Actually, Bangladesh's problem result from increased population, de-forestation, pollution other than CO2, and other man-made molding to the environment -- far more so than sea rise caused by global CO2 emissions. It has become a poster-child for climate change alarmists, but Bangladesh's other problems dwarf those caused by climate change.
Sea rise has been happening -- although very slowly -- and is going to continue happening -- again, although very slowly --, whether fossil fuels increase the CO2 in the atmosphere or not. We are still on the recovery side of ice ages, geologically speaking and so the sea level is supposed to rise -- again even while very slowly. See at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1880-2013.png
Given the amount of public relations money behind the mantra that climate change is the cause of all troubles, it is not, and Bangladesh is one of the cases in point, even if climate change alarmists like to make Bangladesh their poster child.
Look, for example, at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/embankments-exacerbate-sea-level-rise-in-bangladesh/ and
http://bangladeshunique.blogspot.com/2010/07/deforestation-in-bangladesh.html and
http://blog.cifor.org/9434/bangladesh-forests-disappearing-at-alarming-rate-says-expert?fnl=en and
Larry: So exactly what to you mean when you say "take care of the poor?" My response clearly indicated that government had an obligation to provide a "safety net" but I'm not sure -- and said so in my comment to your post -- that qualifies as "providing for the poor," as you understand that phrase.
So let's clarify what we might be agreeing or disagreeing about. What do you mean when you say that "government should take care of the poor?"
I would enthusiastically agree that both churches and individuals do well in providing help to past or present incarcerated persons and their families. There are few areas of concern where the need is greater and potential impact more profitable.
But I do cringe at how this article frames what is discussed as strictly a matter of "justice." Indeed, neither the lead-in verse and sentence -- nor any other part of the post -- makes mention of "mercy." A better lead-in verse would be Micah 6:8, which commands us to both "do justice" and "love mercy."
As an attorney, I have been involved in questions of justice in behalf of inmates and ex-inmates. But we do well to clearly understand that we are obliged to extend mercy even when there is no question about justice. Most of those we should help out are in fact not "oppressed" persons we must "[let] free," as this articles states. Some should remain incarcerated inmates. Still, we do well to serve them, while incarcerated, and their family members waiting for their release -- because of our "love of mercy."
If government in fact exclusively wields the power of the sword (and that proposition finds biblical support), which I think fairly implies that it uniquely has the power of life and death, then I would think it can be reasonably concluded that government ought -- as a matter of justice, not mercy, based on its power over life and death -- provide the means by which the poor might live. The caveat to that is that this (justice) obligation is not to provide a comfortable life but rather the minimal means by which the poor will, essentially, avoid dying.
This is not a "wisdom" argument but a "justice" argument (I missed the argument from "last week" and can't find it).
In terms of a "wisdom" argument, but also in terms of "what the role of government is" argument, I think government should/does have the authority to do that which benefits the citizenry as a whole (for the "common good"). Examples would be: (1) creating contract law so that the citizenry can better engage in economic relationships; (2) creating electricity creating dams on rivers to provide energy; (2) creating all sorts of civil laws (torts, property, etc), again so that the citizenry can engage in life, with others, in a more orderly way; (3) build needed roads, or mail systems, or other services that are helpful to the citizenry as a whole; (4) establishing anti-trust laws so that the government will not lose the "most powerful status" to any business or other organization (in which case the existence of government as government is threatened); (5) defining/recognizing institutional spheres and sphere boundaries in society (e.g., church, family, voluntary organizations, etc); (6) regulating behavior that significantly threatens the citizenry as a whole (e.g., possession of nuclear weapons, requiring banks and insurance companies to hold reserves, limiting use or harvest of commonly owned, natural resources that might otherwise go extinct or become unusable); (7) if the government is democratically elected, to ensure the voting population will be sufficiently educated so as to be capable of intelligently voting.
This isn't an exhaustive list of course, but the common thread in the examples is that government acts in these cases for the "common good," not as a means of deciding that some in the population should be nice (should mercy) to others. The power of the sword should never be used to force some citizens to be merciful to others.
