Should churches have a separate service in a different language?

[Ben Zartman]

I was astonished recently to see our pastors shut down the idea of offering an entire separate service for all the Spanish-speaking immigrants in our congregation, whom for now are getting by with a poor-quality translation of the reading and the sermon, but are unable to participate in praying, singing, and much fellowship.

Meeting with them about it, their attitude was "God has broken down the wall of separation, so we can't be putting up artificial barriers." Leaving aside the terrible misuse of that passage, I suggested, rather than break our congregation into parts difficult to oversee, to facilitate a church plant in which the immigrants could form a separate congregation, but use the building.

The response was: "If immigrants want to come to the US, they should learn English and integrate." While I believe every immigrant would benefit from learning well the language of where they live, I can't stomach the idea of denying them the benefits of religion because they won't (or can't, in some cases--learning things is hard!). But the pastors stated that having a Spanish-speaking church in the US at all would be wrong, because someone who only speaks English might wander in and not understand!

Is this deplorable attitude common, or do people here think that folk should be given the Gospel and its benefits in a language they can understand?

 

[Sam Jer]

Fifth option - when possible, they should have their own service under the same presbytery. Although I really do think a bilingual church can work, and can work well (because Iv'e seen it), it's probably still better and simpler to have a seperate congergation when there are enough people for that and it is possible to find a minister, or at least pulpit supply, for preaching. That new congergation is not splitting though, it can and should be under the same discipline under a presbytery that presides over both (and possibly, though not necessarily, other congregation).

There is nothing wrong with bilingualism though. Maybe a middle ground is having seperate services on most Lord's Days but then come together (with translation and psalm singing in both languages) once in a while for communion.

 

[Solparvus]

Is this deplorable attitude common, or do people here think that folk should be given the Gospel and its benefits in a language they can understand?

110%, give them the Gospel and discipleship in their language whenever and however possible. An acquired language never comes off with quite the same impact as does your native language.

I don't always feel good about judging a case when I can only have one side, but I can comment on the words as you gave them. That is truly stunning. Thoughts?

Fact: Many immigrants are coming to North America, and they are not learning English. In East Michigan there are open advertisements in Arabic. You have sprowling Chinatowns in California. There are Chinese communities in Canada where some do not speak English. Communities are often segregated by language. We may be de jure an English-speaking country (as of 2025), but we are de facto multilingual. Do we really just leave these communities unreached until they learn English?

I was talking to a pastor in my denomination. He said we have a truly reverse-missionary phenomenon in our country. People of the world who were otherwise inaccessible are coming to us! Go to Washington DC, for example. Very great multicultural mix. Who do you want? Arabs? Spanish speakers? East Asians? Take your pick.

Should they learn English? If they're going to be in America, then yes, they absolutely should. It's hard and I pity that, but this is our functional language. However, that's not the way the Kingdom of God works. What happens in the temporal kingdoms is not how it needs to be--or even should be--in the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God itself consists of multitudes of every tribe, tongue, and language. That's right in Scripture. There is no "official language" of the church. Therefore, we should be flexible.

In the Kingdom of God, its citizens break down barriers and jump obstacles to bring sinners in. If that means the inconvenience of learning their language, and them not learning ours, or doing whatever work we need to in order to put quality resources in their language, then so be it.

As for the English speaker who wanders in and does not understand, well, the English world has enough without ever needing to darken the doors of a Spanish-speaking church. If they are starving, it's all on them.

You're in Rhode Island, right? I know an RPC minister who will gladly minister to those people. Sorry it's not a 1689 ministry (quite opposite, it's a full WCF one) but I know he'll look after them. Michael Ives is the name. Last I remember he has a great concern for the Spanish-speaking community.

If the attitude is really as you report it, then I can only say, what an incredibly wasted opportunity. The Lord brought them into our backyard then on a technicality we deny them resources.

Edit: I mentioned Michael Ives. In good order though, I think I'd take your complaint directly to your elders and give your reasons why they should continue the second-language service.

