I don't think I'm as unable to understand the Canadian issues as you might suppose. I've done a lot of public interest work in the area of the US constitution's first amendment rights and my reading of the majority, concurring and dissenting opinions in this CA case persuaded me that the underlying issues and concepts were not so different in the Canadian context than in the US context, even if our cases have different names, and our constitutional provisions and legislative enactments use different words.
In this case, my reading of the dissenting opinion (of the two justices) was quite familiar with what I would expect from an opinion issues by some judges in the US, and the majority and concurring options with what I would expect from other judges. Again, the underlying concepts were really the same. What perhaps is different is that the numeric balance in the US Supreme Court would probably not mirror what is was in this Canadian Sup Ct case. In the US, I would guess that the dissenting opinion (the vote from the two dissenters) would be the opinion from 5 or more US Sup Ct justices.
Nor do I think this case is as "complex" or "nuanced" as some would (you or even the author of the post perhaps). The fundamental question is: Do the organizational entities that grant or deny accreditation (a government like role) appropriately take in account the (faith meaningful) requirements of the covenant as used by TWU? The majority and concurring justices said 'yes' (even if with some nuance of argument difference), that the rights of LGBTQ+ citizens to have un-inconvenienced access to all (not just public) law schools, public or private, trumps TWU's right to apply its student covenant requirements that are rooted in its faith commitments. Said another way, the majority/concurring justices are saying TWU must conform to a CA government mindset about LGBTQ+ behavior -- quite entirely -- to gain governmental approval to train lawyers.
What your response does not address is my suggestion that the logic of this Sup Ct decision probably invalidates (if/when challenged) much more of TWU's student covenant that what was the focus of this Sup Ct decision. I don't think my "Canadian law naivete" gets in my way there, since the two dissenters in this case were quite obviously thinking the same thing, which is why they and they only discussed concerns about political pluralism. I may be "Canadian law naive," but at least I have the company of two Canadian Supreme Court justices. :-)
Finally, I would note what this means for institutions of other faiths in Canada. Could Muslims start a law school in Canada and obtain accreditation for it? My answer would be "no," unless: (1) the Muslims starting that law school were willing to give up quite a bit of their faith assumptions as a basis from which they enrolled a student body and taught justice, or (2) the Canadian Sup Ct were to decide to treat such efforts by those of the Muslim faith quite differently from those of the Christian faith.
Again, as I've suggested, this is a decision that supports the trend (in the US and Canada) of the "privatization" of religious faith. That is, 'go ahead and believe what you want but do that very privately, and don't venture out into the public arena'. We've had that 'progression' in our jurisprudence in Oregon, actually, more than at the federal level. It's what I have dubbed the 'cigarette smoking theory of religion': we in government all know that religious faith is a stupidity clung to by some in our society, and government should tolerate it but only if it is kept private and doesn't affect the larger society.
Of course, this perspective runs head-on with a perspective that says, “In the total expanse of human life there is not a single square inch of which the Christ, who alone is sovereign, does not declare,'That is mine!'” And Christians aren't the only citizens who think like this about the meaning of their faith.
Indeed, as you say, Fred, "This reality is yet to be tested in many spheres and perhaps the TWU case was the first of many. " I suspect that is a concern of many. It would be my concern, both for Canada (which is now there) and the US (which isn't there yet).
I suspect that this same CA Sup Ct majority (even if less than 7-2) would approve denial of TWU's accreditation even if TWU removed its behaviorial constraint as to sex outside heterosexual marriage, if TWU still taught in such a manner that disapproved of sex outside of heterosexual marriage. In other words, I don't think the Canadian Sup Ct has a majority of justices, given these opinions on this case, that would allow TWU to define for itself what an "education from a Christian perspective" should claim as to homosexual practice (or bi-sexual or even heterosexual for that matter). And I think it is just a matter of time before such cases are brought and such rulings made.
I think you and I have discussed this well actually, even if our conclusions are quite different as to what relative governmental priorities best serve the citizens and residents of Canada or any other sovereign nations. Thank you for that discussion.
I wouldn't say that The Network ("this site") leans toward any particular perspective, but the Network is only one media arm of the CRCNA (and its whoever-wants-to-talk discussion enabling facility).
But the CRCNA's Office of Social Justice (and its media outlets) are most certainly politically inclined, even quite stridently so, and certainly as much or more than is Franklin Graham, even if in a different political direction. That should end, lest we emulate Franklin Graham's foolishness.
