Hi Marc. I'm sorry that my post came across as anti-conservative and also that it seemed to be only about critical race theory. That wasn't my intent. I would love to have conservative people, who are also people of color, post about their experiences with race and how they'd like the church to respond. The point of my post was more in the spirit of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 107 - "God wants us to love our neighbors as ourselves, to be patient, peace-loving, gentle, merciful, and friendly toward them, to protect them from harm as much as we can, and to do good even to our enemies." If online discussion forums are causing harm to some of our community members, and they have made me aware of that, then it is my duty to do what I can to protect them from that harm. If I can remind people to be patient, peace-loving, gentle, merciful and friendly in their online comments, then I should do so. We want discussion and welcome debate, just not at the expense of marginalized people.
Hi Dan. Thanks for posting. I want to clarify that I don't think that I am more enlightened than anyone else, or that I'm specially gifted to speak on behalf of people of color. You and I have engaged in the past and I think we share a mutual respect. I hope that I have demonstrated that my preference is to allow a variety of posts and opinions and to spark dialogue. Your "Esther and the 2nd Amendment" post is a great example. It may seem controversial to some and certainly expresses a point that not everyone agrees with, but posting it allowed for some interesting dialogue and debate. The intent of my post above was to admit that this approach to Network content has flaws and that I've had blinders to how I have unwittingly allowed hurt to happen in my quest for open and free-flowing dialogue. I now want to correct that. I am not making unilateral decisions about what I think groups of people might be offended by, but I am listening to people and trying to understand their pain and how I can mitigate it. I should also say that there is a diverse group of people helping with decisions about moderation.
Lastly, this really isn't about defending Black Lives Matter. A post that recognized the pain of the black community in the wake of the killing of George Floyd, acknowledged the reality of racism in our societies, and stated that change is needed in our systems - including in our churches - could also criticize the organization of Black Lives Matter and some of their calls to action. But when we start with that criticism, and when we say things like, "don't all lives matter? we are all one in Christ," we skip over the important part of seeing our brothers and sisters and recognizing their very real experiences. That's where the hurt has happened.
1. Sorry for the confusion. I meant that we'll be reaching out to some specific folks and asking them to write blog posts to ensure that our content is more reflective of our broad CRCNA community. It wasn't about writing comments. I agree with you that most of the Network users are "silent" observers rather than frequent commenters.
2. Glad we agree.
4. (Jumping ahead to #4 before #3) You are right. Moderating online conversations does require a lot of discernment. It is probably one of the hardest parts of my job. It is something I pray about, and something I often ask others to pray for me about. I welcome your prayers as well. I try to listen. I start with the premise that everyone has good intentions behind their posts. I also rely on others to help me make final decisions when things are difficult. In the end, I (and we) might still make mistakes, but we'll continue to try our best.
3. This is another hard one and you are right that we will still need to make some judgment calls. At the same time, I think that we can often tell when someone is writing about their personal experience. Consider this (albeit facetious) example.
The Network does not allow posts that explicitly support or denounce political candidates, but if it did, imagine that I - as a Canadian - wrote a post that said something like "Everyone who voted for Trump was clearly a racist. I mean, he clearly hates immigrants and wants to build a wall because of his xenophobia. What's more, his rallies are frequented by neo-nazis and far-right groups. I suspect that Trump supporters also hate women and didn't want to vote for Hillary because they didn't want a woman President."
Some of these statement could be formed based on observation or what some news commentors have shared as "fact", but the overall post clearly makes assumptions about a group of people that I'm not a part of. It is divisive and not helpful to any sort of dialogue.
On the flip side, if someone posted "As a Christian, I'm uncomfortable with some of the things Donald Trump has said about women and people with disabilities, but I voted for him in 2016 and plan to vote for him again and here's why. He's been a strong advocate for the unborn. He supports religious freedom and was an advocate for keeping worship services open during COVID. He was even able to get disenfranchised people interested in politics again.....". While people might still hold an opposing point of view, this post would help them hear where the other was coming from. Because it starts from someone's lived experience, it can lead to greater understanding.
Of course, all of this is harder when we are talking about topics such as race, disability, abuse, etc. than politics, but that's a broad picture of what I'm hoping for. I want us to hear each other and learn from each other. We can't do that if some people feel unseen and unsafe.