 

[MChase]

110%, give them the Gospel and discipleship in their language whenever and however possible. An acquired language never comes off with quite the same impact as does your native language.

I don't always feel good about judging a case when I can only have one side, but I can comment on the words as you gave them. That is truly stunning. Thoughts?

Fact: Many immigrants are coming to North America, and they are not learning English. In East Michigan there are open advertisements in Arabic. You have sprowling Chinatowns in California. There are Chinese communities in Canada where some do not speak English. Communities are often segregated by language. We may be de jure an English-speaking country (as of 2025), but we are de facto multilingual. Do we really just leave these communities unreached until they learn English?

I was talking to a pastor in my denomination. He said we have a truly reverse-missionary phenomenon in our country. People of the world who were otherwise inaccessible are coming to us! Go to Washington DC, for example. Very great multicultural mix. Who do you want? Arabs? Spanish speakers? East Asians? Take your pick.

Should they learn English? If they're going to be in America, then yes, they absolutely should. It's hard and I pity that, but this is our functional language. However, that's not the way the Kingdom of God works. What happens in the temporal kingdoms is not how it needs to be--or even should be--in the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God itself consists of multitudes of every tribe, tongue, and language. That's right in Scripture. There is no "official language" of the church. Therefore, we should be flexible.

In the Kingdom of God, its citizens break down barriers and jump obstacles to bring sinners in. If that means the inconvenience of learning their language, and them not learning ours, or doing whatever work we need to in order to put quality resources in their language, then so be it.

As for the English speaker who wanders in and does not understand, well, the English world has enough without ever needing to darken the doors of a Spanish-speaking church. If they are starving, it's all on them.

You're in Rhode Island, right? I know an RPC minister who will gladly minister to those people. Sorry it's not a 1689 ministry (quite opposite, it's a full WCF one) but I know he'll look after them. Michael Ives is the name. Last I remember he has a great concern for the Spanish-speaking community.

If the attitude is really as you report it, then I can only say, what an incredibly wasted opportunity. The Lord brought them into our backyard then on a technicality we deny them resources.

Michael is now in New Jersey, but you are correct, he is a great man with a great zeal for Spanish speaking folk.

 

[Sam Jer]

In East Michigan there are open advertisements in Arabic.

A little bit of an aside, but the Arab world really needs Christ. The other day I was told by a Druze¹ man that I am not a Christian because I wouldn't do the sign of the cross. An Arab Papist thought we Protestants don't have the Lord's Supper at all. I wonder with all the Reformed presence in Michigan, has any minister or candidate for ministry taken it upon himself to learn Arabic and become an evangelist for the Arab community? Who knows, maybe that seed can eventually grow and be sent back into the Arab world, just as that one English speaking congergation on the continent went on to spread the Reformed Religion on the home island (and look where English-speaking Protestantism is at today).

1 - The Druze are a small secrative sect that developed out of Islam, and almost only exists in the Levant.

 

[Edward]

1) I agree that immigrants should learn English if they are going to be allowed to stay.
2) I agree that it is deplorable to deny them access to the ordinary means of grace while they are learning. Or even if they have learned.

As for the model - whether they are integrated into the existing congregation or planted as a separate church depends, at least in part, whether they have sufficient qualified leadership to shepherd, train, and teach the congregation.

I have mentioned here before that the closest church to my house is a large Korean Presbyterian, the second closest is a smaller Chinese Baptist. The Hispanics tend to be Papists, and the huge RC church about a mile down the street has (last time I checked) about half of its masses in Spanish. As for the Koreans, I believe that many of the members speak English; probably fewer of the Chinese (for a while, the local elementary school had first through third grade classes in Chinese before integrating the students into English language classes).

On the other hand, in the Sunday School class I formerly attended, we had members that were Korean, German, Filipino, and Romanian as well as visitors who regularly joined from 3 other countries via Zoom. Our church is presently providing space to a Spanish language congregation that formerly had its own facility.