First, Aaron, thanks for publishing this communication. It is a far better process that sending a response confidentially to the Advisory Committee, as was done by the COD forwarding staff responses to the overtures.
I have become convinced that the institutional CRCNA does it politicking in Canada in a way significantly different than in the US. And while I don't claim to know enough about the Canadian scene, I do know enough to say that the questions and answers to them may be quite different than the questions and answers relating to how the institutional CRCNA does its politicking in the US.
Having said that, I think Overture 14 contains a prescription for how, and the extent to which the institutional CRCNA might address "political matters" that would allow much of what is done in Canada while at the same time appropriately adjust how it is done in the US (via OSJ and sometime by other CRCNA staff).
Overture 14 is long (violating practical unwritten rules for how overtures should be if the authors want to be heard), but I'm hoping enough of the Synod 2018 delegates read it -- to the end and perhaps more than once -- to gain a sense for its prescriptions as well as proscriptions.
I also hope that Canadians at Synod, including any on the Advisory Committee, consider how things are done in the US instead of concluding they are done the same as in Canada.
By the way, those liberal theories you speak of that resulted in certain provisions in the US Constitution have their origins in a Calvinist tradition, and received a great deal of praise from Kupyer as well. While the US Constitution was not written by God on Mt Sinai, it does contain a pretty good set of foundational rules that allow for political pluralism (that has been copied in whole or substantial part by many other countries, including Canada).
Larry: I think Franklin is very unwise in his decision to become so political. He father was much less, and yet he regretting the extent to which he had become political.
Certainly, the CRC should not follow Franklin's example on this. But it is, just with a different political perspective.
Well certainly anyone does well to not make Fox News their only source of information, but the same thing could be said about any single source of information. American society and American media is polarized these days as I've ever seen them in my 63 year life.
But the larger, more significant question is whether our institutional church (the CRCNA) should be lobbying ("getting political"), regardless of the sources of information the CRCNA (OSJ or otherwise) might choose to view. I suspect Franklin Graham views certain information but not all, and that he certainly does not view or digest enough information, or with enough expertise and competency, to responsibly advise the Evangelical community as to matters political. Again, his father understood that even if his son did not inherit that wisdom.
The more appropriate question for this forum is whether the CRCNA (via OSJ or otherwise) should be doing as Franklin Graham is. Again, I'd say no. And that is what the classes submitting Overtures 13 and 14 to Synod 2018 would say as well.
Nick. As you know, there is something I like about Overture 12, and there is much that you and I agree about. I'd encourage interested readers to view the Vanderklay hosted YouTube video that included both of us if they are interested in these questions.
Thanks for your interest in this topic Nick, and your willingness to put your thoughts out there, even if we disagree in some ways.
I think there is a fourth Dan: when the political action targets the institutional church. I know the Canadians are dealing right now with a change in Canadian law that denies the right of churches (of specific confessional positions) to receive some kind of government benefit that is otherwise available.
I don't know the Canadian law details/nuances but it sounds to me like a "charitable choice" or "equal access" issue. Churches should, for another (hypothetical) example, engage government about proposed legislation that would tax collection plate receipts.
As to your #3, Dan, I would be very, very reluctant even there. I have had experience with political active churches (on the right) and I think those churches, as churches, were diminished for their very specific political involvement. Certainly, their political activities guaranteed that Christians on the left side of the political spectrum would stay away, and there is just something not right about that picture.
Your above is intriguing Nick. You say, as to Eric's comment:
"I took exception to your view that immigration policies should aim to preserve our home country, which usually means our home country is only for people like us and we will let people in only if there is a net benefit to us. Such thinking, in a world of great inequality, exploitation and injustices, is in my view not supported by Bible teachings, it runs contrary to all Jesus taught."
OK, let's follow that. Would you claim then that the US should have an open border, allowing anyone and everyone (let's exclude terrorists, drug dealers and felons just to make it an easier hypothetical) to come into the US? Canada too?
And this is a real debate, not hypothetical. The "open borders" position is a growing one.
And assuming you think the US (and Canada) should have an open borders immigration policy (which I think your above suggests), how exactly do you claim that such a policy is demanded by Scripture?
It seems to me, Nick, that your approach conflates what Christians and the church should do with what government should do. I'm not saying that government should not do justice (that's it's main task) but I'm not so sure government should be in the mercy business, as should be Christians and churches (and all people for that matter).
