I propose 2 main reasons that we don't see Jesus proclaimed boldly at inter-faith events such as the one you discuss:
1) "Thou shalt not offend" has become one of the great commandments of Western culture. This goes hand-in-hand with wanting to fit in. Thus we see many evangelical denominations, including the CRC, focusing more on social justice than the Gospel. Being a "climate witness" is not offensive to the world. In fact, you get praised for it by people of all faiths! But being a witness of the Gospel is offensive. You said the Christian leader who spoke focused on solidarity and justice. These are the things being emphasized to leaders in evangelical denominations, as part of their training & education. Thus when a "leader" is invited, you end up getting a totally different message than if the event organizers invited a non-leader, "lay-person" like me to the event.
2) In the rare case where the event organizers happen to invite a Christian who (unlike the "leaders" mentioned above) IS willing to boldly proclaim the message of the Gospel of Jesus, that person is pretty much guaranteed to be a one-hit wonder. They will never be invited to speak at an inter-faith solidarity event ever again. It would be wonderful if someone stood in front of an event like this and said "Christians mourn with those who mourn...but let me tell you about the One who can turn your mourning into dancing...the risen Christ!" Yeah, that person would not be invited to the next event. The event organizers would scratch that person's name off their list and go back to inviting the "social justice" Christian for the next event.
Herb, "good" is a bit of a stretch, as far as tens of thousands of CRC members are concerned. A quick survey of the Council members at my church would reveal that none of them support a tax on CO2.
Even if we give OSJ the benefit of the doubt on their Synodical mandate from 2012, wouldn't it be more unifying and more effective to encourage individual CRC members who believe in climate change to voluntarily commit to paying their own climate tax?
Every utility company (where I live it is Consumers Power and DTE Energy) offers a green energy program where people can voluntarily pay more for their energy, to support wind & solar. You who believe in global warming should do that! Individual church congregations who have signed up as Climate Witness partners should do that too! And OSJ should give both individual members and church congregations the ability to "sign their names" to a public document saying they have done so.
There are other things you can do too...most airlines and travel agencies give people the chance to purchase Carbon Offsets when they book their travel. Or better yet, sign a public pledge not to use air travel at all. What kind of message would it send if the CRC ended the policy of paying for air travel for employees, but instead required all employees to travel by bus or train?
Hi Tom. I'm a CRC member from Jenison, Michigan. I'm currently attending the Cooler/Smarter events being sponsored by OSJ and the Climate Witness project. I'm trying to learn as much as I can on the subject, so I find this discussion fascinating and productive.
After the 1st Cooler/Smarter session that I attended (at CRC world headquarters), the leader of the session loaned me a book by Katherine Hayhoe called "Climate for Change." It was published in 2009, so it was probably written in 2008 or even 2007. This 10 to 12 year difference from the current day makes some of Hayhoe's predictions very interesting.
You said global warming scientists' predictions have held up very well. In this book that was loaned to me, Hayhoe says that scientists predict the Arctic will be free of summer sea ice by 2015, and that there is no way to stop it. That prediction was totally incorrect.
Another way to approach the issue is to ask the question: What effect are CRC employees having in their political lobbying?
I can reference a specific example, a "personal story", if you will (I'm told that personal stories are powerful). It is not related to climate change, but the illustration holds.
You may recall that early in his presidency, Donald Trump instituted a travel ban from about half a dozen countries that were identified as terrorism hot spots. Employees of the CRC at the Office of Social Justice responded by calling on members of the CRC to call their "elected representatives" to say that "Christians do not support Donald Trump's immigration ban."