One can be opposed to the Soros - Biden immigration policies and still be true to scriptural mandates.

Now, to a proposed compromise solution. Start an ESL program at your church if you don't already have one. Your pastor says he wants them to learn English and integrate? Time to call and see if he's bluffing, or willing to put his money where his mouth is.
@Ben Zartman

 

[paranymph]

I don't believe it is helpful to publicly post about the "deplorable attitude" of your pastors and their "terrible misuse" of Scripture. Couldn't you ask the question without bringing them into it, keeping it generic as to a situation with a Spanish-speaking service?

 

[EvanF]

The response was: "If immigrants want to come to the US, they should learn English and integrate." While I believe every immigrant would benefit from learning well the language of where they live, I can't stomach the idea of denying them the benefits of religion because they won't (or can't, in some cases--learning things is hard!). But the pastors stated that having a Spanish-speaking church in the US at all would be wrong, because someone who only speaks English might wander in and not understand!

Spanish has been spoken continuously in the territories of the United States since before our independence and we currently have the fourth largest Spanish-speaking population in the world after Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina. 13% or more of the US population speaks Spanish as a first language - some 41 million people. To claim that a Spanish-speaking church in the US is improper when we have millions of Spanish-speaking people is ignorant, and if there were no Spanish-speaking church it would be a terrible failure of the Church in the US to make disciples of our very own nation.

The Church was born in a land and region thick with languages, and from the beginning Christ was preached to all people in their own tongues. If the disciples had refused to preach him in Greek to the Greek-speaking population in Judaea because it was an "Aramaic-speaking country", Christianity would almost certainly have remained a tiny minority ethnic-religion in the middle east.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

That is sad to hear brother. On a pastoral level I would want to do whatever it takes to minister well to those people.

Our church has been working closely with a Spanish-speaking plant and lending them our building. I know another church in our denomination which has a staff pastor who is bilingual and who leads a separate Spanish service, but they are one congregation united under one eldership and make efforts to do various things together. I know of yet another church in town which I greatly respect which has very good Spanish translation in their services and which has certain home fellowship groups which are explicitly bilingual.

I share these things to say there are many ways to go about it, and all of them have their strengths and their drawbacks-- but the one thing I wouldn't want to do is nothing. You say your church has translation, and that is a start-- so perhaps the way to go for now is to encourage efforts to make the translation much higher quality, and make it span the whole service. Then perhaps fellowship groups which are designed to be bilingual could follow.

 

[John Nyberg]

This is very difficult to hear. It is very sad that they are responding in that way. I attend a sbc church that has never had its own church building. We met in a school, two Baptist churches and, during covid, in an outdoor arena. Earlier last year out elders became acquainted with a small Indonesian congregation that has been losing members for the past several years. As the relationship progressed, they offered to let us meet on their campus on Sunday mornings. They offered us the best of their facilities to use, while their small congregation meets in the fellowship hall. Words cannot express how beautiful it is to see the people of God, despite language and cultural differences, working together in love to further the gospel. Having relationships with other believers is hard work, but it is always worth the effort.

 

[Ben Zartman]

110%, give them the Gospel and discipleship in their language whenever and however possible. An acquired language never comes off with quite the same impact as does your native language.

I don't always feel good about judging a case when I can only have one side, but I can comment on the words as you gave them. That is truly stunning. Thoughts?

Fact: Many immigrants are coming to North America, and they are not learning English. In East Michigan there are open advertisements in Arabic. You have sprowling Chinatowns in California. There are Chinese communities in Canada where some do not speak English. Communities are often segregated by language. We may be de jure an English-speaking country (as of 2025), but we are de facto multilingual. Do we really just leave these communities unreached until they learn English?

I was talking to a pastor in my denomination. He said we have a truly reverse-missionary phenomenon in our country. People of the world who were otherwise inaccessible are coming to us! Go to Washington DC, for example. Very great multicultural mix. Who do you want? Arabs? Spanish speakers? East Asians? Take your pick.

