Not TRUTH at all costs, but IMAGE at all costs

In working through some struggles as a result of childhood, I was asked the question: "What if you just said to your family, 'well, that was your perspective, but I see things differently?'" This was about what seemed to be a significant disconnect in family stories. My response was, "In my family, truth was more important than any one of us."

That is also what the RPCNA teaches. Our responsibility to God and to truth is a responsibility that even death pales in comparison to. We were told of martyrs throughout history who refused to accommodate the half-truths of the Catholic church, or the half-truths of the state churches imposed on them. They met in private, risking arrest and even death. All because the truth was more important to them than any harm that could be done.

I'm not trying to invite compromise on core Christian principles, but what if the reality was not so rosy?

When I looked back on my family, I realized that there was a standard claimed for being treated as an equal, intellectual, musical and athletic giftedness. That was presented as the family truth. Yet, somehow, I was never able to claim that equality. No matter how much I succeeded intellectually, musically and athletically, there was always some new expectation. Material possessions were added, expertise was added, salaries were added, music was removed and the result was that somehow I always had no claim to sit at the same table. This became especially true as I started questioning our "superior RPCNA upbringing". This has shown itself in action, as well - small but clear reminders of my inferiority and standing.

After talking with my counselor, I started realizing. It wasn't the truth that defined our family, but image. The truth was that I was an equal in every way, but image dictated that others in the family had to be superior. The truth of our upbringing did not support the image that we wanted to present.

I believe this is part of the core problem in the RPCNA. The image of the RPCNA as a superior church, claiming both amazing love and joy among the brethren, amazing care and concern for Biblical truth, and competent, godly and thoroughly vetted leadership is more important than confronting the truth of what the RPCNA is.

When I think through many of those questionable moments, I see this principle clearly:

• Was the trial of Bruce Hemphill primarily driven by a desire to seek and act on truth, or was it primarily driven by a desire to appear unabashedly committed to Biblical truth to fellow NAPARC churches? Before you answer that, ask yourself why the RPCNA overruled breaches of many of the procedural and disciplinary protections that were in place at the time.
• Why is insubordination the primary cause of discipline (as told me by an elder)? Is it because the session seeks truth, or because the session seeks members to uphold the image it has claimed?
• Why would a presbytery commission claim to have rebuked an elder (quest for truth!) and then reject a request from a member that the rebuke of an elder be public as required in scripture instead of behind closed doors?
• Why does the RPCNA constitution give the right of appeal to all members, but only by submitting the appeal through the court whose decision is being appealed, and then, only if said court finds the appeal to be in order? Why are members of the session being appealed given speaking privileges of the floor and have their travel reimbursed, while the appellants, if they travel to presbytery must do so at their own expense, and expect only to be silent observers to the presbytery discussion of their case?
• Why is it the implication that every member who has left the RPCNA has done so because they chose sin or unrighteousness or compromise over truth? Why do we mourn the generations "lost" when many of these generational members left the RPCNA for a different church?
• Why do Reformed churches demand that formal seminary training is a requirement for all pastors, even though there is essentially zero scriptural support to make this a requirement? Is having 100% seminary-trained pastors a Biblical truth or does it convey an image of intellectual superiority?
• When the RPCNA takes great care to make public the causes for excommunication of members, but deals with sins of leadership privately (I know many occasions where this has happened), is this a stand for Biblical truth, or a desire to protect the image of a godly leadership?
• Oh, and the small, but clear reminders of inferiority (hint: how the RPCNA butchers Total Depravity) and standing (hint: how much leaders want the congregation to be removed from the important decisions of the church)

This is also why the OPC is at a crossroads. Their handling of Aimee Byrd is clearly designed to restore the image of their church leadership. Their report makes the actions of their leaders appear innocent and inconsequential, while portraying the actions of Ms. Byrd, the concerned pastors and the "whistleblower" as divisive, scheming and improper. I fear that the OPC will choose image over truth, as it has presumably done in the past. Why would this presbytery committee feel so emboldened to distort justice otherwise?

