# Slander of the PCA in ByFaith Magazine ?



## EcclesiaDiscens. (Feb 28, 2019)

https://t.co/dTTnGdNcYn

I was alerted to this by Presbycast, but some of the statements made here flabbergast me, and on the denominational magazine's website no less!

Here's an egregious example, found amongst the absurd idea that Paul "checked his privilege" to become all things to all people.

"_*You have to do great damage to your own self and your own identity many times to join a PCA church because who you are as the image of God is not welcome. *_Or are we gonna do what I am afraid that so many of our churches have done, is that in order to become part of a PCA church you really have to become white?" (6:50)

Such a claim appears to be a violation of the Westminster Standards guidance on the 9C.

This might be worthy of censure and charges within the courts of the church (which can be debated), but the idea that an editor of the denominational magazine would sign off on such a video is shocking to me. Does the editor of the magazine have a charge to avoid giving the appearance of endorsement of non-confessional stances or at least have the responsibility to provide a disclaimer?

EDIT: Edited to follow the guidance of the administrators.

Reactions: Like 2 | Sad 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 28, 2019)

Ryan, if you feel this way (and I have a great deal of sympathy for you), then you need to do something within the structure of the church, especially since you are in a PCA church. Charges of slander should not be made in a parachurch setting, in my opinion.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 28, 2019)

I did not find on the About page any "views expressed are the author's own" sort of proviso. Since they accept submissions I would think they do that somewhere? That doesn't remove any scandal it causes; I have the same problem with Aquila Report that bundles items and often they are contra confessional. So while they have the...

"*DISCLAIMER*: The Aquila Report is a news and information resource. We welcome commentary from readers; for more information visit our Letters to the Editor link. All our content, including commentary and opinion, is intended to be information for our readers and does not necessarily indicate an endorsement by The Aquila Report or its governing board."​
...I don't find that removing the stumbling block of giving anti confessional stuff more legs to reach people.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens. (Feb 28, 2019)

greenbaggins said:


> Ryan, if you feel this way (and I have a great deal of sympathy for you), then you need to do something within the structure of the church, especially since you are in a PCA church. Charges of slander should not be made in a parachurch setting, in my opinion.



I definitely agree Rev. Keister, I wasn't trying to charge anyone but simply express, in agreement with Mr. Coldwell above, that the editor of the denominational magazine should seek to avoid the appearance of the endorsement of non-confessional positions or positions which would open one up to charges in the church court. Perhaps I should edit my post to reflect such?


----------



## Bill Duncan (Feb 28, 2019)

This is one of the men on the Ad Interim Committee on Racial and Ethnic Reconciliation. His views represented here are the views of the PCA since these are the views expressed in the report from the committee which were accepted by the 46th General Assembly. Therefore his are the views of the By Faith Magazine. That does not make him slanderous but rather faithful.


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 28, 2019)

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> I definitely agree Rev. Keister, I wasn't trying to charge anyone but simply express, in agreement with Mr. Coldwell above, that the editor of the denominational magazine should seek to avoid the appearance of the endorsement of non-confessional positions or positions which would open one up to charges in the church court. Perhaps I should edit my post to reflect such?



That would probably be clearer.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens. (Feb 28, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> This is one of the men on the Ad Interim Committee on Racial and Ethnic Reconciliation. His views represented here are the views of the PCA since these are the views expressed in the report from the committee which were accepted by the 46th General Assembly. Therefore his are the views of the By Faith Magazine. That does not make him slanderous but rather faithful.



Personally, that seems rather....disconcerting. As a mixed race man I found that the opposite was true. Especially in regards to worship and the life of the church.

Is the PCA's official position that as a denomination it denigrates the imago dei of its members? Such a claim is confusing to me. I'll definitely read the linked report.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 28, 2019)

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> https://t.co/dTTnGdNcYn
> 
> I was alerted to this by Presbycast, but some of the statements made here flabbergast me, and on the denominational magazine's website no less!
> 
> ...


I am not taking away what you have from the video in question. There is nothing absurd in Paul's checking his privilege to become all things to all people.

As the Report linked above notes, rhetorically so, beginning at page 2414, line 17:

"And that Kingdom will encompass people from every nation, language, clan, and people in God’s world.

That means, then, that in the light of the data in this report, we need to ask ourselves some challenging questions. Are there disparities between the biblical Jesus and the preached Jesus in our churches? Does our preached Jesus love, befriend, and empower the poor and disenfranchised? Does our preached Jesus warrant the kind of faith that leads people into the cultural fray as gentle peacemakers and courageous mediators? *Does our preached Jesus call people to repurpose their privileges and release their power for the benefit of the outsider (Phil. 2:6)*?

Then on page 2415:

*Jesus becomes what he was not, out of love for the Father, so that the “other” might share in that most profound love*. We must call our people to this cross-culturally transformative love. Jesus fully inhabits a particular culture without falling into racial hubris, ethnocentrism, or idolatry. Jesus embodied his Jewish culture in a way that did not demean other ethnicities, but rather dignified them. Thus, we must equip our people with a vision broad enough to burst the doors of their cultural prisons. We must call our people to embody their ethnic identity in a way that dignifies rather than demeans all the others. In other words, *God’s mission does not call our church to become “color-blind,” the negation of race or ethnicity; rather, it calls to become “one new humanity,” in which that diversity remains diverse and yet finds a new and true unity (not uniformity) through the blood of Jesus (Eph. 2:13-18)*.​
In the video the Pastor decries what is going on *in some PCA venues*, even from the pulpit. He is not advocating anyone join a PCA church with the view that he or she need to start thinking like a white person. He is advocating that churches wherein such a view is tacit or explicit are to correct themselves.