Should they learn English? If they're going to be in America, then yes, they absolutely should. It's hard and I pity that, but this is our functional language. However, that's not the way the Kingdom of God works. What happens in the temporal kingdoms is not how it needs to be--or even should be--in the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God itself consists of multitudes of every tribe, tongue, and language. That's right in Scripture. There is no "official language" of the church. Therefore, we should be flexible.

In the Kingdom of God, its citizens break down barriers and jump obstacles to bring sinners in. If that means the inconvenience of learning their language, and them not learning ours, or doing whatever work we need to in order to put quality resources in their language, then so be it.

As for the English speaker who wanders in and does not understand, well, the English world has enough without ever needing to darken the doors of a Spanish-speaking church. If they are starving, it's all on them.

You're in Rhode Island, right? I know an RPC minister who will gladly minister to those people. Sorry it's not a 1689 ministry (quite opposite, it's a full WCF one) but I know he'll look after them. Michael Ives is the name. Last I remember he has a great concern for the Spanish-speaking community.

If the attitude is really as you report it, then I can only say, what an incredibly wasted opportunity. The Lord brought them into our backyard then on a technicality we deny them resources.

Edit: I mentioned Michael Ives. In good order though, I think I'd take your complaint directly to your elders and give your reasons why they should continue the second-language service.

Michael is a very good friend of mine, and we've labored together on some Spanish-language projects. He's moved away, but we retain contact.

Post automatically merged: Apr 5, 2025

I don't believe it is helpful to publicly post about the "deplorable attitude" of your pastors and their "terrible misuse" of Scripture. Couldn't you ask the question without bringing them into it, keeping it generic as to a situation with a Spanish-speaking service?

I thought a tiny bit of context would be helpful. I can't describe misinterpreting Scripture any other way than a terrible misuse, and I find that 'Deplorable' is the gentlest thing I can say about that sort of attitude. It was after telling the pastors that I categorically disagree with their attitudes and conclusions that I thought of making a poll here--perhaps I'm an outlier in thinking that people should enjoy the benefits of religion in their own languages. So far, I'm encouraged by the responses on PB.

 

[SicEtNon]

Michael is a very good friend of mine, and we've labored together on some Spanish-language projects. He's moved away, but we retain contact.

Post automatically merged: Apr 5, 2025

I thought a tiny bit of context would be helpful. I can't describe misinterpreting Scripture any other way than a terrible misuse, and I find that 'Deplorable' is the gentlest thing I can say about that sort of attitude. It was after telling the pastors that I categorically disagree with their attitudes and conclusions that I thought of making a poll here--perhaps I'm an outlier in thinking that people should enjoy the benefits of religion in their own languages. So far, I'm encouraged by the responses on PB.

I would like to interject and say that it isn't entirely appropriate to demand something of the leadership of your church when they may not have the ability to fully accommodate what is being asked. There really isn't enough context about the situation and conversation. If deplorable is genuinely the gentlest thing you could say about their attitudes why would you want to be under their ministry? Brother's are supposed to seek to reconcile disputes within the church. Sometimes an abundance of counselors is gossip or backbiting.

This is not to say any of your concerns are invalid. Just something to consider.

 

[CathH]

In the congregation where I grew up, there were separate English and Gaelic services within the same congregation. In the slightly different context you're describing, insisting on monolingualism is what "puts up artificial barriers" rather than the other way round.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

"If immigrants want to come to the US, they should learn English and integrate."

That may be a position that any number of people hold, Christian or non-Christian, and it can be defended on its own cultural, social, political, etc. terms.

It is not a position of the Christian church, however. The church enjoys spiritual independence and seeks to minister the Word of God (alone) without making extra-biblical demands of its auditors/members.

Granted, the church in any given area can only do what it can do (given language and other natural limitations), but it has no right whatsoever to hold as a church the position articulated above as that is not something that comes from God's Word.