The four quadrants of shame management and church "personhood"

One of the big questions that keeps popping up in religious abuse discussions is whether an organizational culture can take on the characteristics of a personality. Psalm 115 1-8 says:

Not to us, O Lord, not to us, But to Your name give glory
Because of Your lovingkindness, because of Your truth.
Why should the nations say, “Where, now, is their God?”
But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.
Their idols are silver and gold, The work of man’s hands.
They have mouths, but they cannot speak; They have eyes, but they cannot see;
They have ears, but they cannot hear; They have noses, but they cannot smell;
They have hands, but they cannot feel; They have feet, but they cannot walk;
They cannot make a sound with their throat.
Those who make them will become like them, Everyone who trusts in them.

I am not surprised, then, when a theology of internal subjection of wills within the Trinity leads to a church culture of subjection. I'm not surprised that a shame-based, narcissistic and authoritarian view of God leads to a shame-based, narcissistic and authoritarian church. This is a very helpful diagram, proposed by Patricia Gianotti on how we build defense mechanisms against shame: https://www.treatingnarcissism.com/the-four-quadrant-model

This seems very helpful in mapping out personal, familial and even church responses to shame. For example, through stories about Daniel, I was taught that faithful living and natural giftedness would result in being raised to positions of power. So, in quadrant 1, I had a drive to perfection and high standards for my own conduct, which were justified because of quadrant 3, waiting to be acknowledged and rewarded. But, years passed and I often experienced the opposite. That led to a sense of despair and brokenness and some lack of care for myself - quadrant two. Emotional and spiritual abuse also led to the quadrant 4 fantasies of revenge, violence and even the typical RP persecution complex.

I see the same sorts of things when it comes to the church response. Ultimately, the RP "distinctives" fall into quadrants 1 and 2 - we hold high standards of self-imposed righteousness, with the belief that personally, and as a church, we will be lifted up and recognized, if not now, then at the judgment as being free from shame. But, when dealing with chronic shame and unworthiness (a tragic misunderstanding of God and the gospel among those in the RP church) - the church suffers from the right quadrant issues. For example, quadrant 2, I would suggest is the continual joyless existence common among RPs, who cannot let their real selves out for fear of shame. Quadrant 4 tends to be the RP story, though, in the interpersonal church relations, and especially within the church leadership.

Being raised on the conservative side of the RP church, I heard the conversations about certain liberals that threatened the church order. Talk of what sort of church discipline would be most appropriate - public rebuke, excommunication, humiliation, silence, whatever. I see the church testing God - putting preaching stations and missions, pastors and missionaries out in the world with nearly non-existent support, and then, when God does not send immediate growth, sabotaging the work. I continually see the leaders of the church refusing to accept blame. For example, I heard elders talk of all the "ministry opportunities" that were provided for the members to step into, but the members did not volunteer. I see self-sabotage also in the quest for numerical growth. Growth in the RP church provokes bitter animosity and jealousy. On the one hand, numerical growth is celebrated because the overall church feels rewarded and validated, but that growth occurs somewhere. So, when my church is dwindling and another church is growing, despite the fact that I'm faithful and loyally waiting, I want to put the blame elsewhere - that pastor is straying from some RP principle to win people over, or he is cow-towing to some radical fringe group like the Steelites.

Sometimes we are astounded at the level of revenge evident in the RP church. Bruce Hemphill comes to mind. Elders and Pastors from every corner fell over themselves to exact their revenge - and it falls very well within this narrative - a desire for the church to appear "pure", a desire to be recognized as "zealous for the truth", but then critical and consistent process failures and the overall hatred and revenge shown in the process.

