Tom, Chapter 15 ("On Thin Ice") of Katherine Hayhoe's book "A Climate For Change" (again, I'm reading it as part of my involvement in OSJ's Cooler/Smarter series says (page 97):
"Today, scientists suggest the summer Arctic will be ice-free as soon as 2015. There is no way to stop it."
The only range of possible outcomes Hayhoe gives is:
"Just a decade ago, scientists were speculating that the summer Arctic might be ice-free toward the end of the twentyfirst century. A few years ago, the best projections were showing an ice-free Arctic as early as 2040. Today scientists suggest the summer Arctic will be ice-free as soon as 2015. There is no way to stop it."
In other words, things are getting dramatically worse! Except these "scientists" prediction was wrong by 1,700,000 square miles. Whoops.
Ken, you were not mistaken at all. My post is definitely thanking God for blessings, specifically the blessing of coal, oil, and natural gas, which provide almost all of the energy that all of us use on a daily basis. Simply put, these resources keep us alive. Not only that, but fossil fuel resources are a main reason that humanity has advanced so much in the last 150 years.
Many of us are alarmed that God's blessing is being called a curse. Thus the reason for my Prayer of Thanksgiving for Fossil Fuels. It is to set the record straight, and start thanking God for something that others take for granted at best, and at worse they demonize and complain about.
As to the questions and responses to your post, it is because of your statement that "the Lord is now giving us alternatives to accomplish the same thing that are better for our environment He created!" That statement deserves to be questioned because it is simply inaccurate (assuming that you are referring to wind & solar...if you are referring to nuclear energy then you have a valid point). No one is questioning you or your thankfulness. On the contrary, I welcome your input! You are free to question anything I write. I have no problem with that.
Pease consider these 3 questions:
- Are wind & solar truly capable of accomplishing the same things as coal, oil, & natural gas?
- Are wind & solar truly better for the environment than coal, oil, & natural gas?
- Are people being accurate, or fair to God, when they consider coal, oil, & natural gas a curse?
While I agree that with Doug that the BEST course of action would be for the CRC to pull totally and completely out of the global warming debate, until and unless that happens one thing is very clear.
By choosing to enter the fray on the issue, Synod, CRC employees, and others connected to the CRC have thrown the door WIDE open to having a public debate about the issue. Any attempt to silence those of us who enter the discussion on the side of skepticism and wanting better science is completely out of line. (And frankly, it makes me suspect the weakness of one side in the debate.) We in the CRC cannot open the door, then complain that people want to walk through the door, from one side or the other.
Doug, I agree that it is not the Church's area of authority to wade into the topic of CO2 taxes. But let me play devil's advocate here...
Synod 2018 was overtured by 2 different classes to stop CRC agencies from political lobbying. (You have very close knowledge of that...your overture was extremely well written, by the way).
Synod 2018 chose to allow CRC employees & agencies to keep using CRC funds to do political lobbying. Thus the employees at OSJ essentially have a blank check to support or oppose any legislation they decide to, correct?
Eric, thanks for sharing that information. It is fascinating. I had not seen this before, or even heard of Dr. Judith Curry. I don't agree with everything she said there (what human being does agree with everything someone else says), but I love her approach.
I particularly celebrate the idea of identifying courses of action that can have benefits from multiple angles. Maybe it reduces CO2 production. But it also provides other tangible benefits (just in case this global warming thing turns out to be minor and/or completely natural).
So...until and unless Synod starts applying CO Article 28 to these issues, the reality on the ground is that CRC employees are permitted to use CRC resources to support (or oppose) specific, one-sided political policies.
As you correctly point out, "permitted" does not equal "required." Given this reality, denominational EMPLOYEEShave 3 options available to them:
1) The "99% Agree Option"
2) The "50% Disagree but Get Along Option"
3) The "Divided Option"
The "99% Agree Option" would work like this...when it comes to socio-political topics, CRC employees would use CRC resources to support policies that 99% of CRC members generally agree on. Example...on the topic of environmentalism, they would support policies toward reducing objectively harmful pollution, good stewardship of natural resources, conservationism, and thankfulness for God's creation. They would avoid controversial, one-sided policies like CO2 taxes.