I can say more if necessary.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Ben Zartman]

I would like to interject and say that it isn't entirely appropriate to demand something of the leadership of your church when they may not have the ability to fully accommodate what is being asked. There really isn't enough context about the situation and conversation. If deplorable is genuinely the gentlest thing you could say about their attitudes why would you want to be under their ministry? Brother's are supposed to seek to reconcile disputes within the church. Sometimes an abundance of counselors is gossip or backbiting.

This is not to say any of your concerns are invalid. Just something to consider.

You're right--there's not much context, and to give it all would take many pages. That's why I framed a poll and gave as much backstory as I briefy could. For many years the Spanish speakers have entertained a hope that our church would facilitate a Spanish church plant to serve the needs in our area. I had shared in that hope, and brought it up to the eldership repeatedly. It was only just recently that finally what had appeared as irresolute procrastination was shown to be this.....attitude. It's not about not being able to accommodate: it's about being unwilling.
No doubt gossip is often pursued under the guise of a multitude of counselors--I hope I haven't crossed that line here in trying to see whether this notion is widespread in God's kingdom. I don't know any other way of asking except by asking, and this is the most discreet and orderly forum I know to do it in.

 

[yeutter]

when possible, they should have their own service under the same presbytery. Although I really do think a bilingual church can work, and can work well (because Iv'e seen it), it's probably still better and simpler to have a separate congregation when there are enough people for that and it is possible to find a minister, or at least pulpit supply, for preaching. That new congregation is not splitting though, it can and should be under the same discipline under a presbytery that presides over both (and possibly, though not necessarily, other congregation)

I would observe that Article 51 of the Church Order of Dort says. "Whereas two languages are spoken in the Netherlands, it is deemed proper that the churches of the German and the Welsh languages each have their own Consistories, Classical Meetings, and Particular Synods"

My wife first came to profess Christ at the Burmese language congregation of Calvary Baptist Church of Bangkok [SBC] The last I knew Calvary Baptist Church Bangkok had and English language congregation, a Thai Language congregation, a Nepali language congregation, and a Burmese language congregation. The Burmese language congregation was largest in attendance.

Huge Burmese immigrant populations exist in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Indianapolis, Indiana, Fort Wayne Indiana, Battle Creek, MI, and the Dalllas Fort Worth area of Texas. Burma [Myanmar] is closed to foreign missions but Churches can reach many Burmese here.

The Trinitarian Bible Society has an excellent new Spanish language translation of the Bible. If your congregation has a multilingual ministry the Trinitarian Bible Society also has faithful translations in a number of other languages: including Arabic, Persian [Farsi], Nepali, Hindi, Russian, and Ukrainian.

https://us.tbsbibles.org/page/store/

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I would observe that Article 51 of the Church Order of Dort says. "Whereas two languages are spoken in the Netherlands, it is deemed proper that the churches of the German and the Welsh languages each have their own Consistories, Classical Meetings, and Particular Synods"

Welsh? In the Netherlands? Surely that should be "Walloon" instead of Welsh?

 

[EvanF]

Welsh? In the Netherlands? Surely that should be "Walloon" instead of Welsh?

"Walloon" is a French word. The Dutch word was "Walsch"(modern Dutch "Waals"), which is the cognate word to English "Welsh", but applied to a different non-germanic speaking people. This translation seems to have substituted the English cognate without regard to the semantic difference.

On the other hand, "Duits" has been translated as "German", according to modern Dutch usage rather than as "Dutch".

 

[Pictet]

1) I agree that immigrants should learn English if they are going to be allowed to stay.
2) I agree that it is deplorable to deny them access to the ordinary means of grace while they are learning. Or even if they have learned.

This is such a helpful way of putting it. And I think those who are monolingual often massively underestimate the difficulty those learning another language have, even if they try - it takes a lot of hard work before you can follow a sermon well and accurately!

