PCA Koreans

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hamalas

whippersnapper
So this article: The Quiet 15 Percent | byFaith got me thinking and praying this morning. What can we do to help bridge the gap between the Korean and English speaking portions of the PCA? I am very thankful for our Korean speaking brothers, still, the practical division which exists in our denomination (whether intentional or not) is unseemly and should be addressed. Ideas?
 
The fact that (practically speaking) they are a separate denomination within the denomination.
 
The fact that (practically speaking) they are a separate denomination within the denomination.

I understand the concern but if the Koreans wish to practice their faith in the language they speak within confessional bounds I see no problem so far as language or culture is concerned.
 
I understand the concern but if the Koreans wish to practice their faith in the language they speak within confessional bounds I see no problem so far as language or culture is concerned.

I agree to a point, from what I understand there are no hard feelings between the two groups. A problem I see is that the question of whether or not members of the English Speaking PCA know what is going on in the Korean Speaking PCA and vice-versa. Christ's Church will always be under assault and I am just worried that the KPCA and EPCA are not aware of controversies arising in the other language group.
 
On top of the concerns Eric has rightly raised is the basic question in my mind: in what way can we call ourselves Presbyterians if we don't actually interact or work together?
 
My understanding is that the plan has always been that the groups will eventually be "merged," that is, on the basis of English language services. This was to be a temporary arrangement based on transition, not a separation.
Perhaps more needs to be done proactively to facilitate the merge, not sure of the status.
 
On top of the concerns Eric has rightly raised is the basic question in my mind: in what way can we call ourselves Presbyterians if we don't actually interact or work together?

Would this not also be the case on the congregational level in situations where there are services in more than one language, at different times?
 
On top of the concerns Eric has rightly raised is the basic question in my mind: in what way can we call ourselves Presbyterians if we don't actually interact or work together?

Would this not also be the case on the congregational level in situations where there are services in more than one language, at different times?

Except that in most cases both services would be under both the structural and practical oversight of the same session.

Scott has hit on what I see as the "problem" so to speak. This whole arrangement was meant to be temporary and yet it has now become far more settled than was originally intended. Are we in sin? I don't believe so, however, we do need to remember that this is to be a transitional situation and as such we need to be constantly (while also patiently and prudently) working towards the goal of real union and cooperation between these two groups.
 
Except that in most cases both services would be under both the structural and practical oversight of the same session.

But, can the congregation rightly be said to have unity? Certainly, there may be doctrinal unity of teaching, top-down from the session, but is there a practical unity of shared experience when divided by language?
 
My understanding is that the plan has always been that the groups will eventually be "merged," that is, on the basis of English language services. This was to be a temporary arrangement based on transition, not a separation.
Perhaps more needs to be done proactively to facilitate the merge, not sure of the status.

Why English and not Korean? In other words, this "transition" In my most humble opinion need not be based on a language but on a confession. Of course this is just an opinion from the popcorn seats. :)

The idea was, I think, first generation immigrants who still had not mastered English, their new national language, would only temporarily be holding services in Korean, and only temporarily identified in transitional Presbyteries. They would not be demanding translation of everything in the denomination they chose to be changed for them.
Like Italians, Poles, Checks, and others before them. They would intend to assimilate, not "balkinize," and thus be in the mainstream of their church, as it were.

My understanding is the transitional Korean Presbyteries are of the same mind, that's why they joined in unity. Whether that has delayed, I do not know enough to comment.

Now, were Americans in Korea, one might expect the same thing in reverse, Americans speaking English joining the Korean Presbyterian church to learn Korean...
 
Except that in most cases both services would be under both the structural and practical oversight of the same session.

But, can the congregation rightly be said to have unity? Certainly, there may be doctrinal unity of teaching, top-down from the session, but is there a practical unity of shared experience when divided by language?

I have not given this a great deal of thought.

But knowing some precious Korean Americans who worship in an English speaking congregation, they still struggle with English, but have bravely and boldly grown, and are well accepted in the Body.

It seems to me language division ought be minimized, and temporary. Really, all differences- age, gender, ethnic ought be minimized and not focused on, but rather unity,
which must come by doctrinal agreement of the deeper truths of God, e.g. the Westminster Confession.

Nothing divides like language.

And while that can't be eliminated, it can consciously be minimized for the greater glory of God.:2cents:
 
My understanding is that the plan has always been that the groups will eventually be "merged," that is, on the basis of English language services. This was to be a temporary arrangement based on transition, not a separation.
Perhaps more needs to be done proactively to facilitate the merge, not sure of the status.

Why English and not Korean? In other words, this "transition" In my most humble opinion need not be based on a language but on a confession. Of course this is just an opinion from the popcorn seats. :)

The idea was, I think, first generation immigrants who still had not mastered English, their new national language, would only temporarily be holding services in Korean. They would not be demanding translation of everything in the denomination they chose to be changed for them.
Like Italians, Poles, Checks, and others before them. They would intend to assimilate, not "balkinize," and thus be in the mainstream of their church, as it were.

Now, were Americans in Korea, one might expect the same thing....

I edited my above post because I had not read the OP opening link. I work in a area of Orlando that is largely Hispanic and the trend is to not assimilate into the English language or culture. Now is this trend good? Personally I am inconvenienced a tad now and then as are they, but the difference has brought more flavor to my life. I think to demand a people to give up the culture and language may outweigh the benefits and I shudder to to impose any culture or language as being superior to another which I know you all agree with. :)
 
My understanding is that the plan has always been that the groups will eventually be "merged," that is, on the basis of English language services. This was to be a temporary arrangement based on transition, not a separation.
Perhaps more needs to be done proactively to facilitate the merge, not sure of the status.