What have I misunderstood?



EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Is the PCA's official position that as a denomination it denigrates the imago dei of its members? Such a claim is confusing to me. I'll definitely read the linked report.


Such a claim would be confusing to any of us PCA members. Fortunately so, such a claim has not been made.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 28, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> This is one of the men on the Ad Interim Committee on Racial and Ethnic Reconciliation. His views represented here are the views of the PCA since these are the views expressed in the report from the committee which were accepted by the 46th General Assembly. Therefore his are the views of the By Faith Magazine. That does not make him slanderous but rather faithful.



To be clear, position papers of the PCA, that are approved by the GA, are not the official positions of the PCA. They are treated by the PCA as pastoral advice. The official position of the PCA is the Constitution of the PCA.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens. (Feb 28, 2019)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I am not taking away what you have from the video in question. There is nothing absurd in Paul's checking his privilege to become all things to all people.
> 
> As the Report linked above notes, rhetorically so, beginning at page 2414, line 17:
> 
> ...




I'm currently reading the report mentioned, so I do not wish to speak too hastily now.

I do find however that "color-blind" is mischaracterized. What most people use that as a shorthand to mean is that they do not make character judgements based on the color of someone's skin. Which I would consider to be a necessary component to not being a racist.



Such a claim would be confusing to any of us PCA members. Fortunately so, such a claim has not been made.[/QUOTE]



My question(s) would then be, is my adherence to the RPW as a Hispanic man my attempt to become white and put off my Hispanic ethnicity? What exactly is the PCA denigrating in my imago dei as a Hispanic man? What exactly of Reformed Confessionalism is "white" and actively denigrating of me? These kind of thoughts pop up on seeing such a video. Especially when they are the exact opposite of what I see and have experienced from fellow believers

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill Duncan (Feb 28, 2019)

Romans922 said:


> To be clear, position papers of the PCA, that are approved by the GA, are not the official positions of the PCA. They are treated by the PCA as pastoral advice. The official position of the PCA is the Constitution of the PCA.


IF you notice I did not say "Official" as in a true Presbyterian sense. I see you are in the RPCNA. Good for you. You are in a denomination that is Presbyterian. I can speak as one who has for 52 years been in the Presbyterian Church. The PCA is a prelacy, run by agencies and committees. Floor votes are merely a formality. When the votes are made they are made by 75% Teaching elders. These men do not represent the majority of the people in the Church. The Ruling Elders of my Church do not attend presbytery nor General assembly. This is typical in my presbytery. 

This is not Presbyterianism as the PCA was intended coming out of primarily the Southern Presbyterian Church where we were escaping the very thing we have become. Thornwell fought the same thing in the 19th century and Machen in the 20th. Top down is top down. 

This particular committee was made up entirely of men who would have come to the conclusion without any study. They have been espousing these views for years. The same eisegesis used in the video supported their preconceived claims. It was rigged from the start. If you would like I can go on. Sorry for my bitterness but this very issue has been in my face for some time and am deeply saddened by how things are playing out.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 28, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> IF you notice I did not say "Official" as in a true Presbyterian sense. I see you are in the RPCNA. Good for you. You are in a denomination that is Presbyterian. I can speak as one who has for 52 years been in the Presbyterian Church. The PCA is a prelacy, run by agencies and committees. Floor votes are merely a formality. When the votes are made they are made by 75% Teaching elders. These men do not represent the majority of the people in the Church. The Ruling Elders of my Church do not attend presbytery nor General assembly. This is typical in my presbytery.
> 
> This is not Presbyterianism as the PCA was intended coming out of primarily the Southern Presbyterian Church where we were escaping the very thing we have become. Thornwell fought the same thing in the 19th century and Machen in the 20th. Top down is top down.
> 
> This particular committee was made up entirely of men who would have come to the conclusion without any study. They have been espousing these views for years. The same eisegesis used in the video supported their preconceived claims. It was rigged from the start. If you would like I can go on. Sorry for my bitterness but this very issue has been in my face for some time and am deeply saddened by how things are playing out.



Hi Bill. Not trying to go back and forth. I only commented on here because I wanted to bring clarity to the PCA view of position papers that I know all too well. I was an ordained TE in the PCA for 10 yrs up until late last year. 

You said the 'view of the PCA', and then a few posts later Ryan asked a question inferring the "official position" of the PCA. I wasn't necessarily correcting you, I was just bringing clarity as I stated in case someone here was confused (or you were). 

As for the committee report, I sat on the floor of GA as it was explained, debated, voted on, etc. I voted against it. My reasons are my own, no need to share them here. 

Again, I was just bringing clarity to the situation for anyone reading or for you or Ryan writing to which you or Ryan or others may have been confused. The PCA's official position is the Constitution, not its position papers.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 28, 2019)

After watching that video I'd be very concerned if I were in the PCA. His whole speech was infused with cultural Marxism and racial agitation.

1) This whole notion of accommodating the church to different cultures is unbiblical. There is Biblical worship and unbiblical worship. This is what happens when the church abandons Biblical worship for man-centred worship, there is no longer an objective standard. The PCA- any church--should focus on conducting the means of Grace in the way God has commanded and then if certain groups don't like that then tough they can go elsewhere to a church which feeds their carnal desires.