I have worked in multi-lingual immigrant settings a fair bit, and it is hard, but f fruitful. I have also seen pastors insist on integrating two languages - often with the idea that technology & simultaneous translation can bridge the gap - only for a fruitful worl of evangelism and discipleship to be destroyed.

If people want a service in their own language, it is very often because they can't properly profit from that in English or other dominant language.

 

[jwithnell]

The tent of our church has recently expanded to include a small Korean congregation that has an interest in the OPC. It is absolutely beautiful to have the two churches together. Worship is conducted separately in each language. We're working out the details of having meals and Sunday school together.

We have a local PCA church using our building for classes and a youth fellowship. I "attended" their service via live stream this morning because my daughter just had a baby and several of their announcements included events for both congregations. It is beautiful for brothers to dwell together in unity.

 

[moral necessity]

Please remove my vote...as I don't think the choices reflect my opinion.

Blessings!

 

[Ben Zartman]

Thanks to all who've replied. I'm glad to hear there's a prevailing notion, at least here, that people should enjoy religion in a language they can understand. Whether supported by our church or not, the fields are white unto harvest for a ministry among the immigrants in our area. I just wish we could be a part of it.

 

[Edward]

If people want a service in their own language, it is very often because they can't properly profit from that in English or other dominant language.

Thanks to all who've replied. I'm glad to hear there's a prevailing notion, at least here, that people should enjoy religion in a language they can understand.

Without getting too specific on a public forum, I know a nationalized citizen, who has been in the US for decades, and who is fluent in English. This person has attended services only in English for the last 40 years, and still on rare occasions has to ask for help or refer to Google Translate on some of the terminology they run across in sermons or Bible studies.

 

[moral necessity]

Whatever answer we give should probably be consistent for any Christian Church in any country, in my opinion...

Blessings!

 

[Northern Crofter]

1) I agree that immigrants should learn English if they are going to be allowed to stay.

Just like the English immigrants in Jamestown and Plymouth all learned Algonquian?

A huge chunk of the Southwest U.S. was once part of Mexico (which was once part of the Aztec Empire, which was once part of the Olmec Empire, etc.). The majority of immigrants to Spanish Texas in the first half of the 19th century were English-speaking Americans - should they have all learned Spanish in order to have been allowed to stay? I think history shows that they refused to assimilate which ultimately led to Texan independence. So why would it be wrong if the majority of (legal) immigrants to present-day Texas are Spanish-speakers from Mexico who refuse to assimilate and Texas ends up independent again, and perhaps then even rejoins Mexico? (the latter is pretty unlikely in my opinion - just throwing it out there for the sake of the argument).

Spanish has been spoken continuously in the territories of the United States since before our independence and we currently have the fourth largest Spanish-speaking population in the world after Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina. 13% or more of the US population speaks Spanish as a first language - some 41 million people.

And there were enough German speakers after American independence that Congress considered printing everything in both English and German (as, until recently, was done with Spanish).

There are many reasons the U.S. has never had an official language. I don't deny that the American form of English is the lingua franca of the U.S. or that it is in most every way an advantage to both the immigrant and their new nation that the immigrant learns English, but there is a very real barrier for older folks to do so. It has been the case in most every generation in the U.S. that the immigrants do not become fluent in English, their children grow up bilingual, and then the 3rd generation primarily speaks English. That being said, there were still parts of the Carolinas where knowledge of Gaelic was still useful in communicating with the locals in the late 1900s - isolated communities (in both rural areas and urban enclaves) buck assimilation in multiple ways (I see Mohammedans, with their need to maintain Arabic to read the Quran, as a unique case).

...I don't think the choices reflect my opinion.

Whatever answer we give should probably be consistent for any Christian Church in any country, in my opinion...

I didn't vote because I believe each instance no doubt has its own peculiar circumstances that consistently call for general wisdom.

 

[Edward]

And there were enough German speakers after American independence

A lot of Germans in central Texas as well. They tended to be anti-slavery so things didn't work out so well for some of them during the War. World War I, however, was what got them to give up their German identity and most of their German language worship services.

