Alejandro Pimentel

Elizabeth, I think your last comment ("…the primary purpose of the CRC is neither promote Calvin's teachings…") might need some clarification so that readers may not draw some unintended conclusions. I am of the opinion that in the missiological purpose of the CRC, anyone should be able to find —implicitly and explicitly— Calvin's teachings, including the teachings of Historic Christianity and of the Reformation. If for any reason we do not want that particular element to be present in the "primary purpose" of the CRC, then to be consequent with our consciences and thoughts we should remove the Reformed part of CRC, and perhaps become more like Calvary Chapel or some other more ambiguous religious organization. I have observed that there is a growing "sentiment" in the CRC to become less doctrinaire, less rigid, less "theological" in order to become more welcoming of other ethnicities. But, I am of the opinion that this is not a healthy "sentiment," as the Germans say "to throw the baby with the bath water." To waterdown the uniqueness of the CRC and its rich tradition, would bring unexpected consequences to its witness. For instance, I was drawn to the CRC because of its teachings, namely, Calvin's teachings. That was the "entincement," the element that made me compare my Dispensational/Evangelical bubble and fundamentalistic mindset, one that was based on fear, the fear of being "raptured" at any moment, the fear of seeing life in black and white and condemning people left and right (just watch TBN and you'll know what I mean), the abysmal ignorance of the Word in spite of the fact that I studied it ad nauseam, but in fact I, like a parrot, repeated the indoctrination that I was taught without any room for dissent. That was my former religious world, and I am very happy that I found this new Reformed world. If the "Reformed" part would no longer be there or is no longer necessary, then what am I doing here? And that is a very valid question any Hispanic/Latino could ask of himself or herself.

I partially agree on this one with aguilla1, and it is a very important subject. The use of the noun/adjective "Dutch" in the CRC is plagued with stereotypes of all sorts (good ones and really bad ones), there is also a great deal of ignorance about history and the migration of people. By the way, I am not insulting anyone, I am just saying that there is ignorance (lack of information or knowledge) on both sides, the "Dutch" side and the "Non-Dutch" side… if I may use those unfortunate polatisations.

It is also somewhat anachronistic —as aguilla1 has rightly pointed out— to refer to a third or fifth or tenth generation American or Canadian or any other nationality, as "Dutch" in the sense to highlight their racial/ethnic/cultural identity. It is like the Italians who left "Italy" during the first half of the 19th century. There was no modern "Italy" back then, only a collection of rival Italian nations, with their own cultures, dialects, foods, traditions and people, until their unification in 1861.

Nevertheless, for our own purpose, I suspect the term "Dutch" is used more to illustrate the solidarity and privileges that people with ancestry in the Low Countries have enjoyed in North America, in contrast with other ethnicities that may not have had such privileges.

So, if we want to be more specific, as aguilla1 is requesting, perhaps we should start refering immigrants from the Netherlands as "Bible-belt Netherlands" people, or Frisians, or Belgians or Batavians or how about Surinamese, but that would be utterly impractical and non-sense even for people of Dutch ancestry.

So, the one hard fact we have about this subject is that we live in a racialised society, divided by skin color, cultural origin, and all sorts of other evil things… we have a loooong way to go as a church and as a society.

¡Hola a todos! y un afectuoso saludo desde Lima, Perú. ¡Qué bueno que podamos ventilar nuestras opiniones en un foro oficial como éste y hacerlo en nuestro idioma! Solo quiero recordarles un detalle importante, que cuando discutamos asuntos de nuestro interés y al mismo tiempo deseemos influenciar o concientizar las estructuras denominacionales en sus distintos niveles (consejo, classis y Sínodo) que debemos hacerlo en el idioma del poder, ya que oficialmente nuestra denominación (y nuestro país) no es bilingüe. Aunque... pensándolo bien, técnicamente sí lo es ya que la CRCNA es una denominación binacional (USA y el Canadá) y por ser también canadiense, debe por ley comunicarse en inglés y francés (aunque en la realidad no suceda).
¿Creen Uds. que veremos el día en que el Director Ejecutivo de la denominación se dirija al Sínodo --así como el Papa-- en varios idiomas, en especial en español?

Guillermo, yo también estoy familiarizado con el TLT. Me encantaría conocer las opiniones de los demás pastores de la CRC ya que tengo un sinnúmero de interrogantes. Y, me gustaría que abordemos este tema con una mente abierta a toda crítica constructiva porque el TLT tiene el potencial de ser útil en nuestro propio contexto estadounidense (no sé si hay iglesias hispanas CRC en el Canadá). Algunas de las interrogantes que yo personalmente tengo son las siguientes:
1. Con TANTOS programas de entrenamiento de «líderes» por todo el mundo y en especial, en América Latina (realmente excesivo), ¿por qué el TLT debe ser nuestra opción a elegir?
2. Tengo entendido que el TLT se enfoca principalmente en entrenar a líderes laicos, pero nuestra tradición teológica, por su ADN religioso, forma líderes profesionales (en el buen sentido de la palabra). ¿No es esto una especie de estándar doble? ¿por qué no formar a pastores con los mismos requisitos y calidad de formación profesional que se recibe en América del Norte? A mí me parece que esto es como «echarle agua a los frijoles».
3. La gran mayoría de expertos en el tema de la educación teológica en América Latina concuerda que se necesita una mayor y mejor formación profesional del clero protestante frente al avasallador avance de las sectas falsas y los distintos movimientos semi-ortodoxos. ¿Por qué, entonces, queremos hacer lo contrario?
4. Me hace recordar la inmemorable cátedra que Roger Greenway dijera una vez en el CTS refiriéndose a la obra misionera en la década de los 50: «las estadísticas demuestran que la población está migrando a las ciudades en cifras geométricas... nosotros, en cambio, enviamos misioneros al campo, a las zonas rurales... ambos grupos se cruzan en el camino».

Thanks, Joel, for this inspiring blog series.

I was struck by George's comments: "I think one of the biggest blessings we have to share with the church world wide is the education many of us have been priveleged to receive in North America and in most of Europe but this is also our biggest stumbling block."

I partially disagree with that perception about North American education. Some of the statistical data of recent decades and empirical observations may support my disagreement. I remember embarrasing moments when a Spaniard friend of mine visited Grand Rapids, and we toured some churches. He was asked several times, by intelligent and respectable people, if Spain was near Mexico. Another friend of mine, born and raised in the island of Puerto Rico, was asked also how long does it take driving to Puerto Rico, to which he replied: "not too long, but you might need a James Bond-type vehicle."

I fully understand what George infers about the fact that we have a more egalitarian and accesible education system in North America (and I am thankful for that), but we must strive to be careful about our comments because, whether we realize it or not, these venues are read by everyone in the blogosphere.

I think, Joel has shared what it might be a hope and a key to help us be less culturally arrogant, and more Christ-like: "Frankly, many of our young adults grasp this much better than does my generation."

We must strive to work WITH others, and ALONG SIDE them. I think the imperial era of working "TO" and "FOR" might be over, although I had been overseas for the last three years and sadly I still see that arrogan spirit among some Evangelical missionaries.

I also like Joel's dream: "I imagine North American Christians sitting at the feet…"