Astute observations in both July 13th articles. If anything, COVID-19 should have taught us that members who are housebound, in care institutions, etc. and not able to be physically present in the sanctuary during the worship service can nonetheless be enabled to be intimately present via YouTube, Zoom, etc.
Thank you for articulating your proposed guidelines for moderating dialogue on the Network. I would like to briefly provide my observations on the following statements from the article above:
1. This means that we will be intentionally seeking posts from marginalized voices that we haven’t traditionally heard from. OBSERVATION: This raises a question of whether the Network will be deliberately entering into the Comment process, rather than leaving it up to to Readers to determine whether they will just read the article, or also comment. Some would argue that this is form of information management, i.e. censorship. I would respectfully suggest the the large of portion of users of the Network are readers rather than commenters, irrespective of mainstream or marginalized status.
2. We’ll be expecting posts and comments that demonstrate Christian humility and graciousness in tone, language and implication even when people strongly disagree. OBSERVATION: I am fully in agreement with this guideline.
3. We’ll be moderating comments that make significant claims outside of the writer’s lived experience and expertise. OBSERVATION: Again I would politely suggest that this statement is Orwellian in nature, and scripturally unsustainable. How is the Network staff even in a position to assess what is or is not outside a reader/writer's lived experience without engagement with the reader/writer or some form of state apparatus. If we to follow this dictum to its logical conclusion, only theologians would be able to comment on matters of faith.
4. And we’ll be deleting posts and comments that attempt to hijack conversations and turn other people’s experiences into controversies. OBSERVATION: Though I can appreciate the intent of the guideline, it will be a delicate balancing act in discerning what constitutes dialogue and/or provocation. A good example is the example being raised by Marc Peterson where there is an honest difference of opinion which others may argue on hearing it it is a "hurtful" experience.
First, thank you Kristen for your responses to my observations on #'s 1, 2 & 4 and may the Lord bless you in your task of moderating the Network.
Regarding guideline #3. "We’ll be moderating comments that make significant claims [outside of the writer’s lived experience and expertise]," my understanding of the use of the phrase is somewhat different than the examples you have provided. An example of a more strict understanding of the phrase in today's "post-modern identity politics" is that a non-Asian author has no authority to write about the Punjabi experience in India, except for a Punjabi person. I hope this observation is helpful.
Secondly, thank you Doug for your example of Evergreen College. I reviewed some the material available on the internet. The phenomenon of identity politics, tribal nationalism, Orwellian / Marxist re-education camps, etc. is not unique to the USA, but is also present in some departments at certain Canadian universities leading to the destruction of various academic careers and reputations. These phenomenon open the potential for attempts at the erasure of faith itself as a proper expression of life oriented towards our Saviour.
At age 72, I find these phenomenon troubling after a life working in the public sector with a background in labour relations, and service in the local church in various capacities.
I'm wondering whether you aren't yourself contravening the Network Community Guidelines, i.e. "it almost comes across as if you are saying that each of these groups is making up the hurdles and challenges they face. I don't think that's your intent, but that's how this can read. ...Without acknowledging that racism, sexism, ableism, etc are real things that cause real pain, your critique of the theory comes across as a critique of the people who are asking for change and a disregard of their lived experience." Though the article, as you acknowledge, is well written - the decision not to publish it is based on an opinion you attribute to the author which is not present in the article.
The focus of the article in "lay language" is about the roots of critical theory as articulated by certain 20th century French philosophers whose world and life view the author argues is anti-ethical to Christian faith. There is a fundamental difference between those who articulate critical theory, and those who experience oppression. Scripture also addresses the issue of oppression and it's alleviation, but not in the same terms as critical theory.
The decision not to publish appears to be arbitrary, rather than balanced as required under the Network Community Guidelines and comes across as a form of censorship.
Mark Stephenson: I do not wish to discount that ethnic minorities may experience feelings of exclusion with respect to the Network, however, without empirical research one might come to the same conclusion about the 95% of those who read but to do not response to submitted articles.
Secondly, based on 30+ years in the labour relations field working both for the union and management, without empirical investigation feelings may be true for the storyteller - but nonetheless not factual. Not doing the research only leads to further injustice.
Lastly, the concept of "white privilege" not only disparages the lived experience of the working poor, etc. whose lived experience is similar to many ethnic minorities. I would respectfully suggest that the use of the phrase is non-scriptural.
I am perplexed by the argument set out in the article above. I’m left with the feeling that the author’s stance is either tongue-in-cheek, or disingenuous regarding their “wokeness.” The argument that “racist” equals “white,” i.e. European lays out the underbelly of identity politics vis-à-vis the author’s statement, “I'm still coming to terms with my whiteness and privilege in the world.”
1. The article not only supposes that all “whites” are “privileged” which may come as a shock to the working poor;
2. Secondly, if “colour” is the marker for racism, then logically any other colour is also a signifier of “racism” – not just being “white” which raises the spectre of “tribalism” run amok.
