{Originally posted at Bene Diction Blogs On, April 16, 2010. I've taken the liberty of reposting her entire comments as an UPDATE to this post.]
I can now, at last, say that evangelist Faytene Kryskow has been kind enough to respond to posts that I wrote on BDBO. [I'd like to joke that it is a good thing that I was sitting down when I learned it. I could have fainted. :) ]
Al Jolson-er-Faytene Kryskow speaks! ;)
I note, as I have written in the past, that I do like a lot about Kryskow--such as her apparent piety, her apparent passion for the Lord and for Canada. She can be amiable and nice, as her comments attest. But she adds to her born-again social conservatism, ideas, actions and words which I feel would be proof that she would be "dominionist". [I do take note that she has said that she doesn't even know what dominionism is...but, I would respectfully say, I would disagree with that.]
I want to highlight what she has to say in response. [Perhaps she adopts the old public relations proviso that "Any publicity is good publicity, as long as they spell your name right." :)]
In one comment, she tries to explain her media policy.
In another comment, Faytene refers to her media policy, and then goes on to explain that her ministry is ostensibly "non-partisan" (which I have noted in at least one post before).
As I do try to be even-handed, I ask you to check them out.
I do, alas, have to mention something else. Faytene tends to only post at Bene Diction Blogs On when she believes that Bene D (and now I) have made a mistake. I would suggest that I am merely noticing some things and interpreting them differently. Perhaps I have noticed "the [wo]man behind the curtain", if you remember The Wizard of Oz.
What Faytene Kryskow does not respond to, in my recent series of posts, may be telling and crucial.
So, in the second part of this post, in which I reply to her comments, I will be trying to show that neutral people could fairly wonder if she is as friendly to the media, or as unfriendly towards the Tories, as she writes.
As they say, "the devil is in the details", as it were.
To begin, I would like to thank Faytene for adding an explanation to her media policy following my posts this week, to try and explain what she means.
She must have obviously been prompted by my comments to add something. I am happy to be indirectly helpful.
We may recall that the media policy on her itinerant page read as follows:
Notice to media – any media wishing to attend any of the events that Faytene is speaking at must contact admin@faytene.ca for information on proper protocol. Media who do not go through the proper protocol channels may be asked to leave for the purpose of eliminating un-necessary distractions to the event organizers.
After my posts commenting on this? This part reads exactly the same, except that it now has this added:
(Reason for this notice: There was a situation in 2009 where reporters came to a church Faytene was speaking at without permission from the pastor and without her knowing they wanted to come. This was disruptive to the service that day and took attention from the pastor when he needed to be leading the service. Since then Faytene tries to be really sensitive to churches and ministries and make sure that they are honoured. This is why media seeking to attend an event Faytene is speaking at must get permission first. We trust you undertand and thank you for your sensitivity that these services are places of worship, not media scrum areas.)
At the same time, Faytene says this in one of her comments:
Secondly, I wanted to let you know that the reason we have the policy about asking the media to check in prior to coming to an event I am speaking at is really simple and common sense.
...
It is actually based on a situation in 2009 where a media network decided they wanted to come to a church service I was at and they were very last minute about it. The pastor was doing last minute preparations and the last minute “barg-in” by this network really threw him off. I felt really badly for the pastor. Since that time I have been really careful to make sure that churches I am at (speaking or just attending) are honoured. So, because of this we ask the media to contact us first so things can be done in a way that does not distract from the fact that these services are a time of prayer and sanctuary, not a media scrum event like a news conference. So, again, the disclaimer is common sense and is a gesture to honour churches which are almost always held on private property.
She adds this in another comment:
....We are happy to have media at our events AS LONG as they go through the proper protocols to make sure that nothing disrupts the flow of the day logistically. GOD TV is amazing and they have amazing hearts and we are happy to work with them.
We would [have] been happy to work with other media as well if they had inquired but none did. We had a lot of media that came to the second CRY (2006) and we did interviews with them all – it was great. You can likely still find some of the articles out there. If I am remembering correctly we made the 2nd page of the Ottawa Citizen – it was a full spread.
Since the focus of the day is to pray, we do not go after media attention, but if they want to come we are happy to work with them.....
It's nice to see that on a blog comment, she explains that as long as media try to work around what is going on instead of preventing it, she welcomes the media.
May we see a redrafted media policy sentence on her site then?
"Faytene welcomes all media coverage, but asks that media respect what is going on at events she is part of. If they prove distracting, she may respectfully ask the media to leave" might be a start.
As a former print reporter, I would like to cite how I think the media may respond to this. I can understand her not wanting disruptions to her work...but would we see them?
Media, I would suggest to Fayetene, don't like to ask "Mother may I" before covering a story. Wondering why the media isn't covering the swing to righteousness in Ottawa that Faytene sees? She is discouraging and not welcoming the media.
Including all media in one box might be a problem too. How disruptive is a reporter with a notebook or a radio station tape recorder?"