I still struggle to read much of the Biblical narrative through my de-facto RP lens. The Old Testament God does seem narcissistic, and the RP obsession with the OT seems to foment the sort of narcissism and shame evident. However, the OT prophets and especially the NT shed a more gracious and productive light on those actions. For example, a juxtaposed narrative of the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah as against gross sexual sin, but also about hospitality and justice to the disadvantaged. The more I look through the lens of Jesus's life, though, I see the possibility of forgiveness and restoration of personal sin, and I see the rejection of those who refuse justice for the disadvantaged.

There is much more to explore in the RP church's embodiment of their narcissistic god, but I'll leave this model as a helpful way to see our experiences within the church as a refusal to accept and process thoughts of shame among the leaders and members.

Recovering from Spiritual Abuse - Part 3: Anger & Bargaining

The two most transformational books I read while recovering from spiritual abuse had extensive discussions of anger.

The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse - said that understanding the abuse we have experienced would inevitably lead to anger, sometimes strong anger. Their recommendation was not to repress the anger, but be very careful about what actions the anger might lead to - especially any sort of antagonism in the church that would lead back into a cycle of abuse.

Boundaries - also said that anger was a natural consequence of the understanding of our boundaries, understanding that our boundaries had been trampled on, and reacting to continued boundary violations. Again, once we recognize the violence against our boundaries, there will be an angry response that leads us to action.

Unlike what the RPCNA leadership wants to claim, anger is a God-given emotion. The Father and Jesus both model purely righteous anger - not for leaders only, but for all. Jesus was not a boundaryless pushover. Anger is not pretty - Jesus angrily overturned the tables and created quite a chaotic scene!

In addition to those powerful books, the best advice I've heard about anger, and even all human emotions, is that we should able to invite God into that emotion. If I'm angry because I did something stupid and got caught, would God agree with my anger? If, on the other hand, I'm angry because a trusted friend broke confidence and shared my pain and anguish with others, I think God wants to be there with me as I experience it. God wants to be near at all times, it's just a question of whether God would say my anger is directed appropriately.

I believe anger is the emotion God gave us to save us from abuse! It was my anger at false teaching (ironically, about anger), and then supported by RPCNA leaders who also falsely taught that anger was inherently evil, that gave me the energy to walk away from the abuse.

But, that's not really the anger I think this chart is talking about. I would say that, for the first six months after I left, I was pretty numbed to what I felt about the situation. Anger pushed me to leave the abuse, but I really didn't understand the depth or breadth of that abuse. After that point, it began to dawn on me just how severe the abuse had been [and I know that many RPs suffer much more personal and traumatic abuse than I did!] The RP church preached to the unsaved - sin, guilt, condemnation, legal requirements, judgment, and the anger of God against all unrighteousness, of which we cannot go a day without displeasing him. My new church preached to the saved - comfort, friendship, blessing, grace, the love of God for all who are his, the Spirit poured out on all, if we would just listen and walk in what we now know is the right path. At first, this was a comforting and warming message, but then I began to realize this was not what I experienced in the RP church. It was not what I experienced in my RP family. I felt like I had been in jail my whole life, imprisoned by those who should know better. At first, I was angry at my captors and myself, but at some point that anger turned to God - first actively - why, sovereign God, did you actively choose for me to be taught an evil caricature of YOU! Why did you bring me up in these chains that still hold me down. In a sense, the bargaining was a question of what my life would have looked like without the chains and abuse. There were significant decision points in my life - Why did I choose to attend Geneva? Why did I stay in the RP church when I felt mistreated at Geneva by RPs? Why did I stay in the RP church after I graduated? What would my life have looked like if I had chosen differently?

I still feel anger when I read the Bible. It is hard not to feel the chains when passages I read lead to the legalistic and abusive RP argumentation. I feel, to some respect, that the very words of the translations have been poisoned with legalism and judgment.

