Much has been made about the conviction, deposing, and excommunication of former RPCNA teaching elder Samuel Ketcham by the Presbytery of the Alleghenies (PoA). If you haven't read about it yet, you can get all caught up on the Roys Report.
I'm thankful for the presbytery's serious effort and work and the relative speediness with which all of this was accomplished. I would not be surprised at all to learn that hundreds of hours went into the committee work, the preparation of the charges, the reading and study of Ketcham's published material, and more. This is all worthy and necessary work, and I'm glad it was done.
And yet: I can't help but feel disappointed. Not with the result of the trial, of course, but with the silence of church leadership with respect to Ketcham's views about women and gender.
Ketcham's posts on Substack are mostly about race, to be sure, but his post titled 'Race and Egalitarianism' includes several sections on gender issues. This is not surprising, as white supremacy is intertwined historically and structurally with patriarchy, which is the system of gender hierarchy that places married men with children at the top of all social authority relationships.
I ought to put my cards on the table at this point and make it clear that I consider myself a mutualist. But since that term isn't as widely known, egalitarian will do. Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE International) has put out a useful statement that summarizes the theological viewpoint: link to PDF. I arrived at this position after years of wrestling with the subject through reading books, listening to lectures and podcasts, and studying the Bible. Somewhat ironically, my experience as an RP elder in Australia also played a significant part in changing my views on women in church leadership. But that's a story for another time; sadly, I must return to Ketcham.
In the post linked above, Ketcham provides a polemical definition of the term:
"Egalitarianism can be broadly defined as: a system of thought that makes things equal that are not equal."
This is a useful definition for someone who believes he is in the class of people endowed by God to rule over all others. Ketcham goes on to make the following claims in the article:
(These are my summaries of his positions; readers can verify them in Ketcham's article.)
These views are reprehensible and contrary to the consistent witness of Scripture. Deborah presents a significant challenge to almost every single one of these sexist ideas, and a careful study of the whole Bible contradicts the view of gender that Ketcham lays out. One caveat: I'm perfectly willing to entertain arguments about the practical challenges for women in law enforcement and warfare due to statistical differences in size and strength, but Ketcham ultimately resorts to gender essentialism on this point by saying these women should be home having babies and, in doing so, maintains his credibility as a full-on sexist.
I would be very surprised if more than a handful of men in the PoA agreed with any of Ketcham's views on women and gender roles, at least as he expresses them. You might find some nuanced agreement on the issue of women in law enforcement and the military, but everything else from the list above would be an extreme minority view if anyone held it at all. This is all speculation based on my experience, having spent most of my life in the RPCNA; I don't have any survey data to back me up.
I want to be clear: I am not accusing the elders of the PoA of sexism, nor am I suggesting they agree with Ketcham's views on women. I suspect most of them find those views as objectionable as I do. But the Law of Unintended Consequences is at work here, and a good process can produce a problematic outcome despite the good faith efforts of those involved. That is what I believe happened here.
My concern—and the reason for my disappointment—is for the women and girls in RPCNA congregations who may have read Ketcham's article. They saw a minister argue that they shouldn't vote, that they lack wisdom for civic life, that their primary purpose is childbearing. Then they watched the church try him for racism but say nothing about any of this. What are they supposed to conclude? I don't think the elders of the PoA intended to say anything about gender by (rightly!) charging Ketcham with racism. But silence, especially in a context like this, is heard as a message whether it's intended or not.
I understand why the Presbytery focused on race. The 2025 Synod had already commended the ARP's statement condemning racial superiority. Drew Poplin, the prosecutor in the Ketcham case, had published a book on the subject with Crown & Covenant just months earlier. The denomination was prepared to address Kinism. When Ketcham began publishing his articles (which seem to me like a direct challenge to the RPCNA, given its recent actions), the PoA was ready to respond.
But Ketcham's racism is all tied up together with his sexism. In 'Race and Egalitarianism,' he argued that racial hierarchy and gender hierarchy are expressions of the same theological principle. He treated them as a package. The Presbytery charged one half of the package and left the other half unaddressed. I understand why they started where they did, but I can't understand why they stopped there.
The ARP statement that the RPCNA commended condemns teaching that "posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics." Ketcham's claims about women—that they inherently lack wisdom for civic life, that they are more easily deceived, that male rule is the divine norm—posit a superiority born of immutable characteristics. The logic of the statement the denomination endorsed applies here too. Ketcham, ironically, understood that these commitments stand or fall together.