Talk:Reformed Church in America

Polity discussion
This article needs a polity discussion. How is the Reformed Church in America organized? MPS 21:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It holds to a traditional presbyterian form of church governance, deacons, elders, classes, regional and general synods. Not sure I understand the question...jme66.72.215.225


 * Maybe a link to Presbyterian polity would help? Blarneytherinosaur talk 08:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oldest protestant church in north america?
What about the Church of England-->Episcopal Church, which existed in Virginia about fifteen years longer?--Bhuck 10:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The statement was "non-Anglican" Protestant Church. The Episcopal Church is Anglican. '''[Unsigned comment by User: 69.18.61.160, 02:46, 23 January 2008]

Oldest corporation in North America?
When was it actually incorporated (rather than merely organized to meet, etc.)? The Harvard Corporation also claims to be the oldest in N. Am. --Editing 17:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Membership decline
Surely the loss of 1/3 of the church population requires more explanation. Rmhermen (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The article states: "Like many mainline denominations, the Church has experienced a declining membership during the last thirty years. In 2009, the total membership was 170,000, down from about 300,000 in 2000, and about 360,000 in 1980. In the last thirty years, the Church has lost almost 1/3 of its membership." I really believe this is true, but the entry needs some reliable sources about the membership decline. The source given for the current membership of 170 000 isn't a very good one. It is simply a essay by Donald A. Luidens about the decline of members of the Reformed Church in America.Mistico (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The essay by Donald A. Luidens was the only source given to the membership numbers had changed from 250,859 (2010) to 170,000. So, what was the previous source for the upper number given? I suppose the second number is more accurate, but it's still a bit confusing.Mistico (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The article by Bradley G. Lewis, "Using Historic Strength to Make New Glue", from November 2009, tries to explain the decline of members and could be used for those who want to expand that part of the entry. It's a response to the previous Donald A. Luidens article, "The Mournful Sounds of Implosion", given above.Mistico (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Bradley G. Lewis article provides some insights for the changes that happened in the Reformed Church in America leading to their loss of members, but while disagreeing with Donald A. Luidens in his most negative conclusions. I can quote directly: "Luidens offers six "items" as his evidence that the RCA's impending "implosion" is both inevitable and explicable. While he is right about some of what has changed over the last several decades, I find that on balance his evidence is inadequate or tainted. In particular his conclusions on the denomination's disintegrating identity do not hold water: they appear to be based on the assumption that if the church deviates from what made it successful for the first couple of decades after World War II, it will be doomed--even though Luidens does not appear to like some of what the RCA did in those years, such as its rush to "suburbanize."/ A careful look at data on members, money, priorities, and leadership over the most recent decades, combined with an understanding of new forces that are giving the denomination energy and an increasing sense of shared mission, show that the RCA is moving in the right direction--toward what has most often made it successful over its long history. I know few in the RCA who have illusions about our need for continued renewal. More and more of us have experienced some of it." He provides numbers to prove his point: "Luidens' items 4-6 ("Numerological Numbness," "Congregational Particularism," and "Financial Failures") all claim that practical failures make the RCA unsustainable. He dismisses the efforts of Our Call, a national effort endorsed by the 2003 General Synod, to plant new churches and revitalize existing ones (as well as working on the infrastructure that supports healthy churches) as "minimally effective" and likely to "further obscure identity, ideology, and theology."(...) The numbers hardly suggest an implosion. The number of confessing members dropped by over 10,000 from 2003 to 2008, but actual worship attendance was almost exactly the same in those two years. In fact, in 2008, for the first time, average weekly worship attendance actually exceeded the number of confessing members in the RCA. The number of adherents also is at a high for the entire 18-year series in 2008, reaching over 50,000 for the last three years. This recent increase in adherents and worship attendance strongly suggests that Our Call is succeeding in increasing the numbers of those calling an RCA church home, whether they officially join it or not." The current given muber of 170,000 is well sourced then and despite the fact that the membership of the RCA is still below the past numbers, it shows a tendency to renovation and the survival of the RCA is thus guaranteed.Mistico (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Something seems off about these numbers. The Association of Religion Data Archives has for 2008 the following numbers: Clergy 2,101, churches: 893, and members: 254,485. These statistics are provided from the Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches. That is a lot of members to lose in just a few years, and doesn't match up with trends of previous years which you can also see at the ARDA's profile for the RCA. Ltwin (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I also don't understand the discrepancy about the membership numbers. Maybe the RCA scholars followed other sources. If they knew the highest numbers I doubt that they wouldn't used them instead. Anyway, I really think that the extreme low numbers now given should be replaced by the previous 170,000. It was a anonymous user who added the current membership numbers without providing any source. I even asked him if he could do so, but he never replied. Perhaps the best solution about these different numbers given would be to email the RCA so they could explain which ones are the more accurate.Mistico (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I do understand now what is the problem with the membership numbers. Until July 2011, the number given was 250,859. Reading better Bradley G. Lewis article I realized that the low number of 170,000 reports only the "confessing members". The numbers of the Association of Religious Data Archives for 2008, giving 254,485, are then accurate. The membership numbers of 250,859 for the year of 2010 are more correct then 170,000.Mistico (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Life issues
I started a new chapter concerning life issues, from the Reformed Church in America official website. The Church opposes abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty. I think the parts about euthanasia and the death penalty are perhaps a bit long, but I couldn't decided which parts to cut, so I didn't make any cuts in the official statements.Mistico (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pruning these is a necessary task, but I think it is important to provide the positions on these issues.Profspeak (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt membership
President Theodore Roosevelt was a lifetime member of the Reformed Church in America like can be seen by this source:. In the Wikipedia article about him he appeared wrongly as Presbyterian so I corrected that reference too.Mistico (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit
I've reverted the recent IP edit for two reasons: I think everyone is already familiar with all the arguments on both sides, and it seems obvious that pro-life (a) is euphemistic; (b) fails to capture the full meaning of the concept it seeks to name; (c) loaded with potential for misconstruing the debate it is part of. Opposed to abortion rights addresses the doctrinal issue head-on and literally, minimizing the opportunity for confusion or consternation, except among those with their own axes to grind. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * First, it deleted the wikilink for no apparent reason;
 * Second, saying that the church is opposed to abortion rights is more precise and neutral than saying it is pro-life.