It is honestly still hard to work through the anger. The RPCNA and especially my family did not allow negative emotions. Anger and fear were altogether considered inappropriate. Sadness was "okay" - but led to emotional distance which was reinterpreted as rejection. So, I was never taught how to recognize and work through those emotions. Instead, strong emotions were meant to be suppressed. To point this out more visually, look around at others singing Psalms - the Bible's textbook on emotion. How much emotional repression does it take to sing "HALLELUJAH!" with no visible emotion. Or "Oh how long, Lord, forget me"? Or, pick pretty much any section of the 150 Psalms - all with loud, precise 4-part harmony, but absent any sort of emotional understanding. It's not just the RPCNA, but many, many evangelical churches in our emotionally repressive culture! Not only do we see strong emotions in the Psalms, but we see different tools as the Psalmist works through these emotions in a holy way. We see how God wants to be pulled in as a trusted friend in our happiest and most tragic times - not to reject our negative emotions - but to be our help and support. I remember the poem Footprints where a man sees two sets of footprints in his life when times are good, but when times were difficult and he felt abandoned, there was only one. His conclusion was that God left him in those times to deal alone with the trauma, but instead, when he asks, God says, the time when there was only one set of footprints was when I carried you.

I'm still angry that in the times of my life when I felt most angry, most rejected, most abandoned, instead of being understood, supported, prayed for, by the church, I was given a trite Bible verse, told to suck it up, told that others had it worse, told that I was suffering because of my sin, distracted, deflected, whatever so that the church could be full of seemingly emotionless zombies singing Psalms with "fervor" to the Lord.

Recovering from spiritual abuse, part 2 - pain and guilt

I think many will experience this differently. I experienced pain and guilt more while I was figuring out how to deal with the abusive situation than when I finally left. My RPCNA journey reached a pinnacle of sorts soon after I graduated college, and a steady decline.

The guilt I had was in seeing abusive leadership and not trying to stand up against it and protect the abused*. There was some pain in being one of "those people" who, if the leaders were asked, left the RP church because they couldn't stand the strict righteousness required and held some area of sin too closely. Yet, in the process of leaving, I was reprimanded for bringing up my "many grievances". So, I guess the little I did speak up was already too much for the leaders to bear.

I did have a great fear that I would try to escape the pain of church. The first Sunday post-RPCNA, I drove to a church that I had researched online. The sermons didn't have the self-doubt and authoritarian lingo I heard from NAPARC churches. When I turned off the car, a thought washed over me. No one would know if I started my car again and drove away. I had some regrets when I had to walk through the welcoming committee and got pulled aside to get my "Hey everyone! I'm a first time visitor!! bag". But, those regrets soon vanished when the service started and I saw people worshiping in their own individual way. Some sat, some stood, some raised their arms and some swayed. It wasn't like people singing "Oh praise the Lord!" loudly in four-part harmony, but with absolutely no hint of joy on their faces. I heard a pastor preach that it was okay to take our anger, our pain, our negative emotions in prayer before God. That God wanted us to draw near, not like a beggar addressing a king, but like a loving father.

In the next few weeks, I would meet with a few of the RPCNA leaders who tried to find the appropriate way to apply the right amount of guilt to me. What right did I have to take the elders' valuable time and energy when they were so busy dealing with other peoples' issues? If I had just disagreed in the "appropriate" way, I would be listened to. Come back and be a part of the solution (if they didn't listen to me in the past...why would they listen to me now?)

In a sense, the "excruciating" pain came from a mutual process of disconnection. Since invitations happened in the church, I simply didn't get invited. When friendships were centered around church, there was nothing else in common to hold us together. Even going to a church-related family event post-exit was awkward. At that point, there was a pain of being unable to participate in significant events. Marriages, funerals, graduation parties - they were all centered around the church.

Note(*) - While I saw the abuse of the church, I was mostly blind to the impact it had on me. I was mostly concerned about protecting those around me. When I had disconnected from the RP church for maybe six months, my eyes started to be opened to how pervasive the abuse was and how crippling it was. Much of it was hidden in hypocritical/contradictory behavior. For example, we are praised for being this pinnacle of righteousness, yet at the same time berated week after week for our filthy rags and unworthiness. Because I felt worth (pride/self-righteouness) along with unworthiness (not measuring up), it was hard for me to really know how worthless I really felt in the abusive environment.