The "50% Disagree but Get Along Option" would mean CRC employees DO use CRC resources to support controversial, one-sided policies, but only in a very GENERAL manner, and they emphasize PERSONAL action as a matter of personal conscience. Going back to our example of environmentalism...CRC employees could encourage individuals who believe in Global Warming to reduce their personal CO2 production, but not go so far as to support CO2 taxes. 50% of the members of the CRC might disagree with the position, but the soft-sell approach allows us to still get along.
Finally, the "Divided Option" would mean that CRC employees go all out in supporting controversial, one-sided policies. The issues are very complex & nuanced, allowing for TONS of differing viewpoints, all vying for supremacy. Following our example of environmentalism, this would mean CRC employees use CRC resources to support CO2 taxes, and encourage members to contact politicians to ask them to pass specific CO2 tax legislation.
Hi Roger. No worries. I do not take your statement as crass or mean-spirited at all. You simply missed my point. That is my fault for not explaining it well.
I completely understand that the Gospel of Jesus is different than all man-made religions, the man-made religions being based on completing enough works to earn "right-ness." The Gospel of Jesus requires our submission to the reality that our works are never adequate to earn right-ness.
Thus followers of man-made religions would readily accept deism (subjective moralism) as a non-threatening, kindred spirit. "I'm good with god, and you are too" is not a threat to Muslims, Hindus, atheists, or followers of earth-based indigenous religions. The organizers of inter-faith religious events are happy to include that sort of ideology.
***Side note*** Your choice of South Africa is an interesting one. Not much peace and tranquility there right now. The people of South Africa definitely need more of the Gospel of Jesus.
The advances of "secular culture" are precisely what I was referring to. Such advances were only possible because of the civilizing and peaceful influence of Christians following the true Gospel. Remove Christianity from the last 2000 years (going further back...remove the Jewish religion from the last 4000 years) and the world is a dark, deadly, terrible place. There would be no advances in civilization in such a world.
Doug, your suggestions related to how offices & employees of the CRC could approach immigration are great examples of what a "99% Agree" approach would look like.
When our CRC employees take one of the other approaches, the tens of thousands of CRC members who do not support the policies being promoted are left with 2 options:
1) Say nothing (which I believe is a form of denying one's own conscience, as it implies endorsement), or
2) Speak up and risk being charged with "undermining the ministry of the church" (which often leads to being blocked & banned from the discussion).
In other words, intentionally using CRC resources to lobby for controversial policies (such as CO2 taxes, de-facto open borders, expanded government welfare programs, acceptance of pagan religious practices, etc.) will inevitably lead to disagreement in the CRC. And to get "upset" at, and attempt to silence, those who disagree seems disingenuous, right?
Hi Kristen. You probably are being too idealistic. But this world needs more idealism.
Yes, it seems that compromise is the best solution. But it remains to be seen if "bludgeon the other side until they give in" will be the reality of what happens.
I would hope that the Dems can offer money to fund the beginnings of a border wall, allowing Trump to begin construction in the most urgent areas. Then on the flipside, the Repubs can offer something such as permanent legal status to the most vulnerable of the Dreamers. That's the sort of solution the CRC has called for in the past.
In the meantime, the Dems and the media will attempt to bludgeon Trump into submission, demanding a budget with zero money for a border wall. And Trump (who so far, to his credit, has signaled he is willing to compromise), may change his tactics and demand wall-funding with no concessions.
Does anyone know if the Office of Social Justice has something like "adopt a family" for entire church congregations to take charge of 1 family and help them settle into their new home country? I for one would LOVE to help immigrants to America study for their naturalization test, or practice their English, or just feel more "at home" by inviting them over for a Memorial Day BBQ. But I honestly wouldn't know where to start, and that seems like something our OSJ people could help to facilitate?
I've heard from Border Patrol agents and residents on the ground who say that a physical barrier of some kind is necessary on certain parts of the border. I understand the emotional opposition to a "wall". But I would be more inclined to listen to the professionals on the border than to my own fickle feelings. That said, I agree that a Berlin-wall style, concrete barrier stretching the entire length of the US/Mexico border does not fit with American values. Something a little more sleek and strategic would be both effective and more palatable to our emotions.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Tom, Chapter 15 ("On Thin Ice") of Katherine Hayhoe's book "A Climate For Change" (again, I'm reading it as part of my involvement in OSJ's Cooler/Smarter series says (page 97):
"Today, scientists suggest the summer Arctic will be ice-free as soon as 2015. There is no way to stop it."