Thanks Doug. I'll take a look at those videos you suggest. I mentioned in an early comment that my post wasn't intended to be pro Critical Race Theory. There is nothing sacred about CRT, nor has the CRCNA taken any sort of official stance on it. You can read all of the official CRCNA positions on race relations here: https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/position-statements/race-relations
My post was simply trying to say that when we talk about issues that have a deep, personal impact on some specific groups of people (e.g. racism), and when we - ourselves - are not part of those groups (e.g. white folks who haven't experienced the negative impacts of racism in our daily lives), we need to tread carefully. If we don't start with a posture of humility, and if we don't recognize the pain and experiences of those most impacted by the issue, we cause pain and end up creating greater division instead of dialogue.
That's why my post says that we will "moderate" comments and posts that make claims outside of someone's lived experience and expertise. It doesn't say that they would all be deleted, just that we will watch them carefully and expect more from them.
Maybe this isn't a great example, but I've been trying to read up on Critical Race Theory since it first reached my attention a few months ago. I thought that this writer did a good job. Yes, she's white. Yes, she says Black Lives Matter is Marxist in origins and that there are limits to Critical Race Theory, but she also acknowledges the need for system changes, and states that there are parts of her life where she experiences privileges that people of color do not. Those sorts of acknowledgements help to demonstrate that she sees and cares about the people impacted by this issue, and isn't just critiquing the theory.
Thanks Rachael. World Renew is high on our list as well. Each year my kids save 10% of the money they've received over the year and choose how to donate it at Christmas. We've tried to help them learn how to use these funds wisely, but to also use it for causes that mean something to them. This year, one is donating to the local animal shelter because she wants to help stray animals in our city. The other is leaning towards a gift catalog gift.
Hi Dan. Interesting take. I'm Canadian but I watched President Trump's speech last night and the Democrat's rebuttal. I found it interesting that both parties seem to agree that legal immigrants are a blessing to the country, and that there is a need to tighten border security. It seems that a win-win solution that everyone can be happy with should be within reach. I wonder, though, if that will happen. It seems to me (and Canadians are not exempt from this either) that people want to dig in their heels about their particular political position and make sure that the "other side" doesn't win. It's unfortunate because I don't think that leads to democracy at its best. What if instead of advocating with your elected representative to be for or against a steel or cement wall, we advocated with them to be bipartisan and find workable compromises? What if our votes were based less on political parties and more on which candidates were moderate and willing to work with anyone from any party to find the best solutions? Am I being too idealistic to think that could work?
Thanks Micheal. As a communicator, I love this post about branding and believe that it is important for church leaders to consider. As director of communications and marketing for the CRCNA, I also love your question. I'm responsible for "managing the brand" of the CRCNA. There are some parts of that that I can control. For example, I can work with CRCNA ministries to make sure that they are producing quality materials and are connecting back to our overall denominational identity. I can also create specific materials that highlight the values and identity items that we want "Christian Reformed" to be associated with. The problem I face, however, is that far and away the greatest brand element that the CRCNA has is our local churches. Most people will first be exposed to the word "Christian Reformed Church" through a local congregation in their community, or through neighbors who attend that church. I would LOVE if every church displayed our CRC logo prominently and kept the words "Christian Reformed" in their name. Unfortunately, that isn't always the case. Many congregations are choosing a more generic name (e.g X community church) as a way to appeal more broadly to people in their community. This meets their individual congregational needs for branding, but makes my job more difficult. We now have CRC members who have no idea that they are part of a denomination. This is a topic that might be worthy of its own Network post one day (e.g. what creative idea do you have for how to promote our denominational identity even if we have taken "Christian Reformed" out of our name?). In the meantime, I thank yor for your question. I also wanted to say that even if you are still X Christian Reformed Church, it is useful to consider these branding questions. The denominational brand will help to explain a bit about you, but the layout of your website, the images you choose to share on social media, the content of your newsletter, etc will all communicate the unique characteristics of your local congregation. Figuring out your brand identity will help you make those decisions.
The branding looks great, Michael. Nice job. If you haven't already seen these, you can check out our CRCNA brand standards at crcna.org/brand.
I hope that my earlier comment didn't sound like I was judging churches for their decision to drop "Christian Reformed" from their name. I can understand why they do it. I was working at World Renew when they went through their name change and I know a lot of thought and prayer went into it. I believe it was the right decision for them (as it probably is for some congregations) . I'm just saying that it makes it harder for me to develop the brand of the CRCNA when it isn't well embraced by all our ministries and congregations.