The argument put forward in this video- and by all who say _certain _churches need to change how they do things- is an attack on Reformed worship and doctrine itself, as it has been taught and practiced since the Reformation. I don't see black churches accommodating themselves to the potential white visitor. Why is it "white churches" are always asked, and increasingly told, to change?

2) The concept of the church espoused in this video was totally ethnic and specifically non-white. That in order for congregations to be adhering to the Bible they had to explicitly cater to all varieties of non-white ethnicity, taking a little from here and a little from there. But in no way shape or form to be indulging in white ethnicity, or white culture. That is forbidden. 

If you want to continue pouring fuel on the fire of ethnic tension and resentment then by all means follow that course. It won't end well.

3) Again, all the "giving up of rights" is on the part of the white majority in these congregations. Whites need to "understand" the history of every single ethnic minority that could potentially walk through the door. They need to make sure that they're doing all they can to accommodate them. But black ethnicity, that's a positive. It doesn't need to change. They're the ones who raise their hands and worship God, not like whitey over there who stands awkwardly and mouths along to the song. (Maybe whitey is trying to worship God reverently the way the Reformed used to do?)

4) Arguments about the 9th Commandment in relation to this miss the point. Yes he is saying the PCA and white churches generally are de facto racist: it doesn't matter what you've done to atone for the "sins" of the past: that past makes you racist; trying to be colour blind: racist- but the fact this video was made and being promoted shows that there is absolutely NO WAY this guy would ever be disciplined. It doesn't matter what accusations he makes: he's talking about race and he's black. Guys, confessioanalism is not going to help you here. We're fighting a different kind of battle. Look around our societies. We're playing by different rules now.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Edward (Feb 28, 2019)

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> I was alerted to this by Presbycast, but some of the statements made here flabbergast me, and on the denominational magazine's website no less!



I'll quote for the benefit of all what you are calling slander on the byFaith website:



> According to Kevin Smith, senior pastor of New City Fellowship in Chattanooga, Tennessee, there’s been a growing concern in the PCA for how we might reach those who don’t look like us, who come from diverse backgrounds, and have dissimilar histories. In 1 Corinthians 9, Smith says, the Apostle Paul not only gives us a blueprint for the task, he issues a tacit challenge: Are we willing to become all things to all people that we might save some?
> 
> We like to hear what you think about this. Please submit a letter to the editor or write to [email protected]



I'll start with the easy one - you don't even know what slander is. No room for debate on that proposition. 

Second, unless they have misstated Mr. Smith's position, there is no defamation. I would invite you to engage with the material I've quoted above, and point out how it defames Mr. Smith. 

I'm not a fan of byFaith, but words have meanings, and as near as I can tell, you are pretty far off base.


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens. (Feb 28, 2019)

Edward said:


> I'll quote for the benefit of all what you are calling slander on the byFaith website:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The quote above is not the thing that some like myself are having a hard time digesting. It's statements in the video by Mr. Smith. 

Does a PCA church requiring me to abide by the RPW do violence to my identity and force me as a Hispanic man to "become white"? I would disagree with that assertion heavily. Why wouldn't ByFaith? Why would ByFaith find that acceptable to post? That's my concern.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens. (Feb 28, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> After watching that video I'd be very concerned if I were in the PCA. His whole speech was infused with cultural Marxism and racial agitation.
> 
> 1) This whole notion of accommodating the church to different cultures is unbiblical. There is Biblical worship and unbiblical worship. This is what happens when the church abandons Biblical worship for man-centred worship, there is no longer an objective standard. The PCA- any church--should focus on conducting the means of Grace in the way God has commanded and then if certain groups don't like that then tough they can go elsewhere to a church which feeds their carnal desires.
> 
> ...



I see you're in the UK, is this specifically something American-centric or is this phenomena you speak of in your post in the UK as well?


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 28, 2019)

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> https://t.co/dTTnGdNcYn
> 
> I was alerted to this by Presbycast, but some of the statements made here flabbergast me, and on the denominational magazine's website no less!
> 
> ...


One Question:

Considering your concern, have you actually taken the time to reach out to byFaith or the Pastor with your concerns before you brought them here?

If you feel offended, the best thing for you to do is reach out as close to the source as you can and have a humble honest discussion in order to seek reconciliation. Ryan, it looks like you are a member of the PCA. You could likely also email the Pastor directly and try to have some dialogue. The Pastor may need to be corrected by hearing you out, or you may need correction. I am not weighing in one way or another on content, but I do know that if you feel offended by another brother, the best thing you can do is go to the man as directly as you can.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens. (Feb 28, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> One Question:
> 
> Considering your concern, have you actually taken the time to reach out to byFaith or the Pastor with your concerns before you brought them here?
> 
> If you feel offended, the best thing for you to do is reach out as close to the source as you can and have a humble honest discussion in order to seek reconciliation. Ryan, it looks like you are a member of the PCA. You could likely also email the Pastor directly and try to have some dialogue. The Pastor may need to be corrected by hearing you out, or you may need correction. I am not weighing in one way or another, but I do know that if you feel offended by another brother (Matthew 18:15), the best thing you can do is go to the man a directly as you can.




Thanks Grant, after reading the Report some have linked and some discussion with some friends and men I respect, I think I am going to follow this advice.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 28, 2019)

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Thanks Grant, after reading the Report some have linked and some discussion with some friends and men I respect, I think I am going to follow this advice.