The only range of possible outcomes Hayhoe gives is:
"Just a decade ago, scientists were speculating that the summer Arctic might be ice-free toward the end of the twentyfirst century. A few years ago, the best projections were showing an ice-free Arctic as early as 2040. Today scientists suggest the summer Arctic will be ice-free as soon as 2015. There is no way to stop it."
In other words, things are getting dramatically worse! Except these "scientists" prediction was wrong by 1,700,000 square miles. Whoops.
Posted in: Thank God for Fossil Fuels!
Ken, you were not mistaken at all. My post is definitely thanking God for blessings, specifically the blessing of coal, oil, and natural gas, which provide almost all of the energy that all of us use on a daily basis. Simply put, these resources keep us alive. Not only that, but fossil fuel resources are a main reason that humanity has advanced so much in the last 150 years.
Many of us are alarmed that God's blessing is being called a curse. Thus the reason for my Prayer of Thanksgiving for Fossil Fuels. It is to set the record straight, and start thanking God for something that others take for granted at best, and at worse they demonize and complain about.
As to the questions and responses to your post, it is because of your statement that "the Lord is now giving us alternatives to accomplish the same thing that are better for our environment He created!" That statement deserves to be questioned because it is simply inaccurate (assuming that you are referring to wind & solar...if you are referring to nuclear energy then you have a valid point). No one is questioning you or your thankfulness. On the contrary, I welcome your input! You are free to question anything I write. I have no problem with that.
Pease consider these 3 questions:
- Are wind & solar truly capable of accomplishing the same things as coal, oil, & natural gas?
- Are wind & solar truly better for the environment than coal, oil, & natural gas?
- Are people being accurate, or fair to God, when they consider coal, oil, & natural gas a curse?
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
While I agree that with Doug that the BEST course of action would be for the CRC to pull totally and completely out of the global warming debate, until and unless that happens one thing is very clear.
By choosing to enter the fray on the issue, Synod, CRC employees, and others connected to the CRC have thrown the door WIDE open to having a public debate about the issue. Any attempt to silence those of us who enter the discussion on the side of skepticism and wanting better science is completely out of line. (And frankly, it makes me suspect the weakness of one side in the debate.) We in the CRC cannot open the door, then complain that people want to walk through the door, from one side or the other.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Doug, I agree that it is not the Church's area of authority to wade into the topic of CO2 taxes. But let me play devil's advocate here...
Synod 2018 was overtured by 2 different classes to stop CRC agencies from political lobbying. (You have very close knowledge of that...your overture was extremely well written, by the way).
Synod 2018 chose to allow CRC employees & agencies to keep using CRC funds to do political lobbying. Thus the employees at OSJ essentially have a blank check to support or oppose any legislation they decide to, correct?
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Eric, thanks for sharing that information. It is fascinating. I had not seen this before, or even heard of Dr. Judith Curry. I don't agree with everything she said there (what human being does agree with everything someone else says), but I love her approach.
I particularly celebrate the idea of identifying courses of action that can have benefits from multiple angles. Maybe it reduces CO2 production. But it also provides other tangible benefits (just in case this global warming thing turns out to be minor and/or completely natural).
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
So...until and unless Synod starts applying CO Article 28 to these issues, the reality on the ground is that CRC employees are permitted to use CRC resources to support (or oppose) specific, one-sided political policies.
As you correctly point out, "permitted" does not equal "required." Given this reality, denominational EMPLOYEES have 3 options available to them:
1) The "99% Agree Option"
2) The "50% Disagree but Get Along Option"
3) The "Divided Option"
The "99% Agree Option" would work like this...when it comes to socio-political topics, CRC employees would use CRC resources to support policies that 99% of CRC members generally agree on. Example...on the topic of environmentalism, they would support policies toward reducing objectively harmful pollution, good stewardship of natural resources, conservationism, and thankfulness for God's creation. They would avoid controversial, one-sided policies like CO2 taxes.
The "50% Disagree but Get Along Option" would mean CRC employees DO use CRC resources to support controversial, one-sided policies, but only in a very GENERAL manner, and they emphasize PERSONAL action as a matter of personal conscience. Going back to our example of environmentalism...CRC employees could encourage individuals who believe in Global Warming to reduce their personal CO2 production, but not go so far as to support CO2 taxes. 50% of the members of the CRC might disagree with the position, but the soft-sell approach allows us to still get along.
