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 have been a practicing attorney in Oregon for nearly 40 years now and count a number of gay persons, practicing and not just in orientation, as my past and present clients. I have, and have had, absolutely no issue with providing them with representation that results in their seeking and gaining justice (and other legal benefit). They know that.
Still, I applaud TWU's honesty and faithfulness in having created a behavior covenant for their students. My own gay clients would not be surprised by my applauding TWU in that regard.
This ruling represents a dangerous loss for Canada. It moves Canada away from political pluralism.
I've read the Sup Ct decision opinions, including the majority opinion, the concurring opinions and the dissenting opinion. Significantly, it was only the dissenters (two justices) who brought up a concern for political pluralism. That only 2 of 7 justices were concerned for political pluralism is a bad indicator for things to come.
TWU would have been, apparently, the only "Christian law school" in Canada (by reports I've read). TWU's inability, because of government disapproval, to provide a legal education grounded in the Christian faith to future Canadian lawyers deprives Canada of that benefit -- and by doing that moves Canada away from political pluralism. Although not addressed by the justices, the logic of the majority in case would also deny TWU the right to include most if not all other elements of its student covenant. After all, why should non-married heterosexuals be denied their "right" to have sex whenever and with whomever they please. Or married heterosexuals? Indeed, why should TWU require a covenant that constrains any off campus behavior? Public universities don't -- what gives TWU the right to constrain students in their off-campus lives? What gives TWU the right to force its faith perspective down the throats of others?
This Canadian Supreme Court decision represents an enforced "privatization" of religious faith. Reformed Christians may quote Kuyper's "not one square inch" claim, but the logic of this Supreme Court decision excludes all square inches, save perhaps that of one's private thoughts, the home or church. This decision says that Kuyper's claim is denied when it comes to most real matters of life. You may be Christian (or Muslim or Hindu, etc) in your own private thoughts, probably in your home and in your church too, but beyond that there is a fence where the faith that its the basis for doing life is prescribed by the government.
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.
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.
For two Paul Vanderklay hosted Youtube discussions about Overtures 12, 13 and 14, go to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU59ZdioEjQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6A2lye3mm4
Echoing Eric Van Dyken, I too think a "category mistake" is made when it is suggested that refraining from political lobbying means the CRC -- as an institutional church -- can't speak prophetically to questions of murder, care for the poor, creation care, slavery, Nazi-ism, suicide, or any number of issues that Scripture speaks to. But the institutional church needs to speak prophetically, based on Scripture, as to those things.
Here are concrete examples of what would be outside the institutional church's role/competency:
- Politically lobbying for the Senate version of the Agriculture Bill over the House version of the Agriculture Bill is outside the proper scope and expertise of the institutional church.
- Politically lobbying for a "clean DACA bill" (as opposed to one that is "comprehensive immigration reform?").
- Politically lobbying to oppose a the budget component proposed by the federal "Fiscal Year 2018 Homeland Security Bill."
- Politically lobbying to "Urge Congress to End Abortion by Creating a Budget that Adequately Funds Medicaid" (calling doing so "having an opportunity to use the power of advocacy to call for a faithful budget"). (One wonders then, if one doesn't agree with these budget proposal, is one "not faithful"?)
- Politically lobbying to "Urge your Senators to Say No to [Immigration] Enforcement Expansion".
- Politically lobbying to "speak up" about the "Administration sign[ing] an executive order that instruction the EPA to begin rolling back the Clean Power Plan," or to ask "Congress" to "support politices that align with the goals of the Paris Agreement."
- Politically lobbying to "Stop Congress from Cutting Refugee Resettlement Funding."
- Politically lobbying to "urge Congress" to "End the Immigraiton Detention Quota!"
- Politically lobbying to "urge your state legislators to ban prolonged solitary confinement."
- Politically lobbying to urge passage of "The Fair Day in Court for Kids Act of 2016" (that would have government fund lawyers to represent children and others seeking asylum).
- Politically lobbying to "Tell World Leaders to Sign the Paris Agreement," or to "Urge your Members of Congress" to "Support the Principles of the Paris Agreement."
Law (what political processes, including lobbying, creates) and politics are complex. Theology and other ecclesiastical work is complex too. The two categories of 'things to be done' are not the same. Certainly, some who read the above examples (all taken from OSJ Action Alerts) might say "well of course OSJ is lobbying for the 'right side' of the issue," and maybe it is, but then again maybe not. The issues involved are all enormously more complex than bumper stickers or even "Action Alerts" would suggest. The two Agriculture Bills were hundreds of pages (one beyond a thousand pages I recall) in length. They deal with many, many, many issues. Any law must be considered within the context of other laws, existing budgets, and, perhaps most complex of all, "political reality." Pushing for a "clean DACA vote," for example, discourages "comprehensive immigration reform." Which might be considered good, but it might also be considered bad. Reasonable Christians (CRCers) seeking to be "faithful" can and do disagree as to all of the examples above given. Should we call some of those Christians (CRCers) "unfaithful"?
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?