Only sharing from my own mistakes. I wish you well.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Edward (Feb 28, 2019)

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Why wouldn't ByFaith? Why would ByFaith find that acceptable to post?



A link was posted on byFaith and comments were solicited. 
A link was posted (by you) on Puritan Board, and comments were solicited. 

Why don't you make the same attack on PB that you are making on byFaith? Show some consistency. 

If you had posted something attacking the video, I wouldn't be having this conversation. Are you offended because the pastor's views have been publicized?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 1, 2019)

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> I see you're in the UK, is this specifically something American-centric or is this phenomena you speak of in your post in the UK as well?



I can't speak to the extent of these problems in the UK church as thankfully I am in a very small, conservative denomination which hasn't been infiltrated by this ideology and we have nothing to do with other denominations. I would not be surprised to find elements of it though. My post was specifically referring to what I see happening in American churches. Of course these trends are throughout Western society generally.


----------



## ArminianOnceWas (Mar 1, 2019)

I had entirely avoided race issues on this site until last week when the question was raised if any legitimate black theologians and pastors exist.

I will give my response to this post by articulating my own experience within the PCA and other Reformed bodies.

As a person of color, I consulted with people within presbyteries of the PCA, OPC, and ARP when I was looking to transfer into a Reformed denomination.

While many of my inquiries went unanswered, in my dialogue with white brethren in these bodies the responses came in this form:

1. Some encouraged me to just become "Black Baptist" instead of going Presbyterian. Why? Because there are Reformed Baptist and that would make it easier on me in their perspective
2. some said I wouldn't be elected to serve within a white Reformed congregation
3. others within certain presbyteries said it would be best if I looked elsewhere because they had never ordained a person of color before and didn't know how it would go.
4. Another response was I could plant an inner city church, not because I expressed that as a calling but because I am black and that would be a logical course of action.
5. One person actually said that since I had experience in white culture and acted white that I may stand a chance pastoring a traditional white Reformed church.
6. others said I could have a special ministry reaching black people with Reformed theology

In the responses, I often felt that while the responder felt that he was being very generous and kind, I felt insulted and that I was not being listened to, nor affirmed in my calling. I do believe people on some level were trying to be sincere and helpful

Eventually, I decided to take a chaplain job so I wouldn't have to threaten these Reformed denominations with my calling and color. Then I decided that it may be more comfortable for certain presbyteries if I just moved my ordination to the ECO from the A.M.E. church where it had been held.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Sad 8


----------



## Edward (Mar 1, 2019)

ArminianOnceWas said:


> As a person of color



Our congregation has had two Black (one was African American) assistant pastors. One of the founding fathers of the PCA was a native American. And there are lots of Koreans. 

As to your enumerated points. 
Point 4 - Minorities live in middle class neighborhoods these days. So the thinking behind that statement is several decades out of date. 
Point 5 - One does have to be able to function in a white culture to lead a whitebread church. Reality is reality whether it is offensive or not.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ArminianOnceWas (Mar 1, 2019)

Edward said:


> Our congregation has had two Black (one was African American) assistant pastors. One of the founding fathers of the PCA was a native American. And there are lots of Koreans.







As to your enumerated points.
Point 4 - Minorities live in middle class neighborhoods these days. So the thinking behind that statement is several decades out of date.
Point 5 - One does have to be able to function in a white culture to lead a whitebread church. Reality is reality whether it is offensive or not.[/QUOTE said:


> Clearly and obviously........but I think you missed the forest for the trees on this one pal.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 1, 2019)

ArminianOnceWas said:


> I had entirely avoided race issues on this site until last week when the question was raised if any legitimate black theologians and pastors exist.
> 
> I will give my response to this post by articulating my own experience within the PCA and other Reformed bodies.
> 
> ...


Seriously? Much ignorance in those statements.... sorry to hear that


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 1, 2019)

Edward said:


> Our congregation has had two Black (one was African American) assistant pastors. One of the founding fathers of the PCA was a native American. And there are lots of Koreans.
> 
> As to your enumerated points.
> Point 4 - Minorities live in middle class neighborhoods these days. So the thinking behind that statement is several decades out of date.
> Point 5 - One does have to be able to function in a white culture to lead a whitebread church. Reality is reality whether it is offensive or not.



This seems quite fair. We are all of us part of a particular time and place and culture and that informs all that we are including our churches. We might say that it is unfair if certain persons find it difficult to integrate to our churches and that we should therefore be doing all to accommodate them, but at the expense of our own culture and who we are?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Mar 2, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> but at the expense of our own culture and who we are?



Depends on if the particular aspect of culture is godly or not. Remember Peter being rebuked by Paul for not eating with the gentiles. Peter probably could have used the argument of culture there


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 2, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> Depends on if the particular aspect of culture is godly or not. Remember Peter being rebuked by Paul for not eating with the gentiles. Peter probably could have used the argument of culture there



Well, for example, our Reformed doctrine and practice. When criticisms are levelled against our churches that they're "too white" or are accused "what is your church doing to accommodate non white persons" these are criticisms of the historical reformed doctrine and practice. Smith specifically referred to how different cultures dress, how they worship. These are not indifferent matters.


----------



## Edward (Mar 2, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> We might say that it is unfair if certain persons find it difficult to integrate to our churches and that we should therefore be doing all to accommodate them, but at the expense of our own culture and who we are?