Recovering from spiritual abuse, part 1 - shock & denial

Since I'm not any sort of expert on recovering from grief, I thought I would share parts of my journey. One thing to keep in mind is that this is not linear by any stretch of the imagination. Sometimes I feel like I'm on an upward trend, then I step into more commitments and fall back into depression and loneliness or anger or pain or whatever.

I think working through a long-term loss is much different than losing a loved one, but the process seems similar, at least from what I've experienced so far.

Shock

I remember the moment I put a name to what I experienced in the RP church. A guest minister was preaching for a high school conference about the need for commitment to the church (an RPCNA-approved message, to say the least). It was about the church as our mother - Mother Kirk - and how our mother may or may not be wonderful or nice all the time, but we still need her and she still is our mother.

I asked myself... but what if that mother is abusive? Should we still cling to an abusive mother? Then I pondered more deeply. What would abused children in the church look like? I thought about abused dogs. They would probably cower in the corner to avoid confrontation, but when confrontation was avoidable, they would probably lash out in odd and unexpected ways. They would probably be emotionally draining. The more I thought about it, the more I saw myself as abused by my church.

As a "blue-blood" RP, my world pretty much shattered at that point and soon after. I was raised in the best denomination - one that loved God so much that it would not stray from what he explicitly approved. I was raised by godly RP parents who others praised and sought advice from on their methods. That single word: ABUSE pierced through my heart and suddenly everything was broken. My upbringing wasn't superior. At the same time I was taught to live by an unimpeachable moral code, everything I did was minimized and picked apart. Nothing was ever good enough. The grades I earned, the honors and awards I earned were the work of an unfaithful servant just doing what was required. My churching wasn't superior. I was taught of a distant and judgmental god, for whom nothing was ever good enough. My service to him was just the work of an unfaithful servant just doing what was required, and at every misstep, he was there to make sure I knew I was doing wrong.

Disbelief

At the same time I couldn't understand... I had a good education, a good job a stable life. I wasn't engaging in destructive behavior. Is it really possible that someone who was abused could turn out "okay"? I sought answers within and without the RP church. The RP church, person after person, would say things like: "I don't think that's wrong. You must have done something to deserve that sort of treatment" "I need to hear both sides - what's the other side of the story?" My family members said, "Well, it wasn't the best, definitely, but I wouldn't call it abusive" Those outside of the church had a completely different opinion. "That's really bad. I'm sorry that happened to you and I hope you can heal." or "Normally, I would recommend that people stay at their churches and try to resolve disagreements, but I don't think you want to go back there."

I think along the same lines of what my family said - just because our story isn't as bad as the bad stories out there doesn't mean it wasn't abusive. Abuse is inherently an attempt to manipulate and control others through the use of force - be it emotional, financial or even physical. I suffered less force because I was more compliant. The environment was still abusive.

To exacerbate this, my affiliations pretty much flipped upside down. I saw the people I was taught to respect in a different light - they were cold and harsh - while those people I was taught to avoid and disdain seemed warm and approachable. Those were reinforced by things I heard and read by and about them.

Aimee Byrd, OPC and NAPARC - the patriarchal veil is lifted

I have the utmost respect for highly capable women who are finding their way within the bounds of complementarian/patriarchal churches.

• Beth Moore is a member in the SBC and has repeatedly affirmed the SBC complementarian stance and reminded detractors that her mission is specifically to Christian women. Yet, the comp/patriarchal leadership in her denomination and elsewhere continues to undermine her platform and message.

• Rachael Denhollander is also a member of a complementarian denomination. She has publicly stated that pastors and church leaders are cordial to her face, but backbiting behind closed doors.

• Aimee Byrd is a member of the OPC. She has the full support of her pastor and elders. Yet, again, behind closed doors in a private Facebook group, OPC and NAPARC pastors, elders and members are engaged in disrespectful and inappropriate behavior.

