Kristen Vanderberg

In answer to your questions:

1. see my response to Lubbert and to Doug.  The verb I used is "moderating" not "deleting", and I acknowledge that it will be difficult to understand what someone's lived experience is. I covet prayers for discernment. At the same time, you can usually tell when someone is sharing personal experiences.

2.  See same responses to Lubbert and Doug.  When people share their personal stories and how issues have impacted them, it helps us hear and learn from each other. This is the starting place for dialogue. When we neglect to see people's experiences as part of an issue, it leads to division and hurt.

3.  Please see community-guidelines. We want everyone to be polite, respectful in tone and language, etc. If you feel that a post or comment does not meet these standards, please flag it for review. 

4. See response to Marc. The thinking behind this practice is in the spirit of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 107. Some scripture passages related to this are: Matthew 7:12, 22:39; Romans 12:10;  Matthew 5:3-12;  Luke 6:36; Romans 12:10, 18; Galatians 6:1-2; Ephesians 4:2; Colossians 3:12; 1 Peter 3:8; Exodus 23:4-5; Matthew 5:44-45; Romans 12:20-21; Proverbs 25:21-22

Your other comment was flagged for review because it did not meet the community guidelines. Singling out specific people by name as a way to make an argument seems neither polite nor respectful, and seems to be straying from the original intent of the post. 

Hi Trevor.  I've tried to explain a few times in earlier comments that just because you do not have the lived experience (in this case, not being a person of color who has experienced the negative impacts of racism), does not mean that you CAN'T comment. It just means that we will hold you to a higher standard.  We want to make sure that in those cases, the writer without the lived experience acknowledges the experience of those impacted before you post. In this case, Mark and Tim are doing that. They are respecting the voices of those most impacted by the issue, so the comment can stand.

Hi Marc. I'm sorry that my post came across as anti-conservative and also that it seemed to be only about critical race theory. That wasn't my intent.  I would love to have conservative people, who are also people of color, post about their experiences with race and how they'd like the church to respond.  The point of my post was more in the spirit of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 107 - "God wants us to love our neighbors as ourselves, to be patient, peace-loving, gentle, merciful, and friendly toward them, to protect them from harm as much as we can, and to do good even to our enemies."  If online discussion forums are causing harm to some of our community members, and they have made me aware of that, then it is my duty to do what I can to protect them from that harm. If I can remind people to be patient, peace-loving, gentle, merciful and friendly in their online comments, then I should do so. We want discussion and welcome debate, just not at the expense of marginalized people. 

Hi Dan. Thanks for posting. I want to clarify that I don't think that I am more enlightened than anyone else, or that I'm specially gifted to speak on behalf of people of color. You and I have engaged in the past and I think we share a mutual respect. I hope that I have demonstrated that my preference is to allow a variety of posts and opinions and to spark dialogue. Your "Esther and the 2nd Amendment" post is a great example. It may seem controversial to some and certainly expresses a point that not everyone agrees with, but posting it allowed for some interesting dialogue and debate. The intent of my post above was to admit that this approach to Network content has flaws and that I've had blinders to how I have unwittingly allowed hurt to happen in my quest for open and free-flowing dialogue. I now want to correct that. I am not making unilateral decisions about what I think groups of people might be offended by, but I am listening to people and trying to understand their pain and how I can mitigate it. I should also say that there is a diverse group of people helping with decisions about moderation.

Lastly, this really isn't about defending Black Lives Matter. A post that recognized the pain of the black community in the wake of the killing of George Floyd, acknowledged the reality of racism in our societies, and stated that change is needed in our systems - including in our churches - could also criticize the organization of Black Lives Matter and some of their calls to action.  But when we start with that criticism, and when we say things like, "don't all lives matter?  we are all one in Christ," we skip over the important part of seeing our brothers and sisters and recognizing their very real experiences. That's where the hurt has happened. 

Thanks Micheal. As a communicator, I love this post about branding and believe that it is important for church leaders to consider.  As director of communications and marketing for the CRCNA, I also love your question.  I'm responsible for "managing the brand" of the CRCNA.  There are some parts of that that I can control. For example, I can work with CRCNA ministries to make sure that they are producing quality materials and are connecting back to our overall denominational identity. I can also create specific materials that highlight the values and identity items that we want "Christian Reformed" to be associated with.  The problem I face, however, is that far and away the greatest brand element that the CRCNA has is our local churches.  Most people will first be exposed to the word "Christian Reformed Church" through a local congregation in their community, or through neighbors who attend that church.  I would LOVE if every church displayed our CRC logo prominently and kept the words "Christian Reformed" in their name.  Unfortunately, that isn't always the case.  Many congregations are choosing a more generic name (e.g X community church) as a way to appeal more broadly to people in their community.  This meets their individual congregational needs for branding, but makes my job more difficult. We now have CRC members who have no idea that they are part of a denomination. This is a topic that might be worthy of its own Network post one day (e.g. what creative idea do you have for how to promote our denominational identity even if we have taken "Christian Reformed" out of our name?).  In the meantime, I thank yor for your question.  I also wanted to say that even if you are still X Christian Reformed Church, it is useful to consider these branding questions.  The denominational brand will help to explain a bit about you, but the layout of your website, the images you choose to share on social media, the content of your newsletter, etc will all communicate the unique characteristics of your local congregation.  Figuring out your brand identity will help you make those decisions.

The branding looks great, Michael. Nice job.  If you haven't already seen these, you can check out our CRCNA brand standards at crcna.org/brand.

I hope that my earlier comment didn't sound like I was judging churches for their decision to drop "Christian Reformed" from their name. I can understand why they do it.  I was working at World Renew when they went through their name change and I know a lot of thought and prayer went into it. I believe it was the right decision for them (as it probably is for some congregations) . I'm just saying that it makes it harder for me to develop the brand of the CRCNA when it isn't well embraced by all our ministries and congregations. 

As for the other elements of our brand...for example, figuring out "what does it mean to be Christian Reformed to people today"...that is something that is an ever-evolving part of my work. It is also part of our ministry plan (Our Journey 2020). Some of the questions on the denominational survey asked about this, so I'm excited to see what those results will be.

Thanks Craig.  This is helpful feedback.  The unfortunate thing is that videos are expensive and time consuming to produce. If most churches aren't going to use them, or if a handful of churches are only going to show them once, it is hard for ministries to justify spending funds and time to make them.

With that said, I've been part of a few conversations recently about trying to create "less polished" videos that could still serve our needs, but at at lower cost.  Stay tuned.  

In the meantime, is there anything that you would like to see in print in the Together Doing More section of The Banner? Sounds like some good news stories from the denomination would be appreciated if we can cut through the clutter and get people to read them.

Thanks Kathy.  I've fixed that error.  Sorry for the mistake.