One of the pastors mentioned made it clear that the preaching style he used for us was quite different than the preaching style he would use in a traditional Black church. He didn't try to change the culture, rather he taught us what we needed to hear without erecting unnecessary barriers.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 4, 2019)

Edward said:


> One of the pastors mentioned made it clear that the preaching style he used for us was quite different than the preaching style he would use in a traditional Black church. He didn't try to change the culture, rather he taught us what we needed to hear without erecting unnecessary barriers.



Why would a minister have one preaching style for a black church and one style for a white church?


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 4, 2019)

Ask Dr. Zack Eswine, Director of Homiletics at the PCA's Covenant Seminary, or at least he was. He has written a book about it.https://www.amazon.com/Preaching-Po...s=zack+eswine&qid=1551711969&s=gateway&sr=8-2


alexandermsmith said:


> Why would a minister have one preaching style for a black church and one style for a white church?


----------



## ZackF (Mar 4, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Why would a minister have one preaching style for a black church and one style for a white church?



The short answer is to communicate better.

I know white preachers who do to an extent. The music selection is different also. The example I have in mind is well respected by various races.

A more obvious situation is a church where an entirely different languages are spoken depending on the service and not merely the dialect.

Church planter Mez McConnell in Scotland helps train middle class preachers to better reach poor and working class people.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 4, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Why would a minister have one preaching style for a black church and one style for a white church?



Given the apostolic precedent of being all things to all people, why on earth would a minister *not* adjust his preaching *style* to speak to different groups?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 4, 2019)

This is just a symptom of what I'm talking about. The only thing a preacher and a church should be concerned with is being Biblical: in doctrine, practice, worship, discipline. Once compromise was allowed into the church in these areas- especially worship- it was only a matter of time before the problems we're facing today would arise.

I can understand a difference in preaching style- to a degree- between black and white preachers. Using my own denomintion as an example: the black African ministers in our mission in Zimbabwe have a different style to our white ministers. The doctrine is the same, the Gospel is the same, but there are noticeable differences in style. However, the black African ministers do not change their style when they preach over here in Scotland and our white ministers do not change their style when they preach over in Zimbabwe.

By God's grace we have maintained Biblical, uniform worship in our churches. No matter what congregation one goes to- in Scotland, USA, Canada, Odessa, Zimbabwe, Singapore, Australia or New Zealand- the worship is exactly the same down to the order of service. That is how it should be.

I understand many churches have allowed in man-made songs, musical instruments, other elements of worship not sanctioned by the Bible. That is why those churches are now in the trouble they are in. They have no objectgive defence against ever greater calls for "accomodation", "cultural sensitivity" &c.

It will only get worse.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 4, 2019)

I think if we go back to the OP, we will see that what Pastor Smith is talking about, and if you read the PCA committee report of which Smith was a co-author, the object for changing the game plan was not mission works but rather the old guard particular churches. He and the committee promote that those church leaders change their strategy/style to accommodate those whom they see as the disenfranchised racially and ethnically. For the PCA agencies which are controlled and can be directly influenced at the committee level, the answer was to employ affirmative action to include more non-white staff and faculty. By example this is to promote some affirmative action on the particular church level, what ever that looks like.


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 4, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> This is just a symptom of what I'm talking about. The only thing a preacher and a church should be concerned with is being Biblical: in doctrine, practice, worship, discipline. Once compromise was allowed into the church in these areas- especially worship- it was only a matter of time before the problems we're facing today would arise.
> 
> I can understand a difference in preaching style- to a degree- between black and white preachers. Using my own denomintion as an example: the black African ministers in our mission in Zimbabwe have a different style to our white ministers. The doctrine is the same, the Gospel is the same, but there are noticeable differences in style. However, the black African ministers do not change their style when they preach over here in Scotland and our white ministers do not change their style when they preach over in Zimbabwe.
> 
> ...


Alexander, the claim that Biblical worship should be the uniform the world over can only be made if we are willing to foist a fair amount of our own culture on everyone else. (To be fair, you are not alone in this misapprehension: Terry Johnson makes exactly the same claim in his book, _Leading in Worship_ but the Westminster Divines would have died rather than worship as he advocates, since his order of service is essentially that of late 19th century American liturgical Presbyterianism). There are many aspects of worship that reflect culture, that are generally included in "circumstances" rather than elements. Even if we restrict worship to the Westminster DPW, with exclusive unaccompanied psalmody, these variables include:

- language (not just English vs something else, but formality vs informality)
- dress (I once preached in an African village where the women "dressed up" for church by putting on a bra, primarily to please the missionaries)
- eye contact (a big difference between Britain and the US in my experience)
- tunes and musical style (Is this not a culturally influenced form of song? 




)
- whether people stand still or move when they sing
- whether men and women sit together or separately
- whether we use individual psalters, project the words of the psalm, print the words in a bulletin, line it out after the precentor, or memorize the words
- and so on

In some respects, all churches must either mirror aspects of their own culture, or those of an alien culture that someone else has imposed upon them.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Edward (Mar 4, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Why would a minister have one preaching style for a black church and one style for a white church?



To at least try to be diplomatic here, pastors at southern traditionally black churches tend to be more enthusiastic / emotive / appealing to the emotions (and the congregation more responsive) than you would find at an generally upper middle class to upper class 'frozen chosen' congregation. There is, of course, a range, and a Tony Evans (a prominent Black Dispensational preacher in Dallas) is more toned down for his predominately middle class congregation with a significant contingent of racially mixed couples than you would find in a traditional rural deep south setting.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 4, 2019)

That emotionalism and enthusiasm is unbiblical though. And there are plenty of rural, working class white churches which are reverent in their worship.