I waited a couple days, then I called Congressman Bill Huizinga's office in DC (he is my Congressman). Huizinga represents Michigan's 2nd Congressional District, which probably encompasses more members of the CRC than any other district in the entire United States. I spoke to one of Bill's staffers, and told her that employees of the Christian Reformed Church had urged me to call Bill. But instead of opposing the travel ban, I told Bill's staffer that I support it. Furthermore, I stated my belief that (contrary to OSJ's action alert) the travel ban was completely and totally compatible with Biblical principles. Finally, I asked Bill's staffer how many other CRC members had called, but had voiced opposition to the ban. Or maybe had not identified as a CRC member, but opposed the ban on moral or religious grounds.
Zero. Bill's staffer said they had not received a single call like that since the "action alert" was sent out.
So again..if the lobbying is not actually getting people to act, what is it accomplishing?
Other than, dividing members of the CRC...and providing jobs. But I'm open to other feedback; does anyone think the lobbying is having a great effect on public policy?
Eric, the Green New Deal is the perfectly logical public policy conclusion of anyone who believes that global warming is being caused almost exclusively by burning fossil fuels, and that the warming is going to have immediate and devastating effects on life as we know it.
As much as I vehemently disagree with the policies it proposes, I give the Green New Deal's backers credit for having the intellectual honesty to propose drastic changes. Finally, a proposal that matches the alarm!
And, I think it is a very fair (and logical) question to ask: Should the CRC back this plan?
If we, as a denomination, truly believe the 97% consensus on global warming (the 1st step would be believing there is a 97% consensus), the CRC should back this plan. And denominational offices, agencies, and employees should take drastic steps to reduce their CO2 emissions, immediately,
Hi Herb. I placed "unifying" ahead of "more effective" for a very good reason. What are your thoughts on the best way to promote unity in the CRC while fulfilling the 2012 decision on global warming? Wouldn't it be more unifying for CRC employees to encourage those who believe in global warming to take action (i.e. to do things like join Consumers Energy's green energy program)? Even though I wouldn't personally take such action (because I do not believe in global warming), I fully support you taking that action. Thus, unity.
As for effectiveness, which is more effective? Lobbying for a new tax that may or may not pass sometime down the road, which may or may not actually reduce CO2 emissions? Or believers in global warming taking action now that reduces their own CO2 emissions, and funds green energy programs?
Unity is a command that comes from Scripture. Reducing CO2 production is not. So the prioritization seems pretty simple there.
As for effectiveness, it's not a false choice. The reality of a CO2 tax is that:
1) The earliest it could possibly go into effect is 2021 (as the current Senate and President are not in favor of it).
2) It does not reduce CO2 production...it simply makes coal, oil, and natural gas more expensive, and hopes that higher price forces people to switch to other energy supplies.
On the flip side, if everyone who says they believe in global warming took drastic steps today to cut their CO2 emissions, and started putting as much money as possible into wind & solar, you would have a definite and immediate effect on CO2 emissions (which would clearly be more effective than a theoretical effect sometime in the theoretical future...which is what you get with a CO2 tax).
Which leads us to something that baffles me more & more, as I learn more about global warming ideology. Perhaps you can help me understand it. Why aren't believers in global warming taking more drastic steps in their own personal lives to curb CO2 productions? If it is true that CO2 is already causing devastation all over the world, and CO2 production is going to have catastrophic effects on life as we know it on planet Earth, where is the personal urgency?
Hmmm...it's almost like men should teach their sons to cherish and protect the women in their lives. To honor those women. To hold the door open for them. To speak to women respectfully, and not like they would to "another guy." To practice modesty and act in a chivalrous manner. To treat women better. In other words, to act like a real man.
And then to expect the same honorable behavior from their brothers, friends, and fathers.
Roger, we can't confuse acceptance with effectiveness. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only effective solution to the problems being discussed at these interfaith events. But that does not mean it will be accepted by all those present, particularly by the leadership in charge of such events (and invited back to the next event). Think of Paul preaching to the Jewish leaders.
The religion that you have said you practice is more likely to be accepted by politicians, liberal Christian leaders, and leaders of other religions, because it does not ask them to repent or change. It is seen as inclusive and non-judgmental. On the other hand, a clear presentation of the Gospel of Jesus requires people to submit to His authority. That is not very popular with the leaders in these circles!
