Article about the PCA

[Theoretical]

Although I certainly agree that the PCA may need to broaden the demographics of its congregations, I find that blog post extraordinarily unhelpful. It comes off as venomous and bitter. I'm actually shocked that a pastor would use such a tone. I don't doubt that he has a very valid point - one that I would probably agree with - but I'm put off by his lack of charity.

We are where we are. We need to be faithful in those locations.

I think this is a great point. Educated professionals need the gospel just as much as anyone else. Of course, we must not neglect others in favor of the elites, but we shouldn't simply reject the elites either.

Better yet, just pick up a copy of By Faith, any one of the last 5-6 issues. You won't see anything on poverty ministry, or the blue collar churches - but you will see at least one article each issue on how some white, suburban (or tragically hip church plant) is "ministering" to the community through an art gallery, or a gay outreach ensemble, or the like.

Are there really PCAs ministering through "gay outreach ensembles?"

I don't know about the latter, but I know of a very prominent one that just did an art show.

 

[Montanablue]

I actually did visit a PCA last year that had an art exhibit in their narthex. The display was photos of the city taken by a member. I actually appreciated the exhibit - the photos were beautiful and I think its good for the church to recognize beauty in God's creation.

Having said that, I'm not sure what I think of a church having an art exhibit as an "outreach" or as some sort of "mission," especially if they spent a significant amount of money on it. I'd rather see that money go into the mission field or to help a sister church with a less affluent congregation.

 

[Edward]

Are there really PCAs ministering through "gay outreach ensembles?"

I don't know about the latter, but I know of a very prominent one that just did an art show.

Did you go?

 

[py3ak]

This thread has been closed for a cooling-off period.

Something to consider: critique from within tends to make some very angry. Why? Sometimes, it is because the critique hit home. Sometimes, it is because any critique is seen as disloyalty or betrayal. Neither of those are really good reasons.

The Bayly's are not above criticism, and I have some criticisms of my own: but those who would take them up on their tone need to reckon with the fact that misperceptions occur. The fact that it sounded hostile to you does not mean that it either is or was intended to be hostile. And consider this: in the article linked above, Tim Bayly may have written some strong things; but the article reveals that at least he looked in the mirror when he did so. Some of you have now written equally strong things against him: have you also looked in the mirror?