 * You seem to forget that to be pro-life on abortion also can mean that the church or the person also can accept abortion on extreme cases, like his the case of the RCA. To state like you claim that they are "Opposed to abortion rights" in that sense it isn't that neutral as to state that the RCA is pro-life on abortion. In the other way it seems to introduce a biased view of the official stance of the Church on abortion since they are opposed to abortion rights except for extreme cases.85.243.71.173 (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess this kind of illustrates the problem with pro-life, which seems to be a pretty imprecise phrase. It sounds like the clearest, most accurate way to phrase it would be to say that the church is "generally opposed to abortion rights." Would that cover it better? — Bdb484 (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That does sound more encompassing, however there is a wikilink for the phrase. So if a user wants further information about the pro-life argument, they can follow the linkP0PP4B34R732 (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a more neutral way to present the RCA stance on abortion is simply to state that they are against abortion, except in extreme cases. That leaves away the pro-life and abortion rights topics, since they are against abortion in general, legal and clandestine, not only abortion rights, with some extreme case exceptions. Since their opposition to euthanasia and the death penalty is presented in a similar way, do you think that would be a more correct wording? If there are no objections I will be making the changes soon.Mistico (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My concern is that this would then beg the question of what an "extreme" case is. To the very hard pro-lifers, it may only mean that we have a doctor and a second opinion certifying that the mother will die if she gives birth. To the very hard pro-choicers, it may just mean rape or incest.
 * I see what you're saying about the legalized/clandestine issue, but I suspect that very few readers would see their opposition to abortion rights as an acceptance of back-alley abortions. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The official statements of the RCA doesn't specify in what extreme cases abortion should be allowed. I think they only accept it in the case of danger to the life of the mother. Those with better knowledge of the RCA could improve that part of the article. Meanwhile I decided to leave it in the current form.Mistico (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't the word "rights" be removed to make the statement more NPOV??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.112.74.44 (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Church membership
It would be helpful to have a source for the church membership, so we can double check when someone changes it. Rmhermen (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I'll add the numbers that the ARDA gives. Ltwin (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The ARDA's numbers are from 2008. That is the most recent date I could find with reliable source backing. Updated numbers should only be added if they are sourced! Ltwin (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

What about adding Andrew Yang's name to the list of notable members? Soltera (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Soltera

Discussion over homosexuality in 2012
In 2012, church synode discussed position to homosexuality. 188.96.191.59 (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Christian Post:Reformed Church to Discuss Response to Homosexuality

I reverted the text to the previous text that was a summary of Synod positions. In May an edit was done that, besides being somewhat inchoate, had references to an unnamed organization and a book that speculates on the Church's future positions on homosexuality. As with other life issues, we should stick to the statements of Synod. It is not the place here to speculate on whether those positions will change or to vaguely refer to positions by unnamed other organizations. I do think that positions on some other social issues should be shortened, a task that I may undertake soon. Profspeak (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like developments are happening with the splitting off of RCA churches in 2022 stemming from the discussion about homosexuality : Reformed Church in America Splits as Conservatives Form New Denomination. https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2022/january/reformed-church-in-america-rca-alliance-of-reformed-churche.html. Some of the splitting churches in the Great Lakes area are joining The Kingdom Network. https://kingdomnetworkusa.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaySeaAre (talk • contribs) 18:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)