Finally, the "Divided Option" would mean that CRC employees go all out in supporting controversial, one-sided policies. The issues are very complex & nuanced, allowing for TONS of differing viewpoints, all vying for supremacy. Following our example of environmentalism, this would mean CRC employees use CRC resources to support CO2 taxes, and encourage members to contact politicians to ask them to pass specific CO2 tax legislation.
We seem to be leaning toward Option 3, correct?
Posted in: Where Are the Evangelicals?
Hi Roger. No worries. I do not take your statement as crass or mean-spirited at all. You simply missed my point. That is my fault for not explaining it well.
I completely understand that the Gospel of Jesus is different than all man-made religions, the man-made religions being based on completing enough works to earn "right-ness." The Gospel of Jesus requires our submission to the reality that our works are never adequate to earn right-ness.
Thus followers of man-made religions would readily accept deism (subjective moralism) as a non-threatening, kindred spirit. "I'm good with god, and you are too" is not a threat to Muslims, Hindus, atheists, or followers of earth-based indigenous religions. The organizers of inter-faith religious events are happy to include that sort of ideology.
***Side note*** Your choice of South Africa is an interesting one. Not much peace and tranquility there right now. The people of South Africa definitely need more of the Gospel of Jesus.
The advances of "secular culture" are precisely what I was referring to. Such advances were only possible because of the civilizing and peaceful influence of Christians following the true Gospel. Remove Christianity from the last 2000 years (going further back...remove the Jewish religion from the last 4000 years) and the world is a dark, deadly, terrible place. There would be no advances in civilization in such a world.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Doug, your suggestions related to how offices & employees of the CRC could approach immigration are great examples of what a "99% Agree" approach would look like.
When our CRC employees take one of the other approaches, the tens of thousands of CRC members who do not support the policies being promoted are left with 2 options:
1) Say nothing (which I believe is a form of denying one's own conscience, as it implies endorsement), or
2) Speak up and risk being charged with "undermining the ministry of the church" (which often leads to being blocked & banned from the discussion).
In other words, intentionally using CRC resources to lobby for controversial policies (such as CO2 taxes, de-facto open borders, expanded government welfare programs, acceptance of pagan religious practices, etc.) will inevitably lead to disagreement in the CRC. And to get "upset" at, and attempt to silence, those who disagree seems disingenuous, right?
Posted in: When a Muslim Studies Galatians What Does He See?
Akhtar gets one thing correct:
"Christians and Muslims are fighting a decisive battle for the true image of humanity."
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
Hi Kristen. You probably are being too idealistic. But this world needs more idealism.
Yes, it seems that compromise is the best solution. But it remains to be seen if "bludgeon the other side until they give in" will be the reality of what happens.
I would hope that the Dems can offer money to fund the beginnings of a border wall, allowing Trump to begin construction in the most urgent areas. Then on the flipside, the Repubs can offer something such as permanent legal status to the most vulnerable of the Dreamers. That's the sort of solution the CRC has called for in the past.
In the meantime, the Dems and the media will attempt to bludgeon Trump into submission, demanding a budget with zero money for a border wall. And Trump (who so far, to his credit, has signaled he is willing to compromise), may change his tactics and demand wall-funding with no concessions.
Please keep your idealism!
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
Diane, that is a great idea!
Does anyone know if the Office of Social Justice has something like "adopt a family" for entire church congregations to take charge of 1 family and help them settle into their new home country? I for one would LOVE to help immigrants to America study for their naturalization test, or practice their English, or just feel more "at home" by inviting them over for a Memorial Day BBQ. But I honestly wouldn't know where to start, and that seems like something our OSJ people could help to facilitate?
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
I've heard from Border Patrol agents and residents on the ground who say that a physical barrier of some kind is necessary on certain parts of the border. I understand the emotional opposition to a "wall". But I would be more inclined to listen to the professionals on the border than to my own fickle feelings. That said, I agree that a Berlin-wall style, concrete barrier stretching the entire length of the US/Mexico border does not fit with American values. Something a little more sleek and strategic would be both effective and more palatable to our emotions.