 

[yeutter]

Welsh? In the Netherlands? Surely that should be "Walloon" instead of Welsh?

"Walloon" is a French word. The Dutch word was "Walsch"(modern Dutch "Waals"), which is the cognate word to English "Welsh", but applied to a different non-germanic speaking people. This translation seems to have substituted the English cognate without regard to the semantic difference.

On the other hand, "Duits" has been translated as "German", according to modern Dutch usage rather than as "Dutch".

I would observe that Article 51 of the Church Order of Dort says. "Whereas two languages are spoken in the Netherlands, it is deemed proper that the churches of the German and the Welsh languages each have their own Consistories, Classical Meetings, and Particular Synods"

Let us remember that the Church Order of Dort was written in the context of a national [State] Church. At the time of the Synod of Dort, the nation of the Netherlands then included present day Belgium.
Let us correct the Church Order of Dort Article 51 to read: 'Whereas two languages are spoken in the Netherlands, it is deemed proper that the Churches of the Dutch, and French languages each have their own Consistories, Classical Meetings, and Particular Synods'

Do we agree with Article 51 and believe that English language congregations, and Spanish language congregations, and Arab language congregations should have their own Consistories, Classis Meetings, and Particular Synods?
Let us translate this into Presbyterian speak: Do we believe that English language congregations, and Spanish language congregations, and Arab language congregations should have their own Kirk Sessions, Presbyteries, and Synods?

In practice, in ecclesiastical disestablished America, do we believe that the congregation should have one governing board, or multiple language based governing boards? Or do we, in practice believe that the English, and Spanish, and Arab sub-congregations should have their own teaching elders, and ruling elders, and deacons?; who meet together periodically in one Session?

 

[EvanF]

Let us remember that the Church Order of Dort was written in the context of a national [State] Church. At the time of the Synod of Dort, the nation of the Netherlands then included present day Belgium.
Let us correct the Church Order of Dort Article 51 to read: 'Whereas two languages are spoken in the Netherlands, it is deemed proper that the Churches of the Dutch, and French languages each have their own Consistories, Classical Meetings, and Particular Synods'

Do we agree with Article 51 and believe that English language congregations, and Spanish language congregations, and Arab language congregations should have their own Consistories, Classis Meetings, and Particular Synods?
Let us translate this into Presbyterian speak: Do we believe that English language congregations, and Spanish language congregations, and Arab language congregations should have their own Kirk Sessions, Presbyteries, and Synods?

In practice, in ecclesiastical disestablished America, do we believe that the congregation should have one governing board, or multiple language based governing boards? Or do we, in practice believe that the English, and Spanish, and Arab sub-congregations should have their own teaching elders, and ruling elders, and deacons?; who meet together periodically in one Session?

Do we need to believe one or the other? The elders of the 17th century Dutch church made their decisions in their own circumstances as they deemed prudent, surely elders in our churches and presbyteries are no less fit to make such decisions. I would only say that it must be difficult for elders to shepherd a flock whom they cannot effectively communicate or fellowship with. As for effective presbyterial relations between elders of different congregations, I can easily imagine that elders who minister to non-english speaking congregations would be proficient in English enough also to participate in an English-speaking presbytery, especially if it is the presbytery in which they are ordained.

What's more, unless I'm mistaken, the situation in the OP seems to involve a church that isn't really part of a presbytery.

 

[Ben Zartman]

^^^ True. As Reformed Baptists (though maybe losing our way....) there are no presbyteries or consistories. Which is why I think a church plant, with its own elders/officers, is the ideal.