Well, your lead post says, "It was pointed out that nowhere in scripture can you find support for the idea of government being obligated to care for the poor." I was merely pointing out that there IS scripture that "support[s] the idea of government being obligated to care for the poor."
Don't interpret what I say as suggesting government should try to keep people close to death, but rather that it is simply not the justice obligation of government to provide it citizenry a very comfortable living.
Let's look at it this way. Have you ever been motivated to really put in some extra effort because if you didn't, you and your family might be headed for some real financial trouble? That if you didn't really put out, your business would fail, or you wouldn't be able to send a child to a college of choice, or you couldn't afford your spouse's elective surgery that would be really nice, or you wouldn't be able to afford piano lessons for your child (etc etc etc etc)? If government's justice obligation is to give you a comfortable living, or if your justice right is to demand that government make you comfortable, what will you be tempted to do? Answer: not worry, not put in the extra effort. For that matter, why would you put in all that work to get the education you need to get to that next step? Live is guaranteed comfortable, not?
Sure, some people are self-motivated to the point that they will do what they should do (use and develop their gifts) regardless of external incentives/disincentives, regardless of a government guarantee of a comfortable living, but if you and I or anyone was asked, we must admit that many people do require the incentive of sheer WANT to the point of NEED to get them motivated to do what they should do to live more fully. Indeed, many people would be deprived of that incentive if they knew government would offer them a comfortable life if they did nothing.
Beyond that, consider that government is not the only societal institution that can and does provide truly needed help. My goodness, if we live or die based on government, what kind of society have we actually become?
Do you really think that Romans 13:4, "For he is God's servant to do you good," intends to suggest that government will provide materially for you? Consider the context. The Roman government provided economically for no one (except the political elite of course). If a subject was blind, he/she needed to beg. Doing good, in an NT biblical context, means maintain "law and order," I would suggest. That is, restrain thieves and murderers and others with the power to harm you. And that was a big deal -- and still is -- "... that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness."
I'm not sure how old you are, but I'm 61. When I was young, only women and children were eligible for any kind of welfare benefits. If males "needed help," except if they were disabled in some way (in which case medicaid type of benefits could kick in), then males needed to figure out how to help themselves, get help from parents, get help from friends, or something else. Did those maies die back in the 1960s when that was the case? Nope. Did NEED motivate them to do something? Yep. In fact, I would say adults today who grew up as children in households that were very financially challenged when they were young, who grew up as children having to work 20, 30, 40 or more hours a week, are now blessed as adults. Why? Because they know how to handle that stress, how to work even when it isn't fun or even pleasant, how to get themselves to do what it takes to "prosper" (in a good way), and how to take care or their families -- and then also their neighbors. And sometimes, they also learned what the true meaning of friendship is, of local community, of a church that is true family.
Do we really want Caesar to guarantee a comfortable life to all who need the nudge of economic motivation? I don't think so. And if the government does provide a true safety net, a subsistence that is uncomfortable, and someone really should have more than that, there still is family, friends, community, church. Indeed, I think too many people never become a part of community and church because they perceive they don't need to. If all else fails, the government will take care of them after all.
"With liberty and justice for all" says nothing about government owing anyone a comfortable life. That idea would be considered absurd to the founding fathers, probably to all early church Christians and Jews living then as well. Liberty means the right to live without an oppressive government or other force, and justice roughly the same. Neither suggests a right to not struggle to provide for yourself.
Thanks for the exchange. I think this is a critically important area of concern for us today.
There's not much in this article I agree with. Here's the other side.
The author begins by declaring a "disconnect" between "Christians and climate change," by which is meant that if you are Christian, you should be on board with the climate change related positions and suggestions this author articles is about to take and make. But maybe, just maybe, there is a "connect" between "Christians and climate change," except that Christians should be taking a position opposite of that taken by this author. Here's the case for that.