In defense of journalists, I don't think they default to preventing Faytene and ministers from doing their work. If Faytene can't do what she does, there's no story, whether you are inclined to like or dislike her.
I would really like to hear from the TV crew to hear their side of the story. Is it possible that they were only wanting a minute of the minister's time? That they had to meet a deadline? That they had waited for two hours for the minister to answer their questions? Was what they we doing only noticeable to one or two people?
I am reminded of something that was mentioned at The CRY Vancouver. At the end of the first evening, it was announced that Faytene and the others were tired and therefore could not field any prophetic words and basically needed to leave without being bothered.
I was able to happily respect this but, as I alluded to in my post on The CRY Vancouver, this could have posed a problem for a reporter for The Vancouver Sun. Lets assume that an assingment editor at the Sun, which goes to press for Saturday morning, had heard about the big CRY rally in Stanley Park on Saturday late on Friday afternoon. The only way to make sure that a story reading "Christians to rally in Stanley Park today"--which would be a better story for the Sun than "Christians rallied in Stanley Park two days ago" is to show up and ask questions. A Sun reporter would then be sent to Glad Tidings Church to do a preview story for the next day's paper and needs to talk to Faytene for five minutes...only to be told that she is going to bed.
Avoiding "disruption" can be a handy way to "control" coverage by stopping a story before it starts. Do I think Faytene would deliberately do this? No. But we can wonder she might be more amenable to making time for "non-disruptive" press that she can "control".
Her comments about "private property" reminded me of something that Faytene promoted at the CRY Vancouver. Young Christians were slated to do silent protests to oppose abortion, which she (and I) liked. Often, abortion clinics, in opposing such protests, have often used the defense that their clinics are "private property." Some Christians have reasoned that the good of being on the property to do their pro-life work outweighs the bad of being on "private property" without permission.
If Faytene were to think of these young people doing their silent protest against abortion and then consider that they might have to be at or near where the abortions were happening, and approve of them nevertheless, something interesting happens. Wouldn't it then follow that if someone in the media were acting in the public good by covering Faytene in possibly "disruptive" way, to expose something that may be going on, be in the public interest? If, and I emphasize "if", Faytene's words and actions were non-orthodox or dangerous, wouldn't media coverage be a moral imperative?
I don't want to predict that this would happen, but forcing all media to ask permission before coming to an event could allow for either turning certain reporters away at the door, or allow other reporters to be watched carefully as they work (which would be "disruptive" to them).
And now I would like to discuss some things that Faytene chose not to touch on.
Given that GOD TV has most of The CRY Vancouver on their website, why would having somewhat of a "control" on what gets out about the event still be useful? "Nothing hidden there"--unless your ministry decides not to publicize it any more?
And about my comments on being able to refute a critique? Faytene remains silent on why she feels a need to make such a critique impossible in case things are "twisted".
I made a point on dwelling on why Faytene would feel it necessary to protect "the government" by witholding video footage of the CRY. Why should it matter to a "non-partisan" ministry? If "the government" is shamed by delayed coverage of The CRY Vancouver and thus damaged due to its non-Christlikeness", wouldn't that be good? No explanation yet about that.
I would like to offer what I hope is a friendly piece of advice to Faytene. The secular media doesn't like when "the Lord" tells you to hide things. It's an insufficient excuse for them.
If she prefers that she learn this at the hands of a hostile secular journalist...welll...
Faytene is also dismayed that I fear that she and her groups might be too close to the Tories.
In one of her comments, she writes:
TheCRY is in no way aligned with any party. We simply pray for government and for a blessing on our leaders as scripture tells us to. As you also know, government is only one of many things we pray for: we also pray for the family, life issues, human trafficking, inner-city/poverty issues. So, praying for our leaders (as scripture tells us to) is just one of many things....
....Personally I have shared my heart openly and bluntly with Members of Parliament from every party. There are several in the Conservative party that I disagree with on issues, and I share that with them openly. There are also several in the other parties that I agree with on issues, and I also encourage them openly.
Does "openly" also mean "publicly"?
The CRY, I agree and have noted, is ostensibly non-partisan. But Faytene will perhaps forgive me that while she does lobby all parties, I do wonder why I see Conservative politician after Conservative politician at her various events?
I might reply, on her behalf, "Because that's where all the social conservatives in politics go." But this would work against her thesis that all parties are being influenced by the admittedly good work that she does in Ottawa.
Having politicians from other parties speaking at CRY events and talking about their legislation--even ones not in the House such as the Christian Heritage Party--might reassure that The CRY tries to endorse good Christlike ideas from any party, and is not the "young Tories at prayer."
Talk to people of all parties? Good. Disagree with even Tories? Good. But has Faytene ever publicly agreed with the Liberals and the NDP? (Not that she should, but...) Has she ever critiqued or criticized the Conservatives at something very public like The CRY...or has she instead let Tories on her stages to promote what they are doing? Not being afraid to critique her "Member of Parliament fiends" who are Tories would allow her to be as "non-partisan as she hopes to be.