This fits in with the authoritarian/superiority theme. First off, these men are not arguing "roles" - they are simply pushing a framework of male superiority. They are pushing unwritten rules for how women fit into the family and church. These vile men are now trying to damage control since their comments have been made public. Keep in mind that the administrators of the group, including Shane Anderson (Ruling Elder, OPC) can delete any comments they find offensive! Although Anderson is probably one of the worst offenders.

Aimee Byrd's callout: https://aimeebyrd.com/2020/06/19/genevan-commons-and-the-qualifications-for-church-office/

Christianity Today writeup: https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2020/june/complementarians-closed-rooms-aimee-byrd-beth-moore.html

Commentary on the announcement of her new book:

- seriously, this is just vile


- PCA Pastor


Inappropriate lampooning of another book by Ms. Byrd




















^ OPC church planter










[Doesn't he seem to be acknowledging that this is inappropriate?] - Ruling Elder, OPC


Commentary on the actual cover photo:

- Associate Pastor PCA

 
more vileness


Comments about her press photo:


Conspiring to drum up official church trouble:

Kevin Medcalf, Jim Stevenson - OPC Pastors

More vile slurs (This is about Rachel Green Miller):

Steven Carr - Pastor RCUS


Note that the real fear seems to creep in "honored pastors" - the concern here is that Aimee's critique of misogynistic and patriarchal preaching in conservative denominations will somehow free women of their patriarchal manipulation and control. More comments about her look. More smears against women (sandwich + eisegesis).


Now the hard questions... The CRC was kicked out of NAPARC because of their egalitarian views. I think we should be pretty confident that the OPC and PCA will not act against these pastors and elders. What does it say for the sister denominations in NAPARC to hold full fellowship with a denomination whose leaders display such vile behavior.

Remember, Byrd is complementarian. What these pastors are saying is far beyond complementarianism and is much more akin to patriarchy and subjugation. These themes come out:

• Byrd's husband should be shutting her up
• Her session should be shutting her up
• She should go back to being a housewife and "sandwich maker"
• [Not imaged, but in the blog] Women should not be educated
• It's not okay to call these men's teaching into question

I hope this comes up front and center in church searches. Someone who wants to know the character of the OPC or PCA should find these comments - and know what to expect.

It would be something else if these were ordinary members in the OPC/PCA, but these are men who are seminary-trained, examined by their churches and denominations and found to be exemplary, and chosen by their congregations. These men TRULY REPRESENT the OPC and PCA denominations, and that is scary!

An article about Christian nationalism sheds light on RPCNA practices...

I'm not generally a big fan of Al Jazeera, which seems to be a pro-Islam media site, but this article really resonated with my RPCNA experience.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/power-worshippers-american-religious-200422144158404.html

It is, in fact, modern in its methods and doctrines, which "notwithstanding their purported origins in ancient texts have been carefully shaped to serve the emotional needs of its adherents, the organisational needs of its clerical leaders, and the political needs and ambitions of its funders".

Translation, there is a triangle of power inherent in Christian fundamentalism. The adherents give money to support politicians and church leaders in exchange for the feeling of moral superiority and being part of a righteous movement. The church leaders get money, power and prestige in exchange for preaching political talking points and delivering members as a voting bloc to politicians. The politicians get votes, money and power in exchange for championing moral legislation and appearing onstage with religious leaders.

Al Jazeera: What are some of the ways in which the emotional needs of adherents are exploited by movement leaders? 

Stewart: Among the emotional needs of some adherents is a desire for a certain empowerment as members of a special or uniquely virtuous group of people. So religious nationalism goes overboard in insisting on the unique virtues of the religion and culture with which its followers identify.
   An additional emotional need of some adherents, exploited by leaders of the movement, is to validate feelings of grievance and resentment, and to focus them on some imagined impure "other," a scapegoat.
   Christian nationalism, like other forms of religious nationalism around the world and throughout history, delivers a set of persecution narratives that represent the "good" religious people as under threat and as victims of an evil "other".

