Lou Wagenveld

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. 

Hi Ann.  I can only comment that my preference, and I am ordained, is for "pastor."   But that is subjective.

What I can help you with more objectively is the grammer; you wrote: My church calls both my husband and I "pastor." That would be "me"; "...calls ME, not I", correct?  As leaders we must exemplify correct English usage, I feel.

Appreciatively, Lou

Whoops. even more basic is to call people by their correct name.  Sorry, AMY! (not Ann)

Lou

No easy answer to this one.  After years working with Hispanic churches that have their own version of this difficulty,  I just have another question.  I wonder if Korean EMs integrating with Anglo EMs - in places where proximity etc. allow for it - could be a solution for some?

Lou

While I was in Language Services as an interpreter/translator, I still was able to get a good sense of what was happening in the uniting conference. At times as I tried to gauge the participation from the floor, I got the feeling that the REC was jumping into the WARC river, and while it made a splash, it later bobbed along barely above the surface. It was evident to me that the WARC people are more accostomed to this kind of process and had the major initiatives already underway.
As to "communion" and "justice" I truly hope that a good balance can be maintained. But at times I got the sensation that some of the more forceful - at times in committee almost strident - voices for justice matters were not willing to slow the pace to allow some of the folk less oriented to that catch up. It would be not only sad but unjust if some sectors/denominations are not given time to adjust and truly experience the union of communion, and choose to paddle in other waters.

Missional discipleship.  Problem: getting them off the couch and the bleachers and into the classroom... or small group

living rooms.   Motivation?  from leadership - pastors and elders, maybe deacons also.

Thanks for this piece, Shane; my ambivalence about short term missions continues after having looked at that phenomena for many years.  I have a question: you mention "community" but not really "church."  Is there coordination with some local church group, or what form does the "community" take in this?  Additional information, please, and your comment about the role of the church - and our Mission also present in the country - when you go with World Renew?

Thanks, Ray.  Helpful information and perspective.  Allow me some commentary and reminisences....

Bsides my three-word "missiology" (Word and Deed) I have a corallary: Christ-centered, Church-based."  Hence in part my question about this.  Next, I suppose I work out of some old paradigms - I've already been retired 10 years!  When I grew up Youth for Christ (and I understand your equivalence; fine) was frowed upon for a couple of reasons - it was para-ecclesiastical, and worse, it took young people away from the churches.  OK, granted; other times, other places now. And I like when the churches can work together and if it takes a para-church group to make that happen, fine.  But I still wonder if the local churches are seeing a reinforcement of holistic growth in their ministries...which leads me to ask:

...about the last part of my response: are both CRWM and World Renew working with the YMCA on this? 

You confused me; looked like this was for new subscribers, but then another post with "if you're subscribed."

So  who is this really for?

Thanks for submitting this, Anneke, via Wendy's post.  As someone deeply interested in and committed to holistic Christian witness, I read this type of post with keen interest.

I sensed, Wendy, something of an "apples and oranges" disjunction in that the title led me think we were going to get something on short term MISSIONS projects.  But the "paper" is about community development; our old bug-a-boo about our terminology... is development "missions."  Of course it is, or should be.  Allow me a couple of comments/questions.

I also sensed something of a disjunction between what sounded like CRWRC's direct work through local/national "staff" as contrasted with the next paragraph, working with local churches. Are those national workers identified as  staff of an international development organization? Are they on loan to other NGOs?  And, are they Christians?  How do they work? Does CRWRC pay church-related staff to carry out the projects?

Back to the question of STMs.  Anneke is correct in her skepticism about much of what is tried.  A story I know about is of a California church that spent $83,000 on a ten-day trip to Uganda to "form a library, build a wall, and start a new church." Yeah, all in ten days!   My concern is to see "church growth" and "community development" so integrated that it becomes an almost seamless witness to a full-orbed Gospel witness.

What I didn't read in the paper is what if anything these good community development models are doing for the increase in the number and depth of the local churches, of whatever denomination.  Lets keep conversing.......

(Disclaimer/clarification: when in the last paragraph "church based development work is twice mentioned, I construe that as CRWRC's N. American church based structure.  And as discussed elsewhere, I hope that is not eroded significantly with the changes that took place over the summer with Synod's approval of a name change... and whatever else may be coming down the pike along with that)