As for the other elements of our brand...for example, figuring out "what does it mean to be Christian Reformed to people today"...that is something that is an ever-evolving part of my work. It is also part of our ministry plan (Our Journey 2020). Some of the questions on the denominational survey asked about this, so I'm excited to see what those results will be.
As a mother of young girls, this topic is near and dear to my heart. Growing up, I had three brothers. I always felt that I, as a girl, could do anything that they could do. All around me, I saw women forging their way in leadership -- Kim Campbell became Prime Minister; Manon Rheaume was in the NHL. The one place where I didn't see women being welcomed and celebrated as leaders was in church. Women led in church in their own way (Sunday School, GEMs, Bible studies) but not from the pulpit or council room. This hurt and actually made me leave the CRC for a time. For this very reason, when my girls were born, my husband and I deliberately sought out congregations where women and men led in partnership with each other.
If you are looking for a good book club book during Black History Month, I suggest "The Stone Thrower" by Jael Richardson. In broad strokes, this is a story about Jael's dad, Chuck Ealy, who played football in the Canadian Football League. It is also a book about Chuck's experience with race in the U.S., where he grew up, and about Jael's experience with race in Canada. I found it eye-opening.
Thanks Craig. This is helpful feedback. The unfortunate thing is that videos are expensive and time consuming to produce. If most churches aren't going to use them, or if a handful of churches are only going to show them once, it is hard for ministries to justify spending funds and time to make them.
With that said, I've been part of a few conversations recently about trying to create "less polished" videos that could still serve our needs, but at at lower cost. Stay tuned.
In the meantime, is there anything that you would like to see in print in the Together Doing More section of The Banner? Sounds like some good news stories from the denomination would be appreciated if we can cut through the clutter and get people to read them.
Posted in: "Censorship" on The Network
Hi Marc. I'm sorry that my post came across as anti-conservative and also that it seemed to be only about critical race theory. That wasn't my intent. I would love to have conservative people, who are also people of color, post about their experiences with race and how they'd like the church to respond. The point of my post was more in the spirit of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 107 - "God wants us to love our neighbors as ourselves, to be patient, peace-loving, gentle, merciful, and friendly toward them, to protect them from harm as much as we can, and to do good even to our enemies." If online discussion forums are causing harm to some of our community members, and they have made me aware of that, then it is my duty to do what I can to protect them from that harm. If I can remind people to be patient, peace-loving, gentle, merciful and friendly in their online comments, then I should do so. We want discussion and welcome debate, just not at the expense of marginalized people.
Posted in: "Censorship" on The Network
Hi Dan. Thanks for posting. I want to clarify that I don't think that I am more enlightened than anyone else, or that I'm specially gifted to speak on behalf of people of color. You and I have engaged in the past and I think we share a mutual respect. I hope that I have demonstrated that my preference is to allow a variety of posts and opinions and to spark dialogue. Your "Esther and the 2nd Amendment" post is a great example. It may seem controversial to some and certainly expresses a point that not everyone agrees with, but posting it allowed for some interesting dialogue and debate. The intent of my post above was to admit that this approach to Network content has flaws and that I've had blinders to how I have unwittingly allowed hurt to happen in my quest for open and free-flowing dialogue. I now want to correct that. I am not making unilateral decisions about what I think groups of people might be offended by, but I am listening to people and trying to understand their pain and how I can mitigate it. I should also say that there is a diverse group of people helping with decisions about moderation.
Lastly, this really isn't about defending Black Lives Matter. A post that recognized the pain of the black community in the wake of the killing of George Floyd, acknowledged the reality of racism in our societies, and stated that change is needed in our systems - including in our churches - could also criticize the organization of Black Lives Matter and some of their calls to action. But when we start with that criticism, and when we say things like, "don't all lives matter? we are all one in Christ," we skip over the important part of seeing our brothers and sisters and recognizing their very real experiences. That's where the hurt has happened.
Posted in: "Censorship" on The Network
Thanks Lubbert. In response to your points:
1. Sorry for the confusion. I meant that we'll be reaching out to some specific folks and asking them to write blog posts to ensure that our content is more reflective of our broad CRCNA community. It wasn't about writing comments. I agree with you that most of the Network users are "silent" observers rather than frequent commenters.