Instead, however, we have Faytene telling a church audience that one of the reasons why she needs not to put footage on the Internet is because her "leadership team" is worried about hurting "the government". Why would a "non-partisan" ministry care if that happened, given that any government deserves to be harmed by the witness of Christians if the government's actions are not Christlike? Perhaps Faytene can explain.
This is why I wondered if Faytene is more concerned about maintaining access to government MPs, her "Member of Parliament friends" who have a "boss" who is the leader of the Tories as well as P.M..
If Faytene is wise, I suggest, her group will start to bring forward the members of other parties when they do things that they think the Lord would approve of.
Well, I have tried to be gracious in pointing out a few things that I have noticed. I would suggest to Faytene that before too long the secular media might notice that she always has Tories on her stage, talks up legislation from Tory MPs, and doesn't put out information, because "the Lord said so" and because it could hurt "the government". They might smell a rat.
I do try to be gracious towards Faytene Kryskow, when I can be. I am just worried, for her sake, that she isn't going to be as "wise as a serpent" when it comes to how she may be percieved by her potential foes on the left and in the media quickly enough.
I do try to be kind in what I am writing about her, when applicable. The people who are in a position to try to stop the good things that Faytene Kryskow does do, won't be.
Will she learn what she needs to learn in time? I hope so.
UPDATE: Faytene's two comments on my posts at BDBO:
2 Faytene Kryskow on Apr 15th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Hey Guys!!
Thanks for all the lovely promotion! You guys are a blessing .
We actually totally love the fact that GOD TV has kept TheCRY up and going for so many to watch, enjoy and use to pray along to for Canada.
They do great work.
We are happy to have media at our events AS LONG as they go through the proper protocols to make sure that nothing disrupts the flow of the day logistically. GOD TV is amazing and they have amazing hearts and we are happy to work with them.
We would of been happy to work with other media as well if they had inquired but none did. We had a lot of media that came to the second CRY (2006) and we did interviews with them all – it was great. You can likely still find some of the articles out there. If I am remembering correctly we made the 2nd page of the Ottawa Citizen – it was a full spread.
Since the focus of the day is to pray, we do not go after media attention, but if they want to come we are happy to work with them.
So – nothing hidden there .
We are really glad GOD TV still has it up and hope they keep it up forever!! It was an amazing day.
Bless you guys!!
Faytene
12 Faytene Kryskow on Apr 15th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Hey Guys!
Love and blessings to you!
I actually posted a couple things night but for some reason it did not get up. Strange…maybe suspicious . I will give the benifit of the doubt though and assume it was a tech glitch.
Firstly Rick I want to thank you for your encouragement and exhortation to be more bold! I will do that. Awesome.
Secondly, I wanted to let you know that the reason we have the policy about asking the media to check in prior to coming to an event I am speaking at is really simple and common sense.
It is actually based on a situation in 2009 where a media network decided they wanted to come to a church service I was at and they were very last minute about it. The pastor was doing last minute preparations and the last minute “barg-in” by this network really threw him off. I felt really badly for the pastor. Since that time I have been really careful to make sure that churches I am at (speaking or just attending) are honoured. So, because of this we ask the media to contact us first so things can be done in a way that does not distract from the fact that these services are a time of prayer and sanctuary, not a media scrum event like a news conference. So, again, the disclaimer is common sense and is a gesture to honour churches which are almost always held on private property.
Thirdly, the “twisting” I refer to is when people assume that TheCRY is in support of a specific political party because of the 2 graphs where something shifted, in a significant way, on the day of TheCRY. (How exiting that prayer is so effective…that encourages us that the prayers for all the other important issues are be answered too!!)
TheCRY is in no way aligned with any party. We simply pray for government and for a blessing on our leaders as scripture tells us to. As you also know, government is only one of many things we pray for: we also pray for the family, life issues, human trafficking, inner-city/poverty issues. So, praying for our leaders (as scripture tells us to) is just one of many things.
So, we are obviously not hiding anything or we would not be hosting these events in very public places . That is pretty obvious.
The only thing we ask is that the media is considerate and works with out team to make sure events, or Sunday morning services, are not disrupted. This is also common sense and every organization runs that way (government or advocacy).
Thanks again for your encouragement to be bold.
Personally I have shared my heart openly and bluntly with Members of Parliament from every party. There are several in the Conservative party that I disagree with on issues, and I share that with them openly. There are also several in the other parties that I agree with on issues, and I also encourage them openly.
I am glad to see that we agree on a few things Rick!
Many blessings to you and I am praying for you guys to both know, and exhibit, the love of Jesus in all you do.
With deep love in my heart. Blessings!!
Back to working hard on C-510…now that is something worth blogging about!! An incredible bill.
Faytene