The irony is that even those who have rejected the Gospel of Jesus benefit from the peace and tranquility the Gospel brings to humanity.
Ken, you are absolutely correct. I should have put the word "more" in front of those actions. More honor. More respect. I definitely don't mean that men should treat the men in their lives in an un-Biblical way. Or that women have free reign to be disrespectful. That's a good call on your part.
I'm running into many people who say they believe in global warming, but they've done nothing in their personal life to drastically reduce their CO2 emissions. This includes people who would be considered "sold-out" global warming evangelists. I like to ask people about this, from a standpoint of pure curiosity, but people get very defensive about it.
8 - )
I wouldn't say "personal CO2 reductions" and "speaking out in favor of a CO2 tax" are either/or. Certainly people who believe in global warming should do both. I'm just saying one is a guaranteed way to have an effect now (but will cause the person some minor discomfort in their personal life), while the other will not be happening anytime soon (but causes no personal discomfort).
And it fascinates me that people who proclaim the immediate and catastrophic destruction of life as we know it won't do the former, but will do the latter.
Hi Ken. As part of my participation in the Cooler/Smarter series being sponsored by the Climate Witness Project, I have been doing a LOT of research into this area. The more I learn, the more it becomes clear that the potential of wind & solar is vastly overstated, and the damaging environmental impact of wind & solar is vastly understated. They are useful in certain situations, and I'm certainly thankful to God for them in those situations. But wind & solar are totally inadequate for replacing coal, oil, and natural gas. (Side note...solar energy is AWESOME in its power for warming our planet and feeding our plants...but that is through direct sunlight and not through solar panels).
8 - )
I look forward to sharing my findings in the future, and I hope you will continue to interact with my posts. Thanks!
Posted in: Where Are the Evangelicals?
Thanks for raising an important discussion, Greg.
I propose 2 main reasons that we don't see Jesus proclaimed boldly at inter-faith events such as the one you discuss:
1) "Thou shalt not offend" has become one of the great commandments of Western culture. This goes hand-in-hand with wanting to fit in. Thus we see many evangelical denominations, including the CRC, focusing more on social justice than the Gospel. Being a "climate witness" is not offensive to the world. In fact, you get praised for it by people of all faiths! But being a witness of the Gospel is offensive. You said the Christian leader who spoke focused on solidarity and justice. These are the things being emphasized to leaders in evangelical denominations, as part of their training & education. Thus when a "leader" is invited, you end up getting a totally different message than if the event organizers invited a non-leader, "lay-person" like me to the event.
2) In the rare case where the event organizers happen to invite a Christian who (unlike the "leaders" mentioned above) IS willing to boldly proclaim the message of the Gospel of Jesus, that person is pretty much guaranteed to be a one-hit wonder. They will never be invited to speak at an inter-faith solidarity event ever again. It would be wonderful if someone stood in front of an event like this and said "Christians mourn with those who mourn...but let me tell you about the One who can turn your mourning into dancing...the risen Christ!" Yeah, that person would not be invited to the next event. The event organizers would scratch that person's name off their list and go back to inviting the "social justice" Christian for the next event.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Herb, "good" is a bit of a stretch, as far as tens of thousands of CRC members are concerned. A quick survey of the Council members at my church would reveal that none of them support a tax on CO2.
Even if we give OSJ the benefit of the doubt on their Synodical mandate from 2012, wouldn't it be more unifying and more effective to encourage individual CRC members who believe in climate change to voluntarily commit to paying their own climate tax?
Every utility company (where I live it is Consumers Power and DTE Energy) offers a green energy program where people can voluntarily pay more for their energy, to support wind & solar. You who believe in global warming should do that! Individual church congregations who have signed up as Climate Witness partners should do that too! And OSJ should give both individual members and church congregations the ability to "sign their names" to a public document saying they have done so.
