30 July 2026. – A church newspaper and a research task team walk into a retreat centre … 

This annual collaboration between Kerkbode and the DRC’s research unit is built on three pillars: Learn (day 1). Communicate (day 2). Reflect (day 3).

The learning component was the launch of the results of Church Mirror 2026, a comprehensive “state of the DRC” styled survey polling more than 600 congregations across South Africa around various aspects of life as a faith community. 

The communication component stood on two legs: preparing to write by turning the gaze inward and raising awareness. Can I locate and articulate how I feel about the data? Where is defensiveness kicking in regarding polling results that trigger some kind of shame (am I part of a church that feels THIS way about THAT thing?), or anger for being at odds with some deeply held conviction that I might not even be fully aware of (congregations HAVE TO reflect a diverse country or hurtle towards the newcomer, or not do well financially etc). Where does my attention go in the data set? What am I avoiding writing or even talking about? Big one: Is there boredom that I’m disowning out of strong conditioning to be super engaged about anything shown to me by authority figures? Where is the deflection that I employ? Do I change the topic and start writing about material I feel more competent with or resort to random story-telling? Can I observe these feelings? Then, can I name the ‘stance’ I observe myself taking. My posture on the page. My ego-state, in the words of Eric Berne, Thomas Harris and the like. Do I instinctively move toward cherry-picking “stories of hope”? (I’m OK, you’re OK). The posture of the Optimist. Do I automatically start explaining things back at the data from a place of presumed or actual authority? (I’m OK, you’re not OK). The posture of the Boss. Do I move towards victim-y terrain (you’re OK, I’m not OK)? The posture of the Malcontent. 

Feel the feeling. Name the instinctual stance. Bring attention to the selection of the often unexamined posture you assume on the page. Then re-commit to what you actually want to write and decide what format / genre serves it best: a “straight” news-style article, an opinion piece, a listicle (six things new data reveals about the church, 5 trends that will surprise you, 3 things that …), deeper analysis. Now the work for Day 3 (Reflecting on each other’s articles) is clearer: What are the conventions of the chosen format / article type to which the writer is trying to adhere? The answer to that gives you a concrete way of evaluating content and turns a generalised “what do you think?” feedback round into something more focused: does this piece work as an opinion piece and what are the (for lack of a better word) success criteria I need to improve on if the answer is no.