EcclesiaDiscens.
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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.