I think it is fantastic that your congregation takes in refugees -- mine has too in the past. But I don't think that perspective says anything about what government should do or not to, it haven't the differentiated job of doing justice. Consider, for example, Christ's instruction to turn the other cheek. If government does that, society has chaos and government has not done its differentiated job.
Calvin Sem Professor Matt Tuininga has written a great book on Calvin's Two Kingdom theories. It does, I think, a good job (because Calvin did) of differentiating the task of government from the task of the Church (or Christians). These are important distinctions I believe (which didn't exist for Israel, which makes it difficult if not wrong to copy pithy statements (e.g., "welcome the stranger") from the OT to form government policy conclusions.
Another good book on this is Jim Skillen's "The Scattered Voice." I think the key for us in thinking about these questions is to discern the differentiated task of government. If we don't do that, we project the scriptural mandates to the Church and Christians as mandates for government, with the result being, frankly, injustice.
So when you say, "I do know that holding the line on immigration because we must preserve our own country is not Bible-based," I'm not so sure you aren't failing to discern the differentiated task of government. Would you say that a government may go to war to "preserve our own country"? I would. Indeed, I would say that defense of its citizens from outside force is a core responsibility of a government, even if the mandate for the Church and Christians (in their differentiated tasks) might be to "turn the other cheek" or to "love their enemy." Again, if we don't differentiate properly, the result will be injustice.
Posted in: Trinity Western University and the Supreme Court of Canada
Thank you for the response Frederic.
I don't think I'm as unable to understand the Canadian issues as you might suppose. I've done a lot of public interest work in the area of the US constitution's first amendment rights and my reading of the majority, concurring and dissenting opinions in this CA case persuaded me that the underlying issues and concepts were not so different in the Canadian context than in the US context, even if our cases have different names, and our constitutional provisions and legislative enactments use different words.
In this case, my reading of the dissenting opinion (of the two justices) was quite familiar with what I would expect from an opinion issues by some judges in the US, and the majority and concurring options with what I would expect from other judges. Again, the underlying concepts were really the same. What perhaps is different is that the numeric balance in the US Supreme Court would probably not mirror what is was in this Canadian Sup Ct case. In the US, I would guess that the dissenting opinion (the vote from the two dissenters) would be the opinion from 5 or more US Sup Ct justices.
Nor do I think this case is as "complex" or "nuanced" as some would (you or even the author of the post perhaps). The fundamental question is: Do the organizational entities that grant or deny accreditation (a government like role) appropriately take in account the (faith meaningful) requirements of the covenant as used by TWU? The majority and concurring justices said 'yes' (even if with some nuance of argument difference), that the rights of LGBTQ+ citizens to have un-inconvenienced access to all (not just public) law schools, public or private, trumps TWU's right to apply its student covenant requirements that are rooted in its faith commitments. Said another way, the majority/concurring justices are saying TWU must conform to a CA government mindset about LGBTQ+ behavior -- quite entirely -- to gain governmental approval to train lawyers.
What your response does not address is my suggestion that the logic of this Sup Ct decision probably invalidates (if/when challenged) much more of TWU's student covenant that what was the focus of this Sup Ct decision. I don't think my "Canadian law naivete" gets in my way there, since the two dissenters in this case were quite obviously thinking the same thing, which is why they and they only discussed concerns about political pluralism. I may be "Canadian law naive," but at least I have the company of two Canadian Supreme Court justices. :-)
Finally, I would note what this means for institutions of other faiths in Canada. Could Muslims start a law school in Canada and obtain accreditation for it? My answer would be "no," unless: (1) the Muslims starting that law school were willing to give up quite a bit of their faith assumptions as a basis from which they enrolled a student body and taught justice, or (2) the Canadian Sup Ct were to decide to treat such efforts by those of the Muslim faith quite differently from those of the Christian faith.
Again, as I've suggested, this is a decision that supports the trend (in the US and Canada) of the "privatization" of religious faith. That is, 'go ahead and believe what you want but do that very privately, and don't venture out into the public arena'. We've had that 'progression' in our jurisprudence in Oregon, actually, more than at the federal level. It's what I have dubbed the 'cigarette smoking theory of religion': we in government all know that religious faith is a stupidity clung to by some in our society, and government should tolerate it but only if it is kept private and doesn't affect the larger society.
