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.
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
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: Hello, I Am a Racist
Respectfully, we must agree to disagree on this matter.
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: 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,