3. Thirdly, appropriating the guilt of “racism” on behalf all “whites” is not only presumptive but judgmental.
Where is scriptural justice and mercy when privilege and racism are indiscriminately assigned to the Body of Christ?
The comment “I hear you saying that you are feeling judged by Joshua's statement ‘if you're white, you're probably a racist too and just don't know it.’ And your feeling is that his statement actually ‘diminishes and dehumanizes’ you as a white person” misses the point by asking one to go down the same rabbit hole of secular identity politics and tribalism as the author. The blanket attribution of “privilege” and “racism” to one part of the Body of Christ based on skin colour assumes:
1. all white people are “privileged” which they are not, e.g. the working poor, the homeless, mothers on social security, etc.; and that all white people are “racists” when not all are even in a position to either geographically or socially relate to others of another colour; etc.; and
2. secondly, the statement attempts to place the author in the position of God by looking into the heart of another, and appropriating that which properly belongs to the Father.
Therein lies the complexity of the issue. The falsehood lies not with either Martin or Jennifer, but the quote cited in the 2nd overture to classis from the book by Gary Burge, Whose Land? Whose Promise?: What Christians Are Not Being Told about Israel and the Palestinians provided as the Human Rights grounds for supporting the overture.
Though the overture to Synod excludes the factually incorrect quote, “In the State of Israel, the most recent move to deny the right to vote and other democratic participation by people other than Jews is alarmingly distressing by anyone who hopes and prays for a peaceful coexistence in this region,” the overture still substantively cites a book which has been challenged for factual errors.
An alternate cited source might have been a better choice in the overture to Synod.
Thank you for the clarification. Appreciated. I'm used to quotations following a statement, not before.
Nonetheless, Gary Burge has been challenged for holding this very position, i.e. Israel is "mov(ing) to deny the right to vote and other democratic participation by people other than Jews" which was provided as grounds in the 2nd overture to classis.
Though the revised 2nd paragraph in the overture to Synod removes this sentence, it now intimates Israel is in the process of establishing an "apartheid regime." A matter on which Gary Burge has also been challenged, raising questions about the veracity of the overture's source material.
Posted in: 3 Questions to Ask Upon Returning to In-Person Worship
Astute observations in both July 13th articles. If anything, COVID-19 should have taught us that members who are housebound, in care institutions, etc. and not able to be physically present in the sanctuary during the worship service can nonetheless be enabled to be intimately present via YouTube, Zoom, etc.
Posted in: "Censorship" on The Network
Good morning Kristen...
Thank you for articulating your proposed guidelines for moderating dialogue on the Network. I would like to briefly provide my observations on the following statements from the article above:
1. This means that we will be intentionally seeking posts from marginalized voices that we haven’t traditionally heard from. OBSERVATION: This raises a question of whether the Network will be deliberately entering into the Comment process, rather than leaving it up to to Readers to determine whether they will just read the article, or also comment. Some would argue that this is form of information management, i.e. censorship. I would respectfully suggest the the large of portion of users of the Network are readers rather than commenters, irrespective of mainstream or marginalized status.
2. We’ll be expecting posts and comments that demonstrate Christian humility and graciousness in tone, language and implication even when people strongly disagree. OBSERVATION: I am fully in agreement with this guideline.
3. We’ll be moderating comments that make significant claims outside of the writer’s lived experience and expertise. OBSERVATION: Again I would politely suggest that this statement is Orwellian in nature, and scripturally unsustainable. How is the Network staff even in a position to assess what is or is not outside a reader/writer's lived experience without engagement with the reader/writer or some form of state apparatus. If we to follow this dictum to its logical conclusion, only theologians would be able to comment on matters of faith.
4. And we’ll be deleting posts and comments that attempt to hijack conversations and turn other people’s experiences into controversies. OBSERVATION: Though I can appreciate the intent of the guideline, it will be a delicate balancing act in discerning what constitutes dialogue and/or provocation. A good example is the example being raised by Marc Peterson where there is an honest difference of opinion which others may argue on hearing it it is a "hurtful" experience.
Posted in: "Censorship" on The Network
Hi Kristen & Doug...
First, thank you Kristen for your responses to my observations on #'s 1, 2 & 4 and may the Lord bless you in your task of moderating the Network.
Regarding guideline #3. "We’ll be moderating comments that make significant claims [outside of the writer’s lived experience and expertise]," my understanding of the use of the phrase is somewhat different than the examples you have provided. An example of a more strict understanding of the phrase in today's "post-modern identity politics" is that a non-Asian author has no authority to write about the Punjabi experience in India, except for a Punjabi person. I hope this observation is helpful.
Secondly, thank you Doug for your example of Evergreen College. I reviewed some the material available on the internet. The phenomenon of identity politics, tribal nationalism, Orwellian / Marxist re-education camps, etc. is not unique to the USA, but is also present in some departments at certain Canadian universities leading to the destruction of various academic careers and reputations. These phenomenon open the potential for attempts at the erasure of faith itself as a proper expression of life oriented towards our Saviour.