Why English and not Korean? In other words, this "transition" In my most humble opinion need not be based on a language but on a confession. Of course this is just an opinion from the popcorn seats. :)

The idea was, I think, first generation immigrants who still had not mastered English, their new national language, would only temporarily be holding services in Korean. They would not be demanding translation of everything in the denomination they chose to be changed for them.
Like Italians, Poles, Checks, and others before them. They would intend to assimilate, not "balkinize," and thus be in the mainstream of their church, as it were.

Now, were Americans in Korea, one might expect the same thing....

I edited my above post because I had not read the OP opening link. I work in a area of Orlando that is largely Hispanic and the trend is to not assimilate into the English language or culture. Now is this trend good? Personally I am inconvenienced a tad now and then as are they, but the difference has brought more flavor to my life. I think to demand a people to give up the culture and language may outweigh the benefits and I shudder to to impose any culture or language as being superior to another which I know you all agree with. :)

As far as the original post, it doesn't have anything to do with cultural superiority. As best we know, the Korean presbyteries of the PCA did not join with any intention of being a separate ethnic church, but rather to be united, not just nominally as Christians, but the the doctrine, discipline, creeds and fellowship of the Presbyterian Church in America. The PCA is the largest biblical reformed and Presbyterian denomination in the United States and they wanted to be a part because of those benefits.

They want to be under the godly discipline of the PCA, not go it alone, linguistically or otherwise. My understanding is there is an annual review of their Presbytery minutes at General Assembly, discipline as in any other Presbytery, and I think, maybe someone will have more inside information, there is at least a nominal report on integration (looking toward dissolving the language barrier) each year as part of reporting to General Assembly.

The idea of ethnic churches generally is an interesting topic, one worthy of discussion in another thread.

But the case at hand is not any intention for that, on either side.

Were that the case, they could easily dissolve and form their own denomination, the PCA quite generously and appropriately allowing them to take their property with them.

No reason to believe that is the case here.

Not at all.
 
Well, I for one don't like the idea that within the PCA the Koreans get a non-geographic presbytery of their own. It does seem (to me, anyways) like there is a denomination within a denomination. If they want to retain their distinct Korean culture and language, then perhaps they should be pointed to the KAPC or perhaps the KPCA. Otherwise, I think Korean PCA churches should be members of the presbytery in which their churches are located.
 
the Koreans get a non-geographic presbytery of their own.

Strictly speaking, the Korean presbyterieS are geographic, they just overlap English language presbyteries.

They want to be under the godly discipline of the PCA, not go it alone,

I thought I recalled some issue a few years ago with some of the Korean presbyteries not submitting their minutes, although that may have long since been addressed.
 
It seems to me language division ought be minimized, and temporary.

I think you are right that nothing divides like language. But I am intrigued with your mention of the temporary notion. It seems that I have further thought to do on this as well, but I would be interested to hear of any instances where a non-English-speaking congregation (or subset of a congregation) has transitioned into English.

I realize that this might get into the sometimes-sensitive "English only for America" issue, but I hope that we can at least discuss what a "temporary division" might look like in the context of congregation/denomination.
 
but I would be interested to hear of any instances where a non-English-speaking congregation (or subset of a congregation) has transitioned into English.

Depends on how wide a net you are casting with that question, but a number of congregations of various denominations in this country were German language exclusive before 1914.

And according to this site, Dutch also survived as a language of religion until that era.
http://christianity.about.com/od/Christian-Reformed/a/CRC-Church-History.htm
 
Ooh, I know... How about we establish an Old School presbytery (or presbyteries) that will overlap the "normal" presbyteries. This way those of our number who wish to preserve their cultural, ecclesiastical, and confessional heritage may do so while still being "in connection" with the larger PCA body.
 
How about we establish an Old School presbytery (or presbyteries) that will overlap the "normal" presbyteries. This way those of our number who wish to preserve their cultural, ecclesiastical, and confessional heritage may do so while still being "in connection" with the larger PCA body.

You could probably drum up some support for that from both sides.
 
It seems to me language division ought be minimized, and temporary.

I think you are right that nothing divides like language. But I am intrigued with your mention of the temporary notion. It seems that I have further thought to do on this as well, but I would be interested to hear of any instances where a non-English-speaking congregation (or subset of a congregation) has transitioned into English.

I realize that this might get into the sometimes-sensitive "English only for America" issue, but I hope that we can at least discuss what a "temporary division" might look like in the context of congregation/denomination.

Usually, is what happens, the first generation that did not speak English fluently, as it passes on, the next generation speaks it fluently and that's all that happens. Either the need disappears, or the next generation communes in an English speaking congregation. Culturally, this has been a very normal process in America.

Also, understand it may not be that the new generation speaks only English, often they are bilingual. Two languages spoken well.
 
Our presbytery just received a 1000 member Korean congregation from Korean SW. I think the current structure works and is the best solution to a difficult problem.

I am amazed that there are not Korean translation services at GA. I've been to a Russian-speaking church of about 500 members that had English language translation available throughout the service. Surely GA could provide something similar. I guess it is really up to our Korean speaking brothers to make it happen.
 
This is not a new problem. In the Dutch Reformed Churches, Article 52 of the Church Order of Dordt, dealt with a similar problem. The Dutch Reformed had Walloon [French] speaking congregations as well as Friesian, Flemish, German and Dutch speaking congregations. Among other things this article provided for translation of the decisions of the various language assemblies into the other languages. The tower of babble continues to haunt us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top