Slander of the PCA in ByFaith Magazine ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

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.
 
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 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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
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?

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.
 
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.
 
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?


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



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.

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.
 
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.

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?
 
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.
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.
:2cents::detective:
 
Last edited:
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.
:2cents::detective:


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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

:applause:

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.
 
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.
Seriously? Much ignorance in those statements.... sorry to hear that
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top