Lou Wagenveld

Hello Mark and Steve.  Anyone else?!  This convesation supposedly started in March; I haven't seen much of anything on this.  One marginal comment from someone said this wasn't going anywhere... I hope that isn't correct.

Who's at the plate?     Lou

"While you were sleeping...." Wow!  Daniel, you have quite an agenda, and one while not unfamiliar to me, is "bigger than both of us"!  And throw in a whole lot of others for good measure!   I trust that this will get the attention of some folk, both in the trenches and in the  offices.  I'll try to call this piece to the attention of a few people I know, and see where it goes.  Steve, we count on you to get this circulated also (OK, people see this here...good) beyond this site to a few key people you know.

(forgive me, but I'm on three, four other "projects" right now that are stretching me time wise; but I respect the topic/issue)

I may not understand the function of these pages*.  But six months have gone by and this is only the forth post on what could be so very important for missions and the denomination.  Where are the "people in the pew"?  They must be reading  the funnies, or who knows what. 

Fellow retired missionary colleagues, where are you?  Short term missions leaders, where are you? 

Lou

PS *Wendy, maybe I should have known that this topic was for "the upper levels."  But then I ask, why did Rev. Dykstra go public with it, and why was it put on this public/social media page?

Wow, am I glad I am basically out of this conversation that supposedly was started by me (see 1st post -top - a year and a half ago) but went quite in another direction.  I'm very interested in that (development/business) also, but can't contribute for a couple reasons right now..  

   One is because I am following closely - maybe hoping to lead - the pivotal things that are happening in CRWRC with the survey sent out to 10,000 people over the last weeks, purportedly about a "possible name change."  I'm writing and talking with people about what the means for "word and deed" in the ministries of the CRCNA.  Please pray with me for wisdom.      -Lou      

PS And keep up the good conversation; Greg, much appreciated your anticipated participation....sometime we have to get Karl Westerhof in on this as well.

PPS  If anyone reading this blog/forum has insights into matters related to what I started with at the top (that Conversation about a Concept of a Global Missions agency) PLEASE contact me directly at    [email protected]   ( I hope that is OK to do; otherwise tell them you got my address from the Yearbook: Lou Wagenveld)

Mike, I am so but so encouraged to see you rejoin this conversation in where it went as whatever you want to call it: Dan, what handle do you put on" Business as Mission"?  I don't remember; would it be" Business as business for Christians"?). Welcome back after a couple months away, Mike.  Very much to the point.... of where this was going.

Forgive me if I steer some people away from this to what I got heavily involved in when CRWRC sent out its survey about a "possible name change."  There is always much more behind something like that: sure, "marketing" but "brand recogniton" isn't the whole story either, I'm certain.  So next I copy a little piece of my last Aug 26 entry:

If anyone reading this blog/forum has insights into matters related to what I started with at the top (that Conversation about a Concept of a Global Missions agency) etc.   Well, maybe you saw - otherwise I ask - you to see the NEW blog posting, on this same Global Missions site/link? - entitled: Together Again? Word and Deed.  Please visit/comment some of the incoming responses.  From my career perspective, this is a major moment for the CRCNA and her agencies; more importantly, for her minsitry.

As to the present topic, do carry on.  I support you, even when for time and perhaps expertise I won't be contirubting much!

Hi Wendy, Fronze, and Daniel; what a trio, what a trip!  Wendy, this site (?) went without a post for over a year.  In another of your posts you use the tantalizing word "lurkers" - I hope there are many who come out of the shadows on topics like this.

   In High School Mr. Hero Bratt was my "hero" also, as Ref Doc teacher, and as debate coach.  To this day I can quote one year's "Propostion: that US Foreign Aid should be limited to technical assistance and disaster relief."  That has served me well all my career as I seek to evaluate economic justice issues and "best practices" of development agencies.

Here I'm just chiming in on your blog.... you have helped keep one of mine alive.  This question for people whose academic and field experience have prepared them for this debate about foreign aid a whole lot more than my pre/seminary studies:  What is it going to take to get people to care about this?  Yes, "church people"?!  Three posts in 16 months!

May I also refer your lurkers to the great conversation that Fronse and Daniel had ongoing where now a "missionary kid" from Nigeria has jumped in with a very cogent experiential piece:  Mike Kiekover, on another blog on this page, way down on one of the most read blogs on the site:  Concept of a Global Missions agency.   -Lou W

Thanks, Fonse, for the question about our meetings (assuming you meant the ones in El Salvador, from where I returned Monday 17th.  We made progress on the agreement, but the overarching concern were the rains.  Can yo believe 4 to 5 FEETover twleve days.  Floods, mudslides, washed out roads and bridges; a terrible mess and loss. Over 30 drowned or covered by slides.