 

[Claes Jacob Heijndericksz]

Let us remember that the Church Order of Dort was written in the context of a national [State] Church. At the time of the Synod of Dort, the nation of the Netherlands then included present day Belgium.
Let us correct the Church Order of Dort Article 51 to read: 'Whereas two languages are spoken in the Netherlands, it is deemed proper that the Churches of the Dutch, and French languages each have their own Consistories, Classical Meetings, and Particular Synods'

When the Dutch Revolt began in the second half of the 16th century, the Netherlands consisted of the 17 provinces known as the Habsburg Netherlands. By the time the Synod of Dort took place in the 17th century, only seven of these provinces—those in the north—had been liberated. These formed the United Provinces or the Dutch Republic, each with its own established Reformed Church. This is the origin of the particular synods. By that time, the Church of Holland had already been divided into two synods.

The Netherlands represented at the Synod of Dort, therefore, did not include the Southern Netherlands (modern-day Belgium), which remained under Spanish (Catholic) control. At the time, national identity was still fluid. Was the emerging Dutch nation defined solely by the Reformed provinces, or would it also encompass the Catholic-held provinces? The people of the Netherlands could even be considered part of the same nation as the Germans. After all the guilders of the Rhineland (or Germany) were called ‘Overlandsche guldens’ in the Netherlands. And books translated from High German into Dutch are said to be translated from the ‘Overland’ language. Though the Dutch Republic formally separated from the Holy Roman Empire in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia, political unity in the Netherlands had been evolving since Emperor Charles V instituted inheritance laws that began to bind the provinces more closely together.

The Walloon provinces (in the south) remained firmly under Spanish control and were unsafe for Protestants. As a result, they had no particular synods of their own. However, many Reformed refugees from the Southern Netherlands—both Dutch and French-speaking—fled north. Due to language differences, the Walloon and French-speaking refugees established their own churches within the heart of the Dutch Republic.

This is clearly reflected in the list of church bodies at the synod of Dort:

[1] The Duchy of Gelderland and of Zutphen, [2] South Holland, North Holland, [3] Zeeland, [4] The Province of Utrecht, [5] Friesland, [6] Transylvania [sic], [7] The State [sic] of Groningen and Omland,

Gelderland is listed before Holland, in accordance with feudal hierarchy—duchies outranked counties. After Zeeland, the list includes lordships. “Transylvania” is a mistranslation or misidentification; it refers to Transisulania, the Latin name for Overijssel. The American town of Overisel in Michigan was named after this province. ex Civitatis Groningensi et Omlandiis - The city of Groningen and the Omlands.

Lastly the list conludes with: Drent and the French Churches.
(Drenthe, while not a province in its own right at the time, was governed directly by the States General. Like Overijssel, it had previously been part of the Oversticht of the Bishopric of Utrecht before being secularized under Charles V. )

Ex ecclesiis Gallo-Belgicis - from the Walloon Churches. These are french speaking churches whose members fled from the french speaking parts of the southern Netherlands.
(Belgicis is the general term for 'Netherlandic'. The Dutch bible (the Statenvertaling) is translated in the Belgic Language.)

The representatives of the Walloon churches were Daniel Colonius, minister of Leyden, Joannes Crucius, minister of Haerlem, Joannes Dother, minister of Flushing, Jeremias de Pours, minister of the Walloon church of Middelburg, Everardus Beckerus, elder of the Walloon church of Middelburg, Petrus Pontanus, elder of the church of Amsterdam. As can be seen all these churches are in Holland and Zeeland.

In addition to Walloon immigrants, the Dutch Republic was also home to Scottish merchants and soldiers. In Rotterdam, a Scottish Church exists. As far as I could determine, the church always belonged to the Church of Scotland but was granted the Saint Sebastian Chapel by the city soon after its founding. This occurred during a period when Roman Catholics and Remonstrants were forbidden from building churches that looked like churches on the outside.

There weren’t many Scots in the Netherlands, so my Scottish migrant ancestor—a soldier—married a local woman in one of the Dutch towns and joined a Dutch-speaking congregation. In contrast, my Walloon ancestors often remained within French-speaking churches for a few generations. On average, it was in the third or fourth generation that began marrying Dutch partners and became part of Dutch-speaking congregations.