Paul VanderKlay

I think there are a variety of issues we need to weigh if we are to answer the question about the mission of The Banner.

1. When the CRC decided to use The Banner as a vehicle for promoting the work of CRC agencies and informing CRC members about that ministry, did we undermine it's ability to act like "a kitchen table" for more debating open ended, free flowing ideas? In other words when we use the publication for promotion of ministries, do we set up an implicit message that the ideas presented in other articles are also being promoted? The heart of the protest seems to be the assumption that however one construes the "voice" of the CRC (ED, Banner editor, etc.) that anything that comes along side report and celebration OF agency work carries with it an implicit message? Maybe the Banner is too narrow a channel to process multiple functions and for that reason has caused confusion and anger.

2. Who reads the Banner? My assumption is that the MOST faithful CRC members and contributors to CRC agency ministry are its core audience. My guess is that this audience in the US tends to skew conservative. My guess is that in Canada it's more mixed. Again, these are all guesses that may be way off. If the Banner knows who is reading maybe they should share some of this data. Readership should also impact content. It's always tempting to try to expand readership by trying to speak to another audience, but if you do this you'd better let your base know exactly what you're doing. Given the protests I think this was also a fail if that was what was being tried. 

3. The Banner is one of multiple CRC entities that try to stimulate conversation. Another is of course "The Network". Paper vs. online also impacts readership, mission and purpose. Evaluation of The Banner's mission should not be done in isolation to the other assets the CRC possesses. It is a part of the overall package. The question is "what part should it play" given history, paper vs. online, readership, etc. 

4. "Disruption" is a word used to describe how the Internet has changed many industries, print media not the least of these. The world has changed since my grandmother wrote "Women's World" in the Banner in the 60s. The Banner has changed since the Kuyvenhoven era with wooden shoe burning. John Suk former editor wrote "Not Sure" and left the denomination because he wasn't. Navigating change requires wisdom and kindness. We'll need both for this conversation. pvk

My fear for Synod is my expectation of a comment discussion, that we will spend time wandering around debating sex, science and the worthiness of our present editor. Discussions of sex, science and the worthiness of whatever editor we presently have will always be with us, it seems to me foundational question is the question of this article, "What do we want from The Banner?"

I think most of us will agree the denomination needs to be able to manage a number of missions at once:

1. Prescriptive Faith formation and doctrinal instruction. The assumption of the Banner for this mission and the felt betrayal by the two articles in question and the editorial decision to put them through is what is drawing all the heat. OK. but if this is the mission of the Banner then we should say so.

2. Space for exploration tolerating divergent even heterodox ideas. When I work with people, in and out of the church I encourage them to speak their minds and their hearts and I value honesty over correctness in this mode. Most of us get this as a necessary part of a process for individuals and communities to work out their faith and figure out how what they believe fits, or does not fit with the catholic church. Should The Banner be a space for this? Our current "mission statement" for the Banner seems to suggest it, and given the limited media modes of communal conversation in most of the 20th century it fits. The question is whether it fits the present realities of The Banner as print medium combined with its promotional mission (which is a separate mission from points 1 and 2 here).

When the matter of adopting the Belhar arose the most interesting question for me was how would our denomination manage a communal conversation and decision of this magnitude? My conclusion based not necessarily on observing the outcome as much as the process was "not very well".

Questions of sex and science along side the matters of power and privilege which the Belhar sought to address are large and broad conversations that the church must engage because society is engaging them. If the church wants to have both influence and a voice we will need to figure out how to do so.

James Schaap has been the CRC historian for the late 20th century. The piece he wrote for the 150th anniversary of the CRC http://www.dordt.edu/publications/pro_rege/crcpi/Pro_Rege_Sept_2007.pdf noted that the reality of our place in our time is that we've lost the ability to control the question. CRC minds and hearts, of laity and pastor alike are shaped far more by voices outside the CRC than inside. No decision on the Banner will change this. We will not have the kind of voice in the Banner that we had in the days before TV and then the Internet took possession of the agenda. The question we must ask is how will we steward the conversations we are capable of. We will talk about sex and science and power and privilege but what we need to figure out first is how will we talk.

This is all good news to me. I agree with the assessment of the team. This is an essential tool for the denomination and I trust it will only get better. Keep up the good work. pvk

Great job Tim. Best year yet. pvk

One of the challenges we're seeing is that hosting a "discussion" is a very complicated thing, especially when it comes down to owning a "confession". A denominational organ that takes a position of endorsement naturally has certain advantages in promoting their point of view. When that organ also appears to have a degree of control or influence also on the process by which a discussion is supposed to take place it understandably looks to some as if a fair and free discussion is impossible.

This is enormously complicated by the fact that adoption of a new confession has never taken place within the lifetime of any of the participants today. Adoption of a new confession, which in terms of our ecclesiastical machinery is far more consequential than say adjusting the rules regarding women serving in office, seems to be a matter of an up or down vote at a synod a few years away, not unlike deciding on a church order article. It seems disproportionate to wrestle with women in office for a generation while we adopt a confession within 3 years.

Also within this discussion is the reality of how our current confessions actually play out within the life of the church. We increasingly don't know what to do with the three we have, why add a fourth now? Bringing the Belhar forward now is probably a good opportunity to lead the church in a discussion about what it means to be a confessional church, this at a time when these issues are as hot as they've been for a long time in terms of discussions in the broader church (the rise of the emergent vs. young-and-Reformed).

Granted, a lot of this broader leadership responsibility is beyond the purview of the mandate of the ERC, but one might ask where we might find this broader leadership perspective in our denominational structure if in fact it can be located anywhere?

Thank you for writing this (and whoever tweeted this). In my opinion this is one (among others of course) areas of the church where we have significantly failed. As Reformed people we've long asserted that the calling to serve the institutional church is no "higher calling" that every other honorable vocation present amidst our congregations. Every time I assert this publicly I get mostly skeptical looks and contradictory comments. Where have people picked up this skewed perspective? From the pastors.

It also comes from our implicit gnosticism of "heaven" and a deficient appreciation for the value of history. One of the reasons the church has spent so little time encouraging the cruciform and resurrection oriented development of the rest of the vocational spectrum is because a lot of alien theological and missiological packages we've grabbed hold of. History is not a soul-sorting apparatus that leads to either ethereal reward or fiery punishment, it is redemptive pursuit of celebrating the generosity of God embedded in creation and culminating in renewed creation. The wedding banquet of the lamb will celebrate the harvest of God-seeded culture from stories and cultures we've imagined to be lost.

As preachers we are called as part of Gospel proclamation to excite the participation of all vocations in preparation of this celebration. The banquet of the lamb will not be some poofed up turkish delight by a magic wand, that is the way of the white witch. The sitting at the table will be the final celebration of the chefs of God who cook, the farmers of God who supply the food, the engineers of God who design the farm equipment, the architects God who design the room, the carpenters of God who build the tables and the chairs, the designers of God who design the table settings, the composures of God who write the music, the musicians of God who play and sing, etc. etc. etc. pvk

Wonderful Rodney, absolutely delightful, just like your mom. :) 

Thanks for the comments. In pondering both the online and offline feedback I wrote this. Hope its helpful. pvk