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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disenculturation vs. Deconstruction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reputation management vs. righteousness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Hope and voting with your feet

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

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

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

Stay and fight or stay and be a light?

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

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

Vote with your feet?

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

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

When is hope futile?

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

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

Getting stuck in dysfunctional family roles

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

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

"I have the right to change and grow."

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Reformed beliefs on mental illness and Christian Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discarding old patterns of ungodly thinking

Thought reconstruction

Adopting new patterns of godly thinking Source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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