Different tunes is not the same thing as whether or not a church practises exclusive Psalmody. The Reformed wanted uniformity of religion throughout the British Isles and missionaries took the same forms with them out into the world. It's nonsense to suggests that the early missionaries wanted to set up churches which were adapted to the local cultures. In fact it was the opposite. It was only when the missionary movement became liberal that those ideas appeared.

The Westminster Standards set strict parameters for the doctrine and practice of the church. They were adopted by the Church of Scotland. That is the standard my church still holds to because the standards are Biblical. There has been no improvement made on the standards as they were originally adopted. We also hold to the Authorised Version of the Bible and the metrical psalms adopted by the Church of Scotland in 1650. Our practice is not arbitrary. Why would we compromise that in any way because some people have a chip on their shoulder?

If our practice has been influenced by culture in an unbiblical manner then we should reform it. Nothing that was said in that video suggesusted such reformation but merely a _different _cultural influence should be given primacy, and an even less Biblical culture at that.


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 4, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> That emotionalism and enthusiasm is unbiblical though. And there are plenty of rural, working class white churches which are reverent in their worship.
> 
> Different tunes is not the same thing as whether or not a church practises exclusive Psalmody. The Reformed wanted uniformity of religion throughout the British Isles and missionaries took the same forms with them out into the world. It's nonsense to suggests that the early missionaries wanted to set up churches which were adapted to the local cultures. In fact it was the opposite. It was only when the missionary movement became liberal that those ideas appeared.


Lloyd-Jones on the importance of emotion in preaching:

“. . . Can a man see himself as a damned sinner without emotion? Can a man look into hell without emotion? Can a man listen to the thunderings of the Law and feel nothing? Or conversely, can a man really contemplate the love of God in Christ Jesus and feel no emotion? The whole position is utterly ridiculous. I fear that many people today in their reaction against excesses and emotionalism put themselves into a position in which, in the end, they are virtually denying the Truth. The Gospel of Jesus Christ takes up the whole man, and if what purports to be the Gospel does not do so it is not the Gospel. The Gospel is meant to do that, and it does that. The whole man is involved because the Gospel leads to regeneration; and so I say that this element of pathos and emotion, this element of being moved, should always be prominent in preaching.”

But then, of course, he was Welsh, and our Welsh cousins have always been culturally more open to emotion than we repressed Scots!

Alexander, is there no area of culture in which the Scots might actually learn from someone else, or at least appreciate the beauty of differences? Is our culture alone perfect? Was Hudson Taylor's adoption of Chinese dress a "liberal" move? Are suits and ties inherently more biblical?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## ZackF (Mar 4, 2019)

My background is Dutch-German. I’m sick of folks who are late.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 4, 2019)

Lloyd-Jones is hardly an example of rock solid Reformed doctrine and practice with his charismaticism and his irregular ecclesiology. I don't think I'll be looking to him as an example when there are so many solid Reformed theologians and ministers of the past to choose from.

Whether Hudson Taylor should or should not have gone native is really beside the point: he did and there's not much we can do about that now. Dr. Kennedy observed a papist mass but that doesn't mean we should.

I've seen nothing in other traditions that I have thought worth adopting. I've seen plenty that's just rotten. Having grown up in a church which was a free for all I very much appreciate being now part of one that holds the Bible as the one and only standard.

I'm not interested in looking for new ideas. I believe the Reformed got it right, the Westminster Divines got it right, the godly ministers who held to the Bible and the Confession got it right.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 4, 2019)

And yet the Westminster divines dressed very differently from us...you can't escape from culture quite that easily! There is no unenculturated worship, because there are no unenculturated people. The danger is that we don't examine our own culture critically through a Biblical lens and ask questions about how the Fall has even affected us. The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland reflects a particular (sub)culture (not just the Bible), just as every other church does. For example, do the men and women sit together or separate sides? Is your reason for that Biblical? Or cultural? Other churches in other cultures do that differently - should they all adapt to your pattern?

What is more, good preaching necessarily reflects on who the audience is, in order to try to communicate clearly and effectively. Paul's sermon to a Gentile audience on Mars Hill in Acts 17 was not the same in style as his sermon to a Jewish audience in the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch in Acts 13.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Kinghezy (Mar 4, 2019)

How about some thoughts from Robert Godrey. I do not think we can throw shade on his Reformed credentials.


https://www.the-highway.com/worship_Godfrey.html

Traditional Protestant worship has probably been strong on reverence, and what has been called “contemporary worship” often seems enthusiastically joyful. But proponents of each approach must ask whether their views achieve a biblical balance. *Traditional worship may proceed so mechanically and formalistically that emotion seems absent*. Contemporary worship may be so insistent on fun and excitement that reverence and joy seem lost.

Second, the Psalms also model for us the substance of our singing. A few Psalms are short and have repetitive elements, but most are full, rich, profound responses to God and his work. Singing praise to God, the Psalter reminds us, is not just emotional expression, but a real engagement of the mind. Songs that are very repetitive or shallow and sentimental do not follow the model of the Psalter. The command to love God with all our mind must inform our singing. *Mind and emotions together are the model of *praise presented to us in the Psalms, and the modern church must work at restoring that union where it has been lost.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 4, 2019)

Edward said:


> To at least try to be diplomatic here...



Are you feeling quite yourself?