There are other things you can do too...most airlines and travel agencies give people the chance to purchase Carbon Offsets when they book their travel. Or better yet, sign a public pledge not to use air travel at all. What kind of message would it send if the CRC ended the policy of paying for air travel for employees, but instead required all employees to travel by bus or train?
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Hi Tom. I'm a CRC member from Jenison, Michigan. I'm currently attending the Cooler/Smarter events being sponsored by OSJ and the Climate Witness project. I'm trying to learn as much as I can on the subject, so I find this discussion fascinating and productive.
After the 1st Cooler/Smarter session that I attended (at CRC world headquarters), the leader of the session loaned me a book by Katherine Hayhoe called "Climate for Change." It was published in 2009, so it was probably written in 2008 or even 2007. This 10 to 12 year difference from the current day makes some of Hayhoe's predictions very interesting.
You said global warming scientists' predictions have held up very well. In this book that was loaned to me, Hayhoe says that scientists predict the Arctic will be free of summer sea ice by 2015, and that there is no way to stop it. That prediction was totally incorrect.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Another way to approach the issue is to ask the question: What effect are CRC employees having in their political lobbying?
I can reference a specific example, a "personal story", if you will (I'm told that personal stories are powerful). It is not related to climate change, but the illustration holds.
You may recall that early in his presidency, Donald Trump instituted a travel ban from about half a dozen countries that were identified as terrorism hot spots. Employees of the CRC at the Office of Social Justice responded by calling on members of the CRC to call their "elected representatives" to say that "Christians do not support Donald Trump's immigration ban."
I waited a couple days, then I called Congressman Bill Huizinga's office in DC (he is my Congressman). Huizinga represents Michigan's 2nd Congressional District, which probably encompasses more members of the CRC than any other district in the entire United States. I spoke to one of Bill's staffers, and told her that employees of the Christian Reformed Church had urged me to call Bill. But instead of opposing the travel ban, I told Bill's staffer that I support it. Furthermore, I stated my belief that (contrary to OSJ's action alert) the travel ban was completely and totally compatible with Biblical principles. Finally, I asked Bill's staffer how many other CRC members had called, but had voiced opposition to the ban. Or maybe had not identified as a CRC member, but opposed the ban on moral or religious grounds.
Zero. Bill's staffer said they had not received a single call like that since the "action alert" was sent out.
So again..if the lobbying is not actually getting people to act, what is it accomplishing?
Other than, dividing members of the CRC...and providing jobs. But I'm open to other feedback; does anyone think the lobbying is having a great effect on public policy?
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Eric, the Green New Deal is the perfectly logical public policy conclusion of anyone who believes that global warming is being caused almost exclusively by burning fossil fuels, and that the warming is going to have immediate and devastating effects on life as we know it.
As much as I vehemently disagree with the policies it proposes, I give the Green New Deal's backers credit for having the intellectual honesty to propose drastic changes. Finally, a proposal that matches the alarm!
And, I think it is a very fair (and logical) question to ask: Should the CRC back this plan?
If we, as a denomination, truly believe the 97% consensus on global warming (the 1st step would be believing there is a 97% consensus), the CRC should back this plan. And denominational offices, agencies, and employees should take drastic steps to reduce their CO2 emissions, immediately,
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Hi Herb. I placed "unifying" ahead of "more effective" for a very good reason. What are your thoughts on the best way to promote unity in the CRC while fulfilling the 2012 decision on global warming? Wouldn't it be more unifying for CRC employees to encourage those who believe in global warming to take action (i.e. to do things like join Consumers Energy's green energy program)? Even though I wouldn't personally take such action (because I do not believe in global warming), I fully support you taking that action. Thus, unity.
As for effectiveness, which is more effective? Lobbying for a new tax that may or may not pass sometime down the road, which may or may not actually reduce CO2 emissions? Or believers in global warming taking action now that reduces their own CO2 emissions, and funds green energy programs?
