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.
The recommendations set out in the “Reimagining Ministry Shares”report prepared for Synod 2019 are both illogical and ignore the facts. I’ve previously commented on this issue. See the comments portion of Gayla Postma's Council of Delegates Discusses Reimaging Ministry Shares The Banner 2018-10-19; and see also Clayton Libolt's Do Synods Remember? A Look at MinistryThe Banner 2018-08-24
I have been a member of the CRCNA for 70+ years in 5+/- churches; and have served as a deacon, elder, clerk, and Stated Clerk. To my recollection church budgets have usually been structured to include denominational and classical ministry shares as integral part of congregational finances. These budgets are adopted and recommended by councils for approval at congregational meetings.
The recommendation set out in Section VIII of the report that “each church council prayerfully considers how much they are willing and capable of giving for their ministry shares” based on “guidance developed by denominational staff and endorsed by the Council of Delegates is sent to the churches and to classis treasurers to aid them in this step” ignores:
1. the role and capacity of the congregation in the giving process; and
2. interferes in the ecclesiastical and civil governance of incorporated bodies.
Based on demographic data from the Yearbook and Statistics Canada for the period 1921–2019 in the province of British Columbia, as well as the classes financial statements for the period 1985 – 2018, denominational ministry share giving averages between 55 – 65% of what is approved by Synod based on denominational agency requests. It is my understanding this giving pattern aligns with the denominational receipts average. Is this report ignoring the obvious?
With the increase in smaller churches, and the passing of the boomer generation, the financial capacity of churches to support pastoral staff will come under increasing stress and potentially further erode the existing denominational ministry share base.
Regarding your state intervention concerns - historically the recognition of marriage in the Judeo-Christian tradition has shifted back and forth between the state, church and/or family. When my parents were married in the Netherlands in 1946 they were legally required to be married first before the governmental civil registry before proceeding in procession to the church for the ecclesiastical ceremony.
Legally, the substance of the overture coming to Synod 2019 would mean these individuals though married in a church would be considered to be living in a common law relationship, i.e. not legally married. The state has had to move into a legal vacuum created by men and women living together without a civil or church marriage by recognizing common law relationships to provide protection and aid to children, and women. The overture is proposing to recognize common law relationships which the church has historically opposed. A conundrum.
As former Stated Clerk for Classis BC South East I have been following this overture / conversation thread since it's inception. Dialogue entails listening, and is disheartening to hear this is still not occurring. As several commentators have indicated this overture has been before Classis BCSE twice, and in both instances the overture was defeated on the grounds it failed to do justice to the concerns raised by not listening to all parties, including the delegates at classis. The author of the overture thereby undermines the very reason he is bringing the matter forward, i.e. the "promot(ion of) truth, righteousness, justice and reconciliation." As such the overture is more political in nature than ecclesiastical, and as some commentators have observed contravenes Church Order, Article 28.
I appreciate your concern for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
However, notwithstanding your acknowledgement that “we could have listened better before taking the overture to classis a second time,” neither the second overture, nor the third overture to Synod addresses the concerns of the classical advisory committees regarding the lack balance in listening to both parties to the conflict in seeking scriptural reconciliation. As a consequence the overture undermines your stated intent “to speak truth prophetically against oppression, discrimination, human rights abuses, and to call on governments to uphold international law.” Secondly, we have previously discussed a concern which again appears in your email, i.e. impugning the committees’ integrity in raising concerns of balance with you to ensure equity, mercy and reconciliation be addressed by all parties.
Jews and Christians have since the emergence of Islam experienced dhimmis status, i.e. second class citizenship; and occasionally suffered expulsions, and pogroms. As recently as the breakup of the Ottoman Empire in the 20th century, we have seen the genocide of the Armenians in Turkey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide ; and the expulsion of Jewish populations from North Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries . This persecution continues to be a daily reality for Jews, Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/02/persecution-driving-christians-out-of-middle-east-report & https://christianpersecutionreview.org.uk/interim-report/ .
One might argue that the lack of balance in the overture opens it to a charge of anti-semitism, as has been the case with the BDS movement.
