People of Color in Leadership Positions

I still think using racial color diversity as a determinator or substitute for cultural or ethnic diversity is a primitive and unchristian way of thinking.   Color is obvious, but not the most significant.   Nor is it the best indicator of diversity.    If you have a bunch of black doctors and accountants in your church,  but cannot reach out to the black mechanics, janitors, and the "yellow" waitresses and cleaning staff, then you have a phony picture of what it means to be diverse.  If you have some black or "colored" folk in leadership, but can't find a way to include the mexican immigrants, or the japanese immigrants, or the russian or arab immigrants, and if the Italians, Hungarians and Finnish people are culturally uncomfortable, then you only look good on the outside.   You've then only overcome a barrier in a "worldly" culturally acceptable manner.  

The reason there are more ethnic minority delegates from the Korean churches, is probably because there are more CRC Koreans.  What ethnicities did the other eight minority delegates come from, and are they roughly representative of the ethnicities of the crc?  

Quotas are a setup for failure and a more subtle kind of injustice; this politically correct drive reflects the CRC leadership's self-punishing anxiety more than it reflects bibilical teaching regarding race and spiritual gifts--the latter being the qualification for leadership, not racial quotas. But there are bigger, systemic problems afoot. There is an increasing rift bewteen the BOT and the churches, the agencies and the congregations. Transparency is gone, communication is vague and veiled. What, for example, is going on with these high-profile resignations at 2850 [translation: the denominational headquarters]? Why are the churches kept in the dark? Do we forget that the CRC belongs to the churches, and not vice-versa? As someone who was evangelized into the CRC, my greatest interest in the leadership of home missions is not what ethnic background that person has, but what that person's vision and philosophy of church growth are, and I might even dare to hope that the person has some appreciation for the Reformed faith, which in my judgment has been lacking in that agence for the past few decades. Frankly, such an appreciation might be more easy to find among the Korean congregations, but that's still beside the point. I think many CRC members will find something vaguely unjust and wrong about setting up racial quotas in the church of Christ, in which there is no male or female, Jew or Greek.

Dominese Blacketer states the point well.  The question is not whether or not we should do something -- in my post, I acknowledge there is a problem (though the degree of that problem is probably a matter of perspective).   We of course need to strive for and desire increased inclusion of hte variety of different ethnicities and backgrounds.  No question. 

The question up for discussion is how we go about that -- or, maybe more accurately, what is it that motivates us.  How is the church different from the world when it comes to multiculturalism?  How do we recieve unity/diversity, instead of achieve it?  How does the gospel change not just what we believe ("diversity is important") but how we go about  bringing that reality about?

That's where I think the BOT proposal falls flat. 

Rob,

  You obviously don't understand what I said. I will pray for clarification of thought for you.

Ken -- My point is that if this were about justice, then it would include a quota for women. It does not include such a quota, so either it should be changed to include a gender quota that is also greater than the percentage of women in the denomination or I will continue to figure this must be about something other than justice and correcting wrongs. Try putting up a woman against a minority male for a position and see who is more likely to get the job (hint: Hillary vs Obama in the last election).

Additionally, I would be interested in knowing how often a more qualified white male loses out to a less qualified minority or woman compared to those times in recent years when a more qualified minority or female has lost out to a white male. I suspect the later does not occur nearly as often as the former within the CRC. Do we really want to mandate that some high percentage (compared to the percentage of the whole) of minorities get jobs over a non-minority man or woman?

Let's say that we identify that we have 10% women in leadership positions and 10% minorities. Now approximately equally qualified non-minority female and minority male apply for the position. By this quota, the nod would go to the male, even though they would be represented appropriately (10% for 10%) while women would not be (10% for 50%).

I do not favor quotas like this at all, but see it as an affront to women to treat the gap of minority leadership without treating the gender gap as well. I would like to better understand why there is a recommendation for a minority quota without a recommendation for a gender quota. It is a terrible idea to address these issues with a quota, in my opinion, although if that is the direction the body wishes to go, then I can imagine going along with a 50-50 balance between men and women in leadership positions in the CRC. 

Bev,

   You live with quotas now. They are geographical not race or gender. this urge to correct injustice is not from the flesh because it is Biblical. Jesus demonstrated the proper attitude toward the oppressed. He walked amongst broken and confronted the oppressors.

  Ken

You will have to explain why Jesus did not have quotas. 

I don't see any race card playing here, and I don't think it's appropriate to assume that persons are "playing the race card," whatever that could possibly mean in a discussion about racial and ethnic quotas and/or goals. If this network is for genuine discussion, we should have the freedom to say what's on our mind, albeit in a civil and Christlike manner, without fear of recrimination or labeling. As for the denominational issues, the lack of transparency and meaningful communication from the BOT leaves people open to speculate, which is why the churches are owed more from the BOT than the non-communications we have received. Whatever is going on, it IS our business, because it is our church, not the church of the agencies or the church of denominational headquarters. And I wonder how really accountable the BOT is, given the rushed agendas of our Synods these days. Are their minutes available to the classes?

Bev,

  I know exactly what your talking about when it comes to being in relationship with God and fell the Holy Spirit fill your mouth with words that are not yours. I see the Spirit in coincidences that  that happen to me. Glory be to God

Ken

Thanks Bev,

  Now you put me into service. You know I will have to due what uyou ask because I believe in you and your faith. I am sick , but I will do my best which isn't very good these days. I live in communion with the Lord but it is rough and lonely. But He does not promise a easy road just Grace. Glory be to God

Ken

I still don't understand why we have to continue to point out what race everyone is. Aren't we all "Christians" ? Moses Chung is a Christian, whether he is Korean, Black, White, etc. Should make no difference.
I work in sales in the New York metro area, and I have customers. Whether they are Jewish, Black, Peruvian, Cuban, Dominican, Indian, Jamaican, British, Irish, etc, what difference does it make. They are still my customers. At our Synod and Classis we are all Christians. Should we refer to George as Dutch or white every time we talk about him? Or can he just be George, a brother in Christ.