Of course, this perspective runs head-on with a perspective that says, “In the total expanse of human life there is not a single square inch of which the Christ, who alone is sovereign, does not declare,'That is mine!'” And Christians aren't the only citizens who think like this about the meaning of their faith.
Posted in: Trinity Western University and the Supreme Court of Canada
For anyone interested, there's an insightful (as usual for Cardus) Cardus YouTube video relating to this discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfpYoItD8Kc&t=13s&_cldee=ZG91Z0B2YW5kZWdyaWVuZC5jb20%3D&recipientid=contact-084368b83508e311ac4978e3b5102eb2-6454975609154905b511d3ab1a431e4f&esid=30b05b00-8080-e811-8100-3863bb35dde0
Posted in: Trinity Western University and the Supreme Court of Canada
Indeed, as you say, Fred, "This reality is yet to be tested in many spheres and perhaps the TWU case was the first of many. " I suspect that is a concern of many. It would be my concern, both for Canada (which is now there) and the US (which isn't there yet).
I suspect that this same CA Sup Ct majority (even if less than 7-2) would approve denial of TWU's accreditation even if TWU removed its behaviorial constraint as to sex outside heterosexual marriage, if TWU still taught in such a manner that disapproved of sex outside of heterosexual marriage. In other words, I don't think the Canadian Sup Ct has a majority of justices, given these opinions on this case, that would allow TWU to define for itself what an "education from a Christian perspective" should claim as to homosexual practice (or bi-sexual or even heterosexual for that matter). And I think it is just a matter of time before such cases are brought and such rulings made.
I think you and I have discussed this well actually, even if our conclusions are quite different as to what relative governmental priorities best serve the citizens and residents of Canada or any other sovereign nations. Thank you for that discussion.
Posted in: Franklin Graham Gets Political at a Prayer Rally
I wouldn't say that The Network ("this site") leans toward any particular perspective, but the Network is only one media arm of the CRCNA (and its whoever-wants-to-talk discussion enabling facility).
But the CRCNA's Office of Social Justice (and its media outlets) are most certainly politically inclined, even quite stridently so, and certainly as much or more than is Franklin Graham, even if in a different political direction. That should end, lest we emulate Franklin Graham's foolishness.
Posted in: Communication to Synod - Let's Discuss
First, Aaron, thanks for publishing this communication. It is a far better process that sending a response confidentially to the Advisory Committee, as was done by the COD forwarding staff responses to the overtures.
I have become convinced that the institutional CRCNA does it politicking in Canada in a way significantly different than in the US. And while I don't claim to know enough about the Canadian scene, I do know enough to say that the questions and answers to them may be quite different than the questions and answers relating to how the institutional CRCNA does its politicking in the US.
Having said that, I think Overture 14 contains a prescription for how, and the extent to which the institutional CRCNA might address "political matters" that would allow much of what is done in Canada while at the same time appropriately adjust how it is done in the US (via OSJ and sometime by other CRCNA staff).
Overture 14 is long (violating practical unwritten rules for how overtures should be if the authors want to be heard), but I'm hoping enough of the Synod 2018 delegates read it -- to the end and perhaps more than once -- to gain a sense for its prescriptions as well as proscriptions.
I also hope that Canadians at Synod, including any on the Advisory Committee, consider how things are done in the US instead of concluding they are done the same as in Canada.
By the way, those liberal theories you speak of that resulted in certain provisions in the US Constitution have their origins in a Calvinist tradition, and received a great deal of praise from Kupyer as well. While the US Constitution was not written by God on Mt Sinai, it does contain a pretty good set of foundational rules that allow for political pluralism (that has been copied in whole or substantial part by many other countries, including Canada).
Posted in: Franklin Graham as a Model on Clergy Involvement in Politics
Larry: I think Franklin is very unwise in his decision to become so political. He father was much less, and yet he regretting the extent to which he had become political.
Certainly, the CRC should not follow Franklin's example on this. But it is, just with a different political perspective.
Posted in: Franklin Graham as a Model on Clergy Involvement in Politics
Well certainly anyone does well to not make Fox News their only source of information, but the same thing could be said about any single source of information. American society and American media is polarized these days as I've ever seen them in my 63 year life.