2. Glad we agree.
4. (Jumping ahead to #4 before #3) You are right. Moderating online conversations does require a lot of discernment. It is probably one of the hardest parts of my job. It is something I pray about, and something I often ask others to pray for me about. I welcome your prayers as well. I try to listen. I start with the premise that everyone has good intentions behind their posts. I also rely on others to help me make final decisions when things are difficult. In the end, I (and we) might still make mistakes, but we'll continue to try our best.
3. This is another hard one and you are right that we will still need to make some judgment calls. At the same time, I think that we can often tell when someone is writing about their personal experience. Consider this (albeit facetious) example.
The Network does not allow posts that explicitly support or denounce political candidates, but if it did, imagine that I - as a Canadian - wrote a post that said something like "Everyone who voted for Trump was clearly a racist. I mean, he clearly hates immigrants and wants to build a wall because of his xenophobia. What's more, his rallies are frequented by neo-nazis and far-right groups. I suspect that Trump supporters also hate women and didn't want to vote for Hillary because they didn't want a woman President."
Some of these statement could be formed based on observation or what some news commentors have shared as "fact", but the overall post clearly makes assumptions about a group of people that I'm not a part of. It is divisive and not helpful to any sort of dialogue.
On the flip side, if someone posted "As a Christian, I'm uncomfortable with some of the things Donald Trump has said about women and people with disabilities, but I voted for him in 2016 and plan to vote for him again and here's why. He's been a strong advocate for the unborn. He supports religious freedom and was an advocate for keeping worship services open during COVID. He was even able to get disenfranchised people interested in politics again.....". While people might still hold an opposing point of view, this post would help them hear where the other was coming from. Because it starts from someone's lived experience, it can lead to greater understanding.
Of course, all of this is harder when we are talking about topics such as race, disability, abuse, etc. than politics, but that's a broad picture of what I'm hoping for. I want us to hear each other and learn from each other. We can't do that if some people feel unseen and unsafe.
Posted in: "Censorship" on The Network
Thanks Doug. I'll take a look at those videos you suggest. I mentioned in an early comment that my post wasn't intended to be pro Critical Race Theory. There is nothing sacred about CRT, nor has the CRCNA taken any sort of official stance on it. You can read all of the official CRCNA positions on race relations here: https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/position-statements/race-relations
My post was simply trying to say that when we talk about issues that have a deep, personal impact on some specific groups of people (e.g. racism), and when we - ourselves - are not part of those groups (e.g. white folks who haven't experienced the negative impacts of racism in our daily lives), we need to tread carefully. If we don't start with a posture of humility, and if we don't recognize the pain and experiences of those most impacted by the issue, we cause pain and end up creating greater division instead of dialogue.
That's why my post says that we will "moderate" comments and posts that make claims outside of someone's lived experience and expertise. It doesn't say that they would all be deleted, just that we will watch them carefully and expect more from them.
Maybe this isn't a great example, but I've been trying to read up on Critical Race Theory since it first reached my attention a few months ago. I thought that this writer did a good job. Yes, she's white. Yes, she says Black Lives Matter is Marxist in origins and that there are limits to Critical Race Theory, but she also acknowledges the need for system changes, and states that there are parts of her life where she experiences privileges that people of color do not. Those sorts of acknowledgements help to demonstrate that she sees and cares about the people impacted by this issue, and isn't just critiquing the theory.
That's what we'll be looking for.
Posted in: How Do You Choose to Give? World Renew Makes Top 10 of International Charities
Thanks Rachael. World Renew is high on our list as well. Each year my kids save 10% of the money they've received over the year and choose how to donate it at Christmas. We've tried to help them learn how to use these funds wisely, but to also use it for causes that mean something to them. This year, one is donating to the local animal shelter because she wants to help stray animals in our city. The other is leaning towards a gift catalog gift.
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
Hi Dan. Interesting take. I'm Canadian but I watched President Trump's speech last night and the Democrat's rebuttal. I found it interesting that both parties seem to agree that legal immigrants are a blessing to the country, and that there is a need to tighten border security. It seems that a win-win solution that everyone can be happy with should be within reach. I wonder, though, if that will happen. It seems to me (and Canadians are not exempt from this either) that people want to dig in their heels about their particular political position and make sure that the "other side" doesn't win. It's unfortunate because I don't think that leads to democracy at its best. What if instead of advocating with your elected representative to be for or against a steel or cement wall, we advocated with them to be bipartisan and find workable compromises? What if our votes were based less on political parties and more on which candidates were moderate and willing to work with anyone from any party to find the best solutions? Am I being too idealistic to think that could work?