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 5, 2019)

The Westminster Divines dressed (somewhat) differently from how we dress today, true. They dressed according to the style of the day. They didn't dress like black Africans, or like Chinese though did they? So when immigrants come to our countries why should we adapt our standard of dress to them? They should adapt to us. In the West there is a long established style of dress which is considered formal and reverent for worship (the equivalent for their day is what the Puritans wore). That shouldn't be compromised to suit foreign cultures. Too many white Christians are sentimentally impressed by the colourful dress of black Africans, for example. I don't understand this. It's garish and conspicuous, drawing attention to the individual rather than the attention being on God. It's also, by the way, not all that "native" either. If black Africans dressed like they traditionally dressed they would barely be dressed at all! All this colourful garb is fake, just as the modern kilt is fake and I no more desire men to be wearing kilts to worship than wearing garish robes.

I concede that there are cultural influences so I was too general in earlier statements. I grant that Gaelic psalm singing is a particularly Scottish style of singing the psalms. However, it involves singing the same Psalms (just the Gaelic equivalent of the 1650 Psalter), to the same set of tunes, in the same posture. Though I don't speak Gaelic, having attended a Gaelic service it still felt quite familiar (albeit I didn't know what was being said) because the form of worship, the order of service, was still the same. Also Gaelic was the native language in parts of Scotland, and is still widely spoken in those parts. That does't mean I think we should be conducting services in English and Gaelic. If the congregation is in a Gaelic speaking place and everyone in the congregation speaks Gaelic, that is one thing. Artificially conducting services in both languages is another.

(So while, yes, there are cultural influences I don't think they're as significant as some are suggesting. The Scottish cultural influences on Scottish Presbyterianism don't fundamentally alter the elements of worship. Now there are elements in Scottish Christianity which are more problematic. For example, there is a mystical strain which in some parts of the church is more tolerated than in others. However it is very much kept at bay within the formal means of grace- whether public, private or secret- and in formal theology, personal indulgencies outwith these areas notwithstanding. 

(Also, we have many Dutch people attend our services while on holiday, and a number of our people attend services in Holland (a number of Dutch people have also moved over to Scotland and married into our church). The differences between the two traditions are less cultural, however, than doctrinal. Both traditions sing the psalms exclusively, but the Dutch churches use organs. The preaching in both traditions has many similarities, both tend to be experiential however the Dutch tradition has a hyper-calvinistic strain. So for all the cultural differences between Scotland and Holland, it's actually objective theological points which constitute the greatest differences.)

In America whether official or not, English is the national language. It has been from the beginning. That fact is intrinsic to the church culture of America and has shaped Reformed doctrine and practice for generations. Why should that be adapted for immigrants? If we must have immmigrants they should be adopting our culture, certainly our language and certainly shouldn't be changing and undermining our church practice. Reformed theology has been carefully honed over hundreds of years in the English language. It should be maintained as the language of the church in the West.

And yes I know that there were other groups in America- the Dutch, German and Scandinavian- who kept their languages for a long time and settled their own communities. However, that died out and it doesn't mean it was right for them to maintain that language barrier. Plus they had their own churches.

I don't think what I've already said precludes this, but I'll state it explicitly just for clarity: I don't object to different cultures conducting services in their own language. I don't expect churches in China to be conducted in English. I also don't have a (major) problem with Korean churches in America conducting services in Korean (although it remains a worrying sign of a lack of assimilation). But I also don't object to Western countries taking the practice and doctrine which we have out to the world and instituting them, as is, there. All church traditions are not equal.

However that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about, in this case, a specific denomination that traces its roots back hundreds of years being infiltrated by an alien ideology and being forced to change to accommodate people who have _voluntarily_ joined it (after all), knowing full well what it was and its history. Where are the Christians calling for black churches to adapt more to white Christians? Where are the calls, for that matter, for Korean churches to conduct their services in English? The PCA, and denominations like it, are being targeted. You need to ask why. This change is being pushed for purely ideological reasons. I mean, the reason the PCA was formed was to _escape_ these liberalising trends in the PCUS. These people who are agitating for change had what they wanted in the PCUS and then PCUSA after the union. Why have they come into the PCA?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 5, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> The PCA, and denominations like it, are being targeted. You need to ask why. This change is being pushed for purely ideological reasons


Not purely ideological, and not necessarily targeted. There is a pragmatic financial and internal movement as well. Many of the proponents of the cultural assimilation movement are men who were instrumental in the formative years of the PCA, and progeny of these men. So there are not only outsiders coming in to bring change, but, rather, there are primarily those who see change necessary for survival. In my community of around 330,000 people there are 3 PCA congregations and one Church plant. The largest congregation of around 500 just lost about 200 of those, with 95% of whom not transfering within the PCA. The other two PCA congregations, one of which I have been a member for 20 of its 35 years, has less than 100 members between them. There are no other reformed and presbyterian denominations in the community. In 2000 there were the same PCA Churches with almost the same membership totals, around 450 combined. Here's the problem, in 2000 the population of this community was 195,000. In 19 years there was a 60% increase in population and a 0% increase in PCA membership. What do the PCA strategists do with these kind of numbers? They fret and they scramble and they blame it on the old fuddy duddies at these churches. They take their eye off of the of the Lord of the church. They place there hope in men and the ways of man. If John Owen had measured the health of his ministry upon the numbers of his roll, I think less that 30 people in his last days, he would be deemed a failure. These Churches I listed are not failures because they have not grown in numbers. God has added many to his kingdom through them and should he desire to grow them in temporal numerical increase he will, and without cultural assimilation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 5, 2019)

Yes that is also an important dimension to take into account: the age old "if only we did things differently we'd have them streaming into our churches". We must always be on our guard against that as well. The problem is made worse, however, when that spirit is already present in a denomination- or a society- and then others come along with their agenda, it's all the more readily accepted because the native people are already in an identity crisis.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Edward (Mar 5, 2019)

I was told recently that the average age of a PCA member was 60 years old. There is some logic in saying that 'if they keep doing what they are doing, in 20 years the average age will be 80'. But what they are doing now isn't what they were doing a generation ago when the PCA was growing. 

