Slander of the PCA in ByFaith Magazine ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
alexandermsmith said:
Why would a minister have one preaching style for a black church and one style for a white church?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
alexandermsmith said:
Why would a minister have one preaching style for a black church and one style for a white church?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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/
 
Last edited:
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/
Click to expand...
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.
 
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).”

http://tennesseestar.com/2017/06/15...ite-privilege-as-moderator-of-annual-meeting/
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
“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
 
Last edited:
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
Click to expand...

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?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ColdSilverMoon
  • Locked
Mark Driscoll in NYT Magazine
Replies
19
Views
2K
Honor
Honor
JS116
  • Locked
Confessionalism In The PCA
Replies
19
Views
3K
jwright82
jwright82
Richard King
  • Locked
Invasion of the PCA School
Replies
3
Views
2K
Richard King
Richard King
A.Joseph
  • Locked
The liberalization of the PCA
2 3
Replies
85
Views
11K
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
jayce475
  • Locked
Relevant Magazine
Replies
4
Views
1K
Christopher88
Christopher88
Back
Top