So the money broiught for the project it was decided to spend it immediately ; a thousand dollars to each church.  On Sat. i got a report from Huizucar (brough food to another church housing 42 people; brough a hot meal to the municipal shelter in the town for 56 people.  So little for such a huge need.  I am helping them to make contacts with CRWRC Canada; just relayed the applicaton forms to the church.  But staff didn't make it sound very hopeful; with so little attention being given to those floods by the news media, it is hard to raise the money.   We are hoping it will come through.

So yes, I note that things have slowed down, and with my being away I'm not sure where things might stand; I did get an indication today that existing funds might not be available, and fundraising is not going well, surely due to the little or nothingof this in the news outlets.

My intention is to find out soon whether the Committee is continuing talks, and when there might be a "listening session."

Has anyone heard about that?      -Lou

Fronse, you say: "...great needs arise everywhere and funds available are too often spread too thin."  How experientially true; having just come back and trying to raise funds to help, I ran into two things: 1) 100 plus deaths in a region are not enough to get the Central American disaster on the evening news, which impedes then a sympathetic giving from donors.  And more importantly for the topic of this thread,  2) another specific evidence of the lack of a good word and deed coordination of our agencies.  The CRWM regional director told me that they don't have any funds for disaster relief, but was sure that CRWRC would be wise in its response.  Well, two hours ago the Canadian office infomred me that they had already sent money  - (since I just returned and was even the first to inform about that disaster, I thought the El Salvador CRCs would be first in line)  - to an NGO, a technically good but liberation theology, Roman Catholic, community based organization, and there would be no more money left for the churches!!  Of course there is more to the story, but that would go beyond the import of this site.

What is clear is that the two agencies continue to each have their own playbook, let alone be on the same page. 

I've been traveling for over two weeks, but can't believe that there are only two posts on this matter.  Or is it that this is not the "official" site?

At any rate, while I can understand observations that stem from being a "bi-national" denomination, my concern is much more with a denomination that has a bi-furcated witness because of separate agencies that should be carrying out one single and integrated mission for the Kingdom.  Apropos to that, we need the holistic emphasis of the Canadian churches, and they need a little more of the "pietistic" emphasis that the American dimension can contribute.  Let's work together to get it together.  To that end, please see my other blogs under Global Mission.   - Lou

Above you see: "Changing administration will not necessarily improve the connecttion between word and deed.   It might, but it is mostly about an attitude....That attitude will cause those in home missions to talk to those in the Back to God hour.   That attitude will cause those in CRWRC to talk to those in foreign missions and home missions, and vice versa.   Pick up the phone...." etc.

But instead of picking up the phone and calling as you suggest, CRWRC is picking up its marbles and going to a different playground!  They for all intents and purposes a year ago right now by intentional default did not participate in the conversations that were suggested by denominatinal leadership precisely to that end.  In August the signal came loud and clear... we have our own ideas as to where we want to go. The "possible name change" survey was circulated to 10,000 people.

And now if any are paying attention - the Banner is mute on this - the survey results suggeststhat while they want to continue a relationship with the CRCNA it strikes me that might end up being pretty tenuous.  Does anyone out there have a handle on some of this?

It been a little while since I visited here again... what I quoted or implied was at most "tenuous."It isn't so easy to find information, but a conversation with a CRWRC functionary led me to believe that some significant change may be in the works.  So I read with interest the Banner online report of the February Board meeting, and now this from BOT:

1. Discussed at length and eventually tabled until the May 2012 Board meeting a decision about whether to endorse a proposal by the Christian Reformed World Relief Committee (CRWRC) to change its name to World Renew (see news story). A delegation of CRWRC board and staff members told the Board of Trustees that CRWRC’s name no longer accurately reflects much of the work that it does or its many partnerships outside the Christian Reformed Church. They said the new name would enable CRWRC to expand its mission by engaging more effectively with a broader range of people.
2. Adopted recommendations formalizing a number of areas in the relationship between the denomination and CRWRC. These included recognizing the 14-member Joint Ministry Council as CRWRC’s governance entity and recommending that synod approve CRWRC’s request to submit single nominees for at-large positions on its board.

Can we trust that the BOT heard enough rumblings so that those "recommendations" will keep the agency in not only the CRCNA sphere, but tighten its planning and working relationship with other ministries/agencies?  Crunch time will be May.  Yes, I did see the "comments" after the Banner article.  Is there any other site/blog/forum where this is being discussed; clue me in, please.