But the larger, more significant question is whether our institutional church (the CRCNA) should be lobbying ("getting political"), regardless of the sources of information the CRCNA (OSJ or otherwise) might choose to view. I suspect Franklin Graham views certain information but not all, and that he certainly does not view or digest enough information, or with enough expertise and competency, to responsibly advise the Evangelical community as to matters political. Again, his father understood that even if his son did not inherit that wisdom.
The more appropriate question for this forum is whether the CRCNA (via OSJ or otherwise) should be doing as Franklin Graham is. Again, I'd say no. And that is what the classes submitting Overtures 13 and 14 to Synod 2018 would say as well.
Posted in: Franklin Graham Gets Political at a Prayer Rally
Yep, pretty silly (and unwise) of Franklin Graham to not resist the urge to use his pulpit to pitch his political views.
And so why does the CRCNA do the same (even if with an alternate political perspective)? That is the question we need to consider.
Posted in: Social Justice Overtures #12; #13; #14
Nick. As you know, there is something I like about Overture 12, and there is much that you and I agree about. I'd encourage interested readers to view the Vanderklay hosted YouTube video that included both of us if they are interested in these questions.
Thanks for your interest in this topic Nick, and your willingness to put your thoughts out there, even if we disagree in some ways.
Posted in: Social Justice Overtures #12; #13; #14
I think there is a fourth Dan: when the political action targets the institutional church. I know the Canadians are dealing right now with a change in Canadian law that denies the right of churches (of specific confessional positions) to receive some kind of government benefit that is otherwise available.
I don't know the Canadian law details/nuances but it sounds to me like a "charitable choice" or "equal access" issue. Churches should, for another (hypothetical) example, engage government about proposed legislation that would tax collection plate receipts.
As to your #3, Dan, I would be very, very reluctant even there. I have had experience with political active churches (on the right) and I think those churches, as churches, were diminished for their very specific political involvement. Certainly, their political activities guaranteed that Christians on the left side of the political spectrum would stay away, and there is just something not right about that picture.
Posted in: Social Justice Overtures #12; #13; #14
Your above is intriguing Nick. You say, as to Eric's comment:
"I took exception to your view that immigration policies should aim to preserve our home country, which usually means our home country is only for people like us and we will let people in only if there is a net benefit to us. Such thinking, in a world of great inequality, exploitation and injustices, is in my view not supported by Bible teachings, it runs contrary to all Jesus taught."
OK, let's follow that. Would you claim then that the US should have an open border, allowing anyone and everyone (let's exclude terrorists, drug dealers and felons just to make it an easier hypothetical) to come into the US? Canada too?
And this is a real debate, not hypothetical. The "open borders" position is a growing one.
And assuming you think the US (and Canada) should have an open borders immigration policy (which I think your above suggests), how exactly do you claim that such a policy is demanded by Scripture?
Posted in: Social Justice Overtures #12; #13; #14
It seems to me, Nick, that your approach conflates what Christians and the church should do with what government should do. I'm not saying that government should not do justice (that's it's main task) but I'm not so sure government should be in the mercy business, as should be Christians and churches (and all people for that matter).
I think it is fantastic that your congregation takes in refugees -- mine has too in the past. But I don't think that perspective says anything about what government should do or not to, it haven't the differentiated job of doing justice. Consider, for example, Christ's instruction to turn the other cheek. If government does that, society has chaos and government has not done its differentiated job.
Calvin Sem Professor Matt Tuininga has written a great book on Calvin's Two Kingdom theories. It does, I think, a good job (because Calvin did) of differentiating the task of government from the task of the Church (or Christians). These are important distinctions I believe (which didn't exist for Israel, which makes it difficult if not wrong to copy pithy statements (e.g., "welcome the stranger") from the OT to form government policy conclusions.
Another good book on this is Jim Skillen's "The Scattered Voice." I think the key for us in thinking about these questions is to discern the differentiated task of government. If we don't do that, we project the scriptural mandates to the Church and Christians as mandates for government, with the result being, frankly, injustice.
So when you say, "I do know that holding the line on immigration because we must preserve our own country is not Bible-based," I'm not so sure you aren't failing to discern the differentiated task of government. Would you say that a government may go to war to "preserve our own country"? I would. Indeed, I would say that defense of its citizens from outside force is a core responsibility of a government, even if the mandate for the Church and Christians (in their differentiated tasks) might be to "turn the other cheek" or to "love their enemy." Again, if we don't differentiate properly, the result will be injustice.