful addictions, or does it prepare them for a life of debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin? Who is more likely to become an RP pastor? The brilliant Bible student at Geneva who's too busy studying Calvin to volunteer for any campus ministry, or the high school dropout who opens his doors to the neighborhood kids to show them the love of Jesus?

Gaslighting in RP sermons

A common thread among abuse victims is the thought of "walking on eggshells". When the abuser comes home, the victim tries to do everything right because she doesn't know what will trigger the anger of the abuser. Is there a speck of dirt on the dishes? Will my response show a bit of frustration? Will I overcook the casserole?

Healthy people look at this situation and understand - there is no justification for abuse, but the abuser carefully works through a process to seed uncertainty and self-doubt in the mind of the victim. That process is called gaslighting.

Seemingly, the God of the RPCNA is an abusive God. No matter how hard RPs work at the Christian disciplines - prayer, Bible reading, devotions, fasting, family worship - there is always some area that they are failing. God, then, waits for those failures to be just in sending all sorts of trials in their lives. Sermon after sermon is preached to show this or that common failure and prescribe more and more exhaustive lists of symptoms. Lacking joy? Pray harder, read more, fast more, sing louder. Having a hard time? Pray more diligently, read your Bible more, spend more time fasting. Maybe you're not tithing or evangelizing your neighbors enough.

If you dare question whether this is really depicting a merciful and gracious God, RP leaders are quick to point out that your judgment is flawed. How dare you question the leader God has sent and ordained to be over you?!?

Again and again, I'm drawn back to the gospels. Who did Jesus treat with mercy and kindness? The people that would never be allowed in an RP church. The sinners, the adulterers, the lepers, the outcasts. Who were the people Jesus challenged and berated at every occasion? The leaders who prayed hard, fasted, etc.

What was the problem, though? The Pharisees portrayed God as an abusive God who demanded sacrifice (works) rather than mercy. When bad things happened to people, it was because God was punishing them for their sin. The solution was to fix your sin - figure out what thing God was punishing you for and try harder. The Pharisees were the ones who had it all figured out - they were rich and bastions of righteousness. But there was a big problem. Jesus HATED THEM. He called them vipers, hypocrites, whitewashed tombs. He said, beware of their teaching. He said they put heavy burdens on people that they could not bear, and they make their converts sons of Hell.

RPs should be repulsed by the leaven of the Pharisees, but instead, they seek it out. They seek more and more sophisticated pastors who can slice and dice doctrine and rant against the other denominations who have this or that theological error.

Instead, we need to think about who God is. Yes, God is holy and God is just, yet God loves us so much that he crushed his own son, Jesus, so that he could show us kindness and mercy rather than judgment for our sins. Why would that God then wait for our every little infraction so he can smack us?

The Bible shows us picture after picture of God's love. Hosea, whose wife was a harlot, is a picture of God. Homer returns to her prostitution and yet Hosea repeatedly brings her back and restores her. What about the prodigal son? He wishes his father dead and blows the family fortune, yet his father sees this pile of sin coming from afar off and runs to embrace him. Where is the smack? Where is the judgment? None of that. Just love, mercy, hugs and kisses. God's wrath is reserved for his and our enemies.

Perhaps it's not surprising that, when I treated my own child like I thought God treated me, it drove a wedge between us. I waited for the inevitable infraction and punished it swiftly - thinking that it would bring righteousness and closeness, but instead, it brought defiance and distance. In the same way, why are we surprised that generation after generation of RP children, brought up in legalistic nitpicking chooses to reject God, or find a church where grace is taught?

How do we understand the law?

The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) talks about three categories of law:

I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.  

II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man. 

III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.  

IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.  

V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.  

VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace. 

VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.

The real question is how to understand the implications of these laws.

He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. (Matt. 19:8)

But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. (Matt. 12:7)

These aren't one-off responses or loopholes Jesus is inventing to evade questions. Instead, this is a pattern for understanding the Old Testament law from God's intended perspective.

Do we expect children to understand and behave like adults? Of course not. There is a natural progression of knowledge. For example, Natural numbers do not contain zero. We don't necessarily teach the concept that zero is a number to a three year old learning to count. In the same way, elementary teachers might say their students can't subtract 7 from 5, or divide 10 by 9. Is it "wrong" to teach that way? I don't think it is - the children's brains are not developed enough to understand those abstract concepts. As their minds develop they can handle the concepts of zero, negative numbers, fractions, irrational numbers and so on.

In the same way, we are locked up in childishness with regards to sin. God consistently calls the Israelites "stiff-necked" and "hard-hearted". Paul admonishes the Corinthians:

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? (1 Cor. 3:1-3)

What does this have to do with the law? Remember that the law of divorce was due to "hard-heartedness". To unroll this further, Israel was a nation where women and children were considered to be property. It was lawful to own slaves, including slaves meant for sexual gratification of men. So, why was it necessary to allow divorce? For the protection of women. In that society, women had very little means of support outside of a male provider. Women who were married were supposed to be provided for by their husbands. So, in Israel, a man could refuse to provide for his wife and yet not officially divorce her (this still happens today). This law was to protect women by allowing them to remarry and be provided for.

So, how do we differentiate between "Moral Law" and "Judicial Law"? What is general equity? Moral Law is the natural order created before the Fall. Judicial laws are applications of the Moral Law to the unique circumstances of the Israelites (including their hard-heartedness).

Consider slavery. There was much to-do about the Biblical justification of slavery - the OT has laws discussing how to acquire and free slaves, and laws talking about the treatment of slaves. This became a huge debate, since those who wanted to justify slavery could easily point to the apparent approval of slavery in the Old Testament. Yet, as we have come to believe, "sanctioning" slavery is not "approval". This becomes an important principle. The law meets us where we are - hard-hearted spiritual infants sucked up in a sinful culture.

So, when we read Paul's instructions, like "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man", do we understand it from a "Moral Law" perspective, or from a "Judicial Law" perspective. Was Paul's prohibition due to some universal moral principle, or was it due to a specific problem in a specific time and place? I think scripture leads to the latter. 1st century culture still promoted slavery, patriarchy and women and children as inferiors and property. So, Paul, who incidentally CIRCUMCISED Christians to further the gospel, isn't necessarily claiming a universal principle, but is pushing for laws that make accommodations for the hardness of the 1st century Greek heart.

I think this is an important discussion now because so many churches are looking at these specific sanctions in light of more general passages that say, for example, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female", or "your sons and daughters shall prophesy", and coming to the conclusion that daughters should NOT prophesy. Instead of trying to find roles, they push women to the side. Is God's heart in this really to push women out of any public ministry in the church?