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Unity is a command that comes from Scripture. Reducing CO2 production is not. So the prioritization seems pretty simple there.
As for effectiveness, it's not a false choice. The reality of a CO2 tax is that:
1) The earliest it could possibly go into effect is 2021 (as the current Senate and President are not in favor of it).
2) It does not reduce CO2 production...it simply makes coal, oil, and natural gas more expensive, and hopes that higher price forces people to switch to other energy supplies.
On the flip side, if everyone who says they believe in global warming took drastic steps today to cut their CO2 emissions, and started putting as much money as possible into wind & solar, you would have a definite and immediate effect on CO2 emissions (which would clearly be more effective than a theoretical effect sometime in the theoretical future...which is what you get with a CO2 tax).
Which leads us to something that baffles me more & more, as I learn more about global warming ideology. Perhaps you can help me understand it. Why aren't believers in global warming taking more drastic steps in their own personal lives to curb CO2 productions? If it is true that CO2 is already causing devastation all over the world, and CO2 production is going to have catastrophic effects on life as we know it on planet Earth, where is the personal urgency?
Posted in: Gillette: The Best a Man Can Get?
Hmmm...it's almost like men should teach their sons to cherish and protect the women in their lives. To honor those women. To hold the door open for them. To speak to women respectfully, and not like they would to "another guy." To practice modesty and act in a chivalrous manner. To treat women better. In other words, to act like a real man.
And then to expect the same honorable behavior from their brothers, friends, and fathers.
Posted in: Where Are the Evangelicals?
Roger, we can't confuse acceptance with effectiveness. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only effective solution to the problems being discussed at these interfaith events. But that does not mean it will be accepted by all those present, particularly by the leadership in charge of such events (and invited back to the next event). Think of Paul preaching to the Jewish leaders.
The religion that you have said you practice is more likely to be accepted by politicians, liberal Christian leaders, and leaders of other religions, because it does not ask them to repent or change. It is seen as inclusive and non-judgmental. On the other hand, a clear presentation of the Gospel of Jesus requires people to submit to His authority. That is not very popular with the leaders in these circles!
The irony is that even those who have rejected the Gospel of Jesus benefit from the peace and tranquility the Gospel brings to humanity.
Posted in: Gillette: The Best a Man Can Get?
Ken, you are absolutely correct. I should have put the word "more" in front of those actions. More honor. More respect. I definitely don't mean that men should treat the men in their lives in an un-Biblical way. Or that women have free reign to be disrespectful. That's a good call on your part.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
I'm running into many people who say they believe in global warming, but they've done nothing in their personal life to drastically reduce their CO2 emissions. This includes people who would be considered "sold-out" global warming evangelists. I like to ask people about this, from a standpoint of pure curiosity, but people get very defensive about it.
8 - )
I wouldn't say "personal CO2 reductions" and "speaking out in favor of a CO2 tax" are either/or. Certainly people who believe in global warming should do both. I'm just saying one is a guaranteed way to have an effect now (but will cause the person some minor discomfort in their personal life), while the other will not be happening anytime soon (but causes no personal discomfort).
And it fascinates me that people who proclaim the immediate and catastrophic destruction of life as we know it won't do the former, but will do the latter.
Posted in: Thank God for Fossil Fuels!
Hi Ken. As part of my participation in the Cooler/Smarter series being sponsored by the Climate Witness Project, I have been doing a LOT of research into this area. The more I learn, the more it becomes clear that the potential of wind & solar is vastly overstated, and the damaging environmental impact of wind & solar is vastly understated. They are useful in certain situations, and I'm certainly thankful to God for them in those situations. But wind & solar are totally inadequate for replacing coal, oil, and natural gas. (Side note...solar energy is AWESOME in its power for warming our planet and feeding our plants...but that is through direct sunlight and not through solar panels).
8 - )
I look forward to sharing my findings in the future, and I hope you will continue to interact with my posts. Thanks!