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: Trinity Western University and the Supreme Court of Canada
I have been a practicing attorney in Oregon for nearly 40 years now and count a number of gay persons, practicing and not just in orientation, as my past and present clients. I have, and have had, absolutely no issue with providing them with representation that results in their seeking and gaining justice (and other legal benefit). They know that.
Still, I applaud TWU's honesty and faithfulness in having created a behavior covenant for their students. My own gay clients would not be surprised by my applauding TWU in that regard.
This ruling represents a dangerous loss for Canada. It moves Canada away from political pluralism.
I've read the Sup Ct decision opinions, including the majority opinion, the concurring opinions and the dissenting opinion. Significantly, it was only the dissenters (two justices) who brought up a concern for political pluralism. That only 2 of 7 justices were concerned for political pluralism is a bad indicator for things to come.
TWU would have been, apparently, the only "Christian law school" in Canada (by reports I've read). TWU's inability, because of government disapproval, to provide a legal education grounded in the Christian faith to future Canadian lawyers deprives Canada of that benefit -- and by doing that moves Canada away from political pluralism. Although not addressed by the justices, the logic of the majority in case would also deny TWU the right to include most if not all other elements of its student covenant. After all, why should non-married heterosexuals be denied their "right" to have sex whenever and with whomever they please. Or married heterosexuals? Indeed, why should TWU require a covenant that constrains any off campus behavior? Public universities don't -- what gives TWU the right to constrain students in their off-campus lives? What gives TWU the right to force its faith perspective down the throats of others?
This Canadian Supreme Court decision represents an enforced "privatization" of religious faith. Reformed Christians may quote Kuyper's "not one square inch" claim, but the logic of this Supreme Court decision excludes all square inches, save perhaps that of one's private thoughts, the home or church. This decision says that Kuyper's claim is denied when it comes to most real matters of life. You may be Christian (or Muslim or Hindu, etc) in your own private thoughts, probably in your home and in your church too, but beyond that there is a fence where the faith that its the basis for doing life is prescribed by the government.
Canadian Kuyperians have cause to be alarmed.
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: 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
For two Paul Vanderklay hosted Youtube discussions about Overtures 12, 13 and 14, go to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU59ZdioEjQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6A2lye3mm4
Echoing Eric Van Dyken, I too think a "category mistake" is made when it is suggested that refraining from political lobbying means the CRC -- as an institutional church -- can't speak prophetically to questions of murder, care for the poor, creation care, slavery, Nazi-ism, suicide, or any number of issues that Scripture speaks to. But the institutional church needs to speak prophetically, based on Scripture, as to those things.
Here are concrete examples of what would be outside the institutional church's role/competency:
- Politically lobbying for the Senate version of the Agriculture Bill over the House version of the Agriculture Bill is outside the proper scope and expertise of the institutional church.
- Politically lobbying for a "clean DACA bill" (as opposed to one that is "comprehensive immigration reform?").
- Politically lobbying to oppose a the budget component proposed by the federal "Fiscal Year 2018 Homeland Security Bill."
- Politically lobbying to "Urge Congress to End Abortion by Creating a Budget that Adequately Funds Medicaid" (calling doing so "having an opportunity to use the power of advocacy to call for a faithful budget"). (One wonders then, if one doesn't agree with these budget proposal, is one "not faithful"?)
- Politically lobbying to "Urge your Senators to Say No to [Immigration] Enforcement Expansion".
- Politically lobbying to "speak up" about the "Administration sign[ing] an executive order that instruction the EPA to begin rolling back the Clean Power Plan," or to ask "Congress" to "support politices that align with the goals of the Paris Agreement."
- Politically lobbying to "Stop Congress from Cutting Refugee Resettlement Funding."
- Politically lobbying to "urge Congress" to "End the Immigraiton Detention Quota!"
- Politically lobbying to "urge your state legislators to ban prolonged solitary confinement."
- Politically lobbying to urge passage of "The Fair Day in Court for Kids Act of 2016" (that would have government fund lawyers to represent children and others seeking asylum).
- Politically lobbying to "Tell World Leaders to Sign the Paris Agreement," or to "Urge your Members of Congress" to "Support the Principles of the Paris Agreement."
Law (what political processes, including lobbying, creates) and politics are complex. Theology and other ecclesiastical work is complex too. The two categories of 'things to be done' are not the same. Certainly, some who read the above examples (all taken from OSJ Action Alerts) might say "well of course OSJ is lobbying for the 'right side' of the issue," and maybe it is, but then again maybe not. The issues involved are all enormously more complex than bumper stickers or even "Action Alerts" would suggest. The two Agriculture Bills were hundreds of pages (one beyond a thousand pages I recall) in length. They deal with many, many, many issues. Any law must be considered within the context of other laws, existing budgets, and, perhaps most complex of all, "political reality." Pushing for a "clean DACA vote," for example, discourages "comprehensive immigration reform." Which might be considered good, but it might also be considered bad. Reasonable Christians (CRCers) seeking to be "faithful" can and do disagree as to all of the examples above given. Should we call some of those Christians (CRCers) "unfaithful"?
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?