Last week the Office of Race Relations was made aware of this comment, and felt compelled to bring forth this topic for discussion and dialogue.
[Posted on Wed, 09/11/2013 at 8:03pm EST as a reply to the first comment]
"the reason why the CRC was "successful" in the past is very simple, and it has more to do with anthropology and sociology than with faith and religion: racial solidarity"
I have am not Dutch, have no ties with the CRC, and never heard of the CRC until I was over 50 years old and moved 10 blocks from [my church]. I knew exactly what I was getting myself into 20 years ago when i joined the CRC, an ethnic local church dominated by maybe 4 or 5 families. Still very glad that I did.
I suspect that if the CRC had remained an ethnic Dutch church then the CRC would be much smaller but debt free. OK, at least in much better financial shape. I think it was opening the doors to outsiders, particularly ethnic minorities that caused the financial problems - that and the CRC doesn't seem very good at investing large sums of money.
What was your reaction after you read it? How do you feel?
Do you think there are others that believe this to be true? What makes you think that way?
What would be the best way to go when dealing with comments that are factually untrue, confront them or ignore them? Why?