At age 72, I find these phenomenon troubling after a life working in the public sector with a background in labour relations, and service in the local church in various capacities.
Posted in: "Censorship" on The Network
Hi Kristin...
I'm wondering whether you aren't yourself contravening the Network Community Guidelines, i.e. "it almost comes across as if you are saying that each of these groups is making up the hurdles and challenges they face. I don't think that's your intent, but that's how this can read. ...Without acknowledging that racism, sexism, ableism, etc are real things that cause real pain, your critique of the theory comes across as a critique of the people who are asking for change and a disregard of their lived experience." Though the article, as you acknowledge, is well written - the decision not to publish it is based on an opinion you attribute to the author which is not present in the article.
The focus of the article in "lay language" is about the roots of critical theory as articulated by certain 20th century French philosophers whose world and life view the author argues is anti-ethical to Christian faith. There is a fundamental difference between those who articulate critical theory, and those who experience oppression. Scripture also addresses the issue of oppression and it's alleviation, but not in the same terms as critical theory.
The decision not to publish appears to be arbitrary, rather than balanced as required under the Network Community Guidelines and comes across as a form of censorship.
Posted in: "Censorship" on The Network
Mark, thank you for the article by Tim Keller.
Posted in: "Censorship" on The Network
Mark Stephenson: I do not wish to discount that ethnic minorities may experience feelings of exclusion with respect to the Network, however, without empirical research one might come to the same conclusion about the 95% of those who read but to do not response to submitted articles.
Secondly, based on 30+ years in the labour relations field working both for the union and management, without empirical investigation feelings may be true for the storyteller - but nonetheless not factual. Not doing the research only leads to further injustice.
Lastly, the concept of "white privilege" not only disparages the lived experience of the working poor, etc. whose lived experience is similar to many ethnic minorities. I would respectfully suggest that the use of the phrase is non-scriptural.
Posted in: Hello, I Am a Racist
I am perplexed by the argument set out in the article above. I’m left with the feeling that the author’s stance is either tongue-in-cheek, or disingenuous regarding their “wokeness.” The argument that “racist” equals “white,” i.e. European lays out the underbelly of identity politics vis-à-vis the author’s statement, “I'm still coming to terms with my whiteness and privilege in the world.”
1. The article not only supposes that all “whites” are “privileged” which may come as a shock to the working poor;
2. Secondly, if “colour” is the marker for racism, then logically any other colour is also a signifier of “racism” – not just being “white” which raises the spectre of “tribalism” run amok.
3. Thirdly, appropriating the guilt of “racism” on behalf all “whites” is not only presumptive but judgmental.
Where is scriptural justice and mercy when privilege and racism are indiscriminately assigned to the Body of Christ?
Posted in: Hello, I Am a Racist
The comment “I hear you saying that you are feeling judged by Joshua's statement ‘if you're white, you're probably a racist too and just don't know it.’ And your feeling is that his statement actually ‘diminishes and dehumanizes’ you as a white person” misses the point by asking one to go down the same rabbit hole of secular identity politics and tribalism as the author. The blanket attribution of “privilege” and “racism” to one part of the Body of Christ based on skin colour assumes:
1. all white people are “privileged” which they are not, e.g. the working poor, the homeless, mothers on social security, etc.; and that all white people are “racists” when not all are even in a position to either geographically or socially relate to others of another colour; etc.; and
2. secondly, the statement attempts to place the author in the position of God by looking into the heart of another, and appropriating that which properly belongs to the Father.
Posted in: Hello, I Am a Racist
Respectfully, we must agree to disagree on this matter.
Posted in: Any Current or Past Elders?
Hello...
Posted in: ‘Palestine’ and Overture 6: Ten Questions to Consider
Hi Nick…
Therein lies the complexity of the issue. The falsehood lies not with either Martin or Jennifer, but the quote cited in the 2nd overture to classis from the book by Gary Burge, Whose Land? Whose Promise?: What Christians Are Not Being Told about Israel and the Palestinians provided as the Human Rights grounds for supporting the overture.
Though the overture to Synod excludes the factually incorrect quote, “In the State of Israel, the most recent move to deny the right to vote and other democratic participation by people other than Jews is alarmingly distressing by anyone who hopes and prays for a peaceful coexistence in this region,” the overture still substantively cites a book which has been challenged for factual errors.
An alternate cited source might have been a better choice in the overture to Synod.
Posted in: ‘Palestine’ and Overture 6: Ten Questions to Consider
Hi Martin...
Thank you for the clarification. Appreciated. I'm used to quotations following a statement, not before.
Nonetheless, Gary Burge has been challenged for holding this very position, i.e. Israel is "mov(ing) to deny the right to vote and other democratic participation by people other than Jews" which was provided as grounds in the 2nd overture to classis.
Though the revised 2nd paragraph in the overture to Synod removes this sentence, it now intimates Israel is in the process of establishing an "apartheid regime." A matter on which Gary Burge has also been challenged, raising questions about the veracity of the overture's source material.
Yours in Christ,