So, religious nationalist organizations, like the RPCNA, encourage their adherents by creating a cultural narrative that is equated with righteousness. In the RPCNA, it is "National Reform" - that is, a focus on theocracy (a national covenant), and a political focus on specific moral issues, especially abortion.

Al Jazeera: How have the doctrines been shaped to meet the needs of the movement's clerical leaders?  

Stewart: Fundamentally the doctrines of religious nationalism reinforce authority - of scripture, of course, but also the authority of religious and political leaders.
  This is what religious nationalism does around the world. Their doctrines make an absolute virtue out of obedience to a literalist or strict interpretation of their religion.

Wow, she pretty much nails the RPCNA here. Under the guise of faithful obedience to God, the church promotes a narrow interpretation (WCF and RPCNA Constitution), especially as it relates to the authority of, and unquestioned obedience to, the church and her leadership.

Al Jazeera: Who funds the movement, and how have the doctrines been shaped to meet their needs?

Stewart: The movement has multiple sources of funding, including small-dollar donors, various types of public subsidy and funding, and affluent donors.
  Many of those affluent donors belong to super-wealthy hyperextended families. So it is not surprising that many of the doctrines the movement favours are about money. They say the Bible and God oppose progressive income taxes, capital gains taxes and minimum wage laws. That the Bible favours low taxes for the rich and minimal rights for the workforce. They argue that environmental regulation, regulation of businesses, and public funding of the social safety net are "unbiblical" or "against the biblical model".
  In this way, I think, Christian nationalists have betrayed what might have been their strongest suit. Christianity, as most people understand it, has something to do with loving our neighbours. But leaders of this movement have thrown in their lot with a bunch of selfish economic reactionaries who tell us we don't owe anybody anything.

I've always wondered this... why does the RPCNA argue against welfare, when the OT provided welfare - and it wasn't about reforming welfare, but eliminating it altogether.

The article goes on to trace the origins of the Christian nationalistic movement, and it is deeply troubling. The RPCNA, which held deep convictions against slavery and racial injustice, with churches serving as stops on the Underground Railroad, got duped into supporting pro-segregation southern theologians like Jerry Falwell and Bob Jones, who were looking for another source of tax-sheltered funding, because "segregation" lost as a worthy cause of support.

Despite the fact that most evangelicals were initially in favor of abortion laws, Falwell and Jones were able to galvanize support under a "pro-life" stance, which delivered the power proposition to conservative denominations and political leaders.
---

This article really put things neatly together. For example, I've had minor skirmishes with a few RP pastors over the teaching of the Bible, the WCF and the Constitution. Practically, what I found was that their authority trumped all of the above. When I backed them into a corner, that was the argument ender - not the Bible, not the church standards, but their claim to superiority.

I also had a rude awakening to the whole scheme when the local Right-To-Life chapter refused to endorse an obviously pro-life candidate. They had a FAQ on their website that explained that "electability" was one of their criteria in endorsement. So, their goal was not to endorse all issue-qualifying candidates, but to deliver a bloc of voters to the candidate of their choice. In fact, that was a lie, too. The next election was a pro-life incumbent Democrat vs. a pro-life Republican. They endorsed the Republican, despite the electability. Hmmm.

Since then, I realized that pro-life is such a galvanizing issue among Republican politicians that they dare not do anything to change the status quo. This is done under the guise of virtue signaling - that is, they cannot allow the state to give out free condoms that are proven to reduce the abortion rate, because they must take the moral high ground. Of course, they compromise on welfare laws, they compromise on healthcare, they compromise on educational funding and homeschooling laws, they compromise on protection of rights, but for some reason, abortion is all-or-nothing, or at least abortion can only be dealt with by making it harder to get, not by making it unnecessary in the first place, through better sex education, better consent laws and better reproductive services.