Posted in: Why Your Church Needs a Brand
Thanks Micheal. As a communicator, I love this post about branding and believe that it is important for church leaders to consider. As director of communications and marketing for the CRCNA, I also love your question. I'm responsible for "managing the brand" of the CRCNA. There are some parts of that that I can control. For example, I can work with CRCNA ministries to make sure that they are producing quality materials and are connecting back to our overall denominational identity. I can also create specific materials that highlight the values and identity items that we want "Christian Reformed" to be associated with. The problem I face, however, is that far and away the greatest brand element that the CRCNA has is our local churches. Most people will first be exposed to the word "Christian Reformed Church" through a local congregation in their community, or through neighbors who attend that church. I would LOVE if every church displayed our CRC logo prominently and kept the words "Christian Reformed" in their name. Unfortunately, that isn't always the case. Many congregations are choosing a more generic name (e.g X community church) as a way to appeal more broadly to people in their community. This meets their individual congregational needs for branding, but makes my job more difficult. We now have CRC members who have no idea that they are part of a denomination. This is a topic that might be worthy of its own Network post one day (e.g. what creative idea do you have for how to promote our denominational identity even if we have taken "Christian Reformed" out of our name?). In the meantime, I thank yor for your question. I also wanted to say that even if you are still X Christian Reformed Church, it is useful to consider these branding questions. The denominational brand will help to explain a bit about you, but the layout of your website, the images you choose to share on social media, the content of your newsletter, etc will all communicate the unique characteristics of your local congregation. Figuring out your brand identity will help you make those decisions.
Posted in: Why Your Church Needs a Brand
The branding looks great, Michael. Nice job. If you haven't already seen these, you can check out our CRCNA brand standards at crcna.org/brand.
I hope that my earlier comment didn't sound like I was judging churches for their decision to drop "Christian Reformed" from their name. I can understand why they do it. I was working at World Renew when they went through their name change and I know a lot of thought and prayer went into it. I believe it was the right decision for them (as it probably is for some congregations) . I'm just saying that it makes it harder for me to develop the brand of the CRCNA when it isn't well embraced by all our ministries and congregations.
As for the other elements of our brand...for example, figuring out "what does it mean to be Christian Reformed to people today"...that is something that is an ever-evolving part of my work. It is also part of our ministry plan (Our Journey 2020). Some of the questions on the denominational survey asked about this, so I'm excited to see what those results will be.
Posted in: Narrowing the Gender Gap in Canada
As a mother of young girls, this topic is near and dear to my heart. Growing up, I had three brothers. I always felt that I, as a girl, could do anything that they could do. All around me, I saw women forging their way in leadership -- Kim Campbell became Prime Minister; Manon Rheaume was in the NHL. The one place where I didn't see women being welcomed and celebrated as leaders was in church. Women led in church in their own way (Sunday School, GEMs, Bible studies) but not from the pulpit or council room. This hurt and actually made me leave the CRC for a time. For this very reason, when my girls were born, my husband and I deliberately sought out congregations where women and men led in partnership with each other.
Posted in: Any Churches Celebrating Black History Month in Canada?
If you are looking for a good book club book during Black History Month, I suggest "The Stone Thrower" by Jael Richardson. In broad strokes, this is a story about Jael's dad, Chuck Ealy, who played football in the Canadian Football League. It is also a book about Chuck's experience with race in the U.S., where he grew up, and about Jael's experience with race in Canada. I found it eye-opening.
Posted in: Your Input Needed: How Should We Talk About Our Shared Ministry?
Thanks Craig. This is helpful feedback. The unfortunate thing is that videos are expensive and time consuming to produce. If most churches aren't going to use them, or if a handful of churches are only going to show them once, it is hard for ministries to justify spending funds and time to make them.
With that said, I've been part of a few conversations recently about trying to create "less polished" videos that could still serve our needs, but at at lower cost. Stay tuned.
In the meantime, is there anything that you would like to see in print in the Together Doing More section of The Banner? Sounds like some good news stories from the denomination would be appreciated if we can cut through the clutter and get people to read them.
Posted in: Is Your Church on the List?
Thanks Kathy. I've fixed that error. Sorry for the mistake.