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: Let's Discuss "Reimagining Ministry Shares"
The recommendations set out in the “Reimagining Ministry Shares”report prepared for Synod 2019 are both illogical and ignore the facts. I’ve previously commented on this issue. See the comments portion of Gayla Postma's Council of Delegates Discusses Reimaging Ministry Shares The Banner 2018-10-19; and see also Clayton Libolt's Do Synods Remember? A Look at Ministry The Banner 2018-08-24
I have been a member of the CRCNA for 70+ years in 5+/- churches; and have served as a deacon, elder, clerk, and Stated Clerk. To my recollection church budgets have usually been structured to include denominational and classical ministry shares as integral part of congregational finances. These budgets are adopted and recommended by councils for approval at congregational meetings.
The recommendation set out in Section VIII of the report that “each church council prayerfully considers how much they are willing and capable of giving for their ministry shares” based on “guidance developed by denominational staff and endorsed by the Council of Delegates is sent to the churches and to classis treasurers to aid them in this step” ignores:
1. the role and capacity of the congregation in the giving process; and
2. interferes in the ecclesiastical and civil governance of incorporated bodies.
Based on demographic data from the Yearbook and Statistics Canada for the period 1921–2019 in the province of British Columbia, as well as the classes financial statements for the period 1985 – 2018, denominational ministry share giving averages between 55 – 65% of what is approved by Synod based on denominational agency requests. It is my understanding this giving pattern aligns with the denominational receipts average. Is this report ignoring the obvious?
With the increase in smaller churches, and the passing of the boomer generation, the financial capacity of churches to support pastoral staff will come under increasing stress and potentially further erode the existing denominational ministry share base.
Posted in: Ecclesiastic Marriage
I concur.
Posted in: Ecclesiastic Marriage
Regarding your state intervention concerns - historically the recognition of marriage in the Judeo-Christian tradition has shifted back and forth between the state, church and/or family. When my parents were married in the Netherlands in 1946 they were legally required to be married first before the governmental civil registry before proceeding in procession to the church for the ecclesiastical ceremony.
Legally, the substance of the overture coming to Synod 2019 would mean these individuals though married in a church would be considered to be living in a common law relationship, i.e. not legally married. The state has had to move into a legal vacuum created by men and women living together without a civil or church marriage by recognizing common law relationships to provide protection and aid to children, and women. The overture is proposing to recognize common law relationships which the church has historically opposed. A conundrum.
Posted in: ‘Palestine’ and Overture 6: Ten Questions to Consider
As former Stated Clerk for Classis BC South East I have been following this overture / conversation thread since it's inception. Dialogue entails listening, and is disheartening to hear this is still not occurring. As several commentators have indicated this overture has been before Classis BCSE twice, and in both instances the overture was defeated on the grounds it failed to do justice to the concerns raised by not listening to all parties, including the delegates at classis. The author of the overture thereby undermines the very reason he is bringing the matter forward, i.e. the "promot(ion of) truth, righteousness, justice and reconciliation." As such the overture is more political in nature than ecclesiastical, and as some commentators have observed contravenes Church Order, Article 28.
Posted in: ‘Palestine’ and Overture 6: Ten Questions to Consider
Hi Martin…
I appreciate your concern for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
However, notwithstanding your acknowledgement that “we could have listened better before taking the overture to classis a second time,” neither the second overture, nor the third overture to Synod addresses the concerns of the classical advisory committees regarding the lack balance in listening to both parties to the conflict in seeking scriptural reconciliation. As a consequence the overture undermines your stated intent “to speak truth prophetically against oppression, discrimination, human rights abuses, and to call on governments to uphold international law.” Secondly, we have previously discussed a concern which again appears in your email, i.e. impugning the committees’ integrity in raising concerns of balance with you to ensure equity, mercy and reconciliation be addressed by all parties.
Jews and Christians have since the emergence of Islam experienced dhimmis status, i.e. second class citizenship; and occasionally suffered expulsions, and pogroms. As recently as the breakup of the Ottoman Empire in the 20th century, we have seen the genocide of the Armenians in Turkey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide ; and the expulsion of Jewish populations from North Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries . This persecution continues to be a daily reality for Jews, Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/02/persecution-driving-christians-out-of-middle-east-report & https://christianpersecutionreview.org.uk/interim-report/ .
One might argue that the lack of balance in the overture opens it to a charge of anti-semitism, as has been the case with the BDS movement.
Yours in Christ,