I had a couple of additional paragraphs, but while thinking through what I was writing, I realized I might be missing the big picture. 

The Koreans have done well while never (with individual exceptions, of course) integrating into the PCA. Perhaps the problem is that the folks in charge think that the result could be different for other ethnic groups. Maybe the solution isn't trying to shoehorn everyone into a single box, instead of letting congregations share learnings and struggles with like congregations. And perhaps some domestic church plantings would fit better under MTW than under MNA.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 5, 2019)

The problem is intersecting issues. And those with the most troublesome agenda exploiting kinks in the armor. In essence they take issues that may have some legitimacy, cause we are imperfect, and exploit vulnerabilities... in doing so they cause great harm.... CRT comes to mind
https://www.theaquilareport.com/critical-race-theory-rts-sbts/


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 5, 2019)

Just look at Revoice..... there is incremental accomadation occuring that has nothing to do with sound doctrine or even expanding the kingdom.... and there are too many people in leadership positions who are being seduced by a very controlled, calculated and coordinated effort to divide and tear down


“A college professor who promotes progressive theories on race and white privilege was elected moderator Tuesday for this week’s annual meeting of leaders in the conservative Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).”

http://tennesseestar.com/2017/06/15...ite-privilege-as-moderator-of-annual-meeting/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## J.L. Allen (Mar 5, 2019)

A.Joseph said:


> The problem is intersecting issues. And those with the most troublesome agenda exploiting kinks in the armor. In essence they take issues that may have some legitimacy, cause we are imperfect, and exploit vulnerabilities... in doing so they cause great harm.... CRT comes to mind
> https://www.theaquilareport.com/critical-race-theory-rts-sbts/


That was painful to read. I’ve tried having conversations with other students at Moody regarding race issues. It goes nowhere. That ideology is deeply rooted and prominent. There’s nasty responses to it that justify their view. The pot is being stirred and the Bride of Christ is being humiliated and turned in every which direction. 

I think we live in a particularly troublesome time in Christian history. I think this will end up being huge.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 6, 2019)

A.Joseph said:


> Just look at Revoice..... there is incremental accomadation occuring that has nothing to do with sound doctrine or even expanding the kingdom.... and there are too many people in leadership positions who are being seduced by a very controlled, calculated and coordinated effort to divide and tear down
> 
> 
> “A college professor who promotes progressive theories on race and white privilege was elected moderator Tuesday for this week’s annual meeting of leaders in the conservative Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).”
> ...


This man, Alexander Jun, was also on the the committee with Pastor Smith (OP), which produced the report on racial and ethnic reconciliation in the PCA. Keep on digging and you will see why I say the committee could have only produced a biased report. Every member, to the man, had gone into the study with the presuppositions like Dr. Jun. Even the research company the committee used, Lifeway Research, a division of Lifeway Christian Resources, a Company owned by the Southern Baptist Convention, whose President and CEO is Thom Rainer, who makes a living consulting Churches on how to change, was biased. Do you really think that this study could have produced any finding that would have said anything other than it did? This was a conspiracy of the highest order. Elders in the PCA who sit home in June of every year, without valid reason, and fail to do their duty for their Church by attending General Assembly, should demit the office.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 6, 2019)

Individual vs institutional charges of sin in the form of oppression, slander and bias is the issue. When you make this issue an institutional prioritizing of one sinful disposition over another you are not seeking biblical resolution and restoration of an individual offense that can be multidirectional.... charges of institutional racism is agenda driven manipulation and upheaval of the church and its primary mission... it is the same with Revoice celibacy events / conferences.... these movements are political distractions of the activist and agitator designed to sow disharmony and confusion in the church

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 7, 2019)

“Critical Race Theory (CRT) was inspired by the American civil rights tradition...and from nationalist thinkers such as Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, and Frantz Fanon. Being steeped in radical black thought and nationalist thinking, critical race theory advanced theoretical understandings of the law, politics, and American sociology that focused on the efforts of white people to maintain their historical advantages over people of colour. CRT has spread beyond the confines of legal studies to many other fields, notably women’s and gender studies, education, American studies, and sociology. CRT spin-off movements formed by Asian Americans and by Latinos have also taken hold.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/03/the_radical_politicization_of_the_american_church.html

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Mar 10, 2019)

ArminianOnceWas said:


> Reformed denomination.
> 
> 
> 1. Some encouraged me to just become "Black Baptist" instead of going Presbyterian. Why? Because there are Reformed Baptist and that would make it easier on me in their perspective



Several of these responses were haunting but this one seemed so brazenly hypocritical. I can tell you're a gentleman but did you push back at all when you got this response? I would have been tempted to snarkiness and have asked, "if things were 'easier' for you to get ordained, would you become a Baptist and leave Presbyterianism?"


----------

