Intentionally Diverse and Unified

The whole taxonomy of people is flawed. Especially the polarized "Caucasian vs. People of Color," because it is prone to arbitrary categorizations. The Taliban from Afganistan are as Caucasian as they can be, or the Azerbaijani to mention another ethnicity. Yet, the average North American would not buy the idea that they are Caucasian. Many Latin American would be shocked to find out that they are People of Color, especially if their ancestry is predominantly Mediterranean. And, to make things more complicated, what to do with those millions of emerging Latino-White children in the U.S., the ones who are already here and who will replace us in the next generations? I suspect we need a different working taxonomy or perhaps no taxonomy at all.

Each year, The CRC yearbook asks each church how many members in a church are not looking like a  'white' person. From that information, you can ask how many people who are not called 'white' are at Classis, or Synod? If the % are different the majority 'white'? person should check how we choose our delegates. Classis Alberta has a way to choose: One minister gets a chance to go to Synod, irrespective of his/her colour via a list. the other minister and the two Elders delegates gets a chance by voting.   If a classis has lots of non-white members, and a few non-white elders gets to classis, and they never get enough votes to go to Synod, Classis can change it a bit by making a list like the ministers have with once in a while, a non-white elder gets a chance to go to Synod in relation to the % people who are non-white.

Where I worked, for 35 years, each year there was a check how many people thought they were in a minority. They could then check how many 'minority' people were managers at each level, including the highest levels. If the % is equal from every manager level, the company could think they are moving in the right direction.

In churches, one can not check with the % in the community, as there may be many reasns why the %'s are different. However, once the 'minority' people are members, the same process can be used to check whether we are going in the right drection.

Theological influence is NOT dependant upon numerical size. For example, the Plymouth Brethern set the stage for the entire "dispensational" sub set of Christianity.  Is the primary purpose of the CRC to promote Calvin's teachings or numerical growth? Might these be exclusive goals? 

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 too love the Reformed tradition and don't want to throw it out. We do not need to do that to become more welcoming of other ethnicities. 

Disagree. If other ethnicities wish to accept the CRC as they find it, fine. If other ethnicies such as myself want to revise the CRC to fit our traditions, then not fine. Let me and others find a denomination better suited to our traditions. There are hundreds of denominations extent.

Recall the (excuse change of type size I didn't do anything) historical (1970's) discussion of the "Ugly American" who wants to impose "Americanness" upon other ethnicities. Why should Dutch CRC traditions be imposed upon by Americans, Koreans, or anyone? The message coming out of The Banner and Grand Rapids is that "all animals are equal but Dutch animals are less equal than others." I interpret the trend to goofy generic named congregations which reject admitting to be a CRC congregation as attmpting to follow the money trail instead of Calvin. That's my personal opinion.

Born in Brooklyn, NY. Not politically correct. Sorry about sloppy writing.

I "got reformed" in 1988 when the Rapture did not occur and I read the Institutes cover to cover twice. The only Presbyterians with whom I was familiar were OPC types and I disagreed with their politics and with Reconstructionism. I never head of the CRC until we moved five blocks south of First Everett (WA) CRC. We liked the traditional church service and the Dutch customs. The people were very friendly. We knew we would feel as outsiders because the congregation was basically three or four extended families who grew up together. That was OK. We wanted to join them. We did not want to change them.

I soon learned that the Classis and the Synod - the CRC leadership - was trying as hard as possible to hide the Dutch origin and appear to be a generic, community church. Any Dutch emphasis was discouraged. Half the new congregations had stealth names that intentionally ignored any reference to "Christian" or the CRC. The old hymns in the gray psalter were altered to be more PC. At the same time the old hymns were altered to remove any reference to God loving the world. Now, in song, God only loves "us," the insider Reformed people. Very strange. 

Most people would not notice. I know many of the old hymns by heart and spent 30 years writing propaganga in one form or another. I love music and hate the inane ditties and questionable lyrics of the new music published sans vocal music, only tune line.

At least most new style non-CRC congregations reflect the traditional American Civil Christian Religion. The (new) CRC seems to be catering alien cultures and hippies, (whatever the semi-civilized call themselves these days).

There are dozens of Protestant denominations. One very old, very important, very small denomination which I have mentioned being the Plymouth Bretheren, started by J. N. Darby in the middle 1800's. Most people have not heard of them. They deny being a denomination. BUT  80% of the material in any "Christian" book store reflects PB theology. They invented dispensationalism and the rapture. CRC members quote PB theology and don't realize it.  

The historically successful denominations attract a particular social set of the general population and/or emphasize a particular historical theological stance. The CRC historical position was Dutch Reformed culture, Calvanist, (not Presbyterian) theology and politics and education.  The quickest way to kill the CRC is to become "generic" christianity with congregations that will please all cultures. This is against the human nature that God gave us. We can't "out baptist" the Baptists by allowing children to take communion or "out holiness" the holiness churches by introducing "praise teams" and de-civilizing music."

I worked in Seattle's Chinatown for 25 years and prefer Chinese culture (and food <G>). I am pleased that people from any culture would want to join the CRC and worship in a traditional Dutch way.  I am not pleased that the leadership in MY CRC wants to dump CRC culture in favor of a generic almost anything goes civil religion. I suspect the reason for the change is more budget based than theology based.

bill wald  

"Dutch Culture" for fifth generation americans with a Dutch surname may mean nothing else than  peppermints, tulips and wooden shoes; church wise, whatever the Dutch church was like when the first generation left Holland in the late 1880's. 

Each new generation who came to NA, will have a different Dutch Culture to think above.

Dutch Reformed churches as any North American Reformed churches do: Change slowly from generation to generation.

Dutch churches change differently that NA churches since the society where the churches are are different. In Holland, there are only other reformed churches and Catholic churches. In North America, we have a lot of other denominations to compare and copy.

Rather than use the word 'Dutch' to explain something, please be more specific.

Obviously this is not as important as to see where the Lord is leading His (one) church.

As a US Supreme Court justice noted, "I can't define ponography but I know it when I see it." In the same undefined way, I preferred working in Chinatown than in the "white" or "black" parts of Seattle.  In the same undefined way, I prefer meeting with the people at Everett CRC over the people at other churches I have visited in the area. It isn't all because of theology.