First, no one believes human activity doesn't affect climate. No one. Whether it's burning fuels that release CO2 or raising cattle that pass methane gas or growing rice that does much the same as cattle, human activity affects the land, sea and atmosphere. But that's not really the important question. The important questions are: (1) how much does human activity affect climate, (2) in what ways does human activity affect climate, (3) what are the effects of the effect humans have on climate, (4) what should we do, if anything, to mitigate the effects of the effects humans have on climate.
Second, contrary to what our president says (the same president who said he'd put a comprehensive plan for immigration reform in front of Congress within 90 days of being elected, the same president who said debates about health care would be done in the open and carried by C-SPAN, and the same president who promised everyone could keep their insurance plan and doctor, and that insurance costs would go down, under Obamacare) is simply incorrect (or misrepresenting again) when he claims "... if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You’ll be pretty lonely ...." Many, not just a couple, not just a few, world class climatologists, and thousands of other supporting non-climatologist scientists, vigorously disagree. Take, for example, world class climatologist John Christy (Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville) and his climate science working partner, Roy Spencer. Together, these men, both of whom are brothers in Christ, developed our nation's satellite based temperature measuring/tracking system. Both have impeccable, untarnished credentials. Neither are funded by the evil fossil fuel industry. And both vigorously disagree with today's "climate alarmist" community. And Christy and Spencer are by no means the end of the list. I'll decline to list more here, but I certainly am able.
There is one point made in this article that I agree with, that being "Climate change is an exceedingly technical issue...." Indeed it is. Which is why I'm a bit surprised that the author of this article would, as this article does, equate being on one side of the issue with being Christian. For that matter is it remarkable that the CRC, an insitution devoid of even a single world class climatologist, would take a position about this "exceedingly technical issue." The implication of course, from this article and the CRC's taken position, is that "being on the other side: means "not being Christian." In contrast, I regard persons on both sides of the issue as quite capable of being Christians.
There is another point made in this article that I agree with, that being "Climate change is ... also a deeply moral issue." But while the author of this article believes that means we should support Barak Obama's and the United Nation's position, I believe otherwise. Indeed, I and many world class economists believe that following the Paris Agreement may result in that which is immoral. Limiting the amount of energy people can use, especially in undeveloped countries, comes at a price that is extracted in terms of human life sometimes, and always in terms of human prosperity (or said more fashionably, human flourishing).
But there is a way through this impasse, this disagreement about the science, and the effect of the effect of humans on the climate. What if we would develop a lot more non-CO2 emitting energy resources? OK, but how do we do that?
James Hansen, the "climate alarmist" who started this all, the guy who "climate alarmists" hold in near god-like status, had said, over and over and over and over (go Google it), that solar, wind, geothermal and other similar renewable energy sources are good, but clearly and certainly not robust enough to fill the energy need gap that will be created if we reduce fossil fuel consumption to the extent needed to avoid his prediction of CO2 Armageddon. And while John Christy and many others would disagree about the CO2 Armageddon part, they too would support dramatically increasing nuclear energy. So it would seem there is a middle ground, a solution that both James Hanson and John Christy and Roy Spencer would agree to: nuclear engergy. James Hanson has been saying, again over and over and over (again, go Google it) that nuclear energy is clean, safe, CO2 free, efficient, and sufficiently abundant to "fill the gap" that fossil fuel reductions would leave. Christy and Spencer would agree.
So then, what's the problem? If both sides agree on the real solution (which is not the Paris Agreement), why can't we do that? Answer: because when James Hanson pitches nuclear energy, all of his otherwise supportive "climate alarmist" community goes silent. They don't like nuclear energy. Why? Hard to know for sure, but probably because of their irrational fears, or more likely perhaps of their political obstructionist positions taken in the past about nuclear energy.
But notice this: France produces 85% of its electricity via new nuclear plants. Scandinavian countries have gone nuclear (yes, Sweden and Norway). But these are countries that are ecologically sensitive, not? Exactly.
I would thus argue that if Christians -- or anyone else for that matter -- want to be Christian (or responsible), they might want to advocate not for the Paris Agreement but along with James Hanson (remember, the near-god representative of the "climate alarmist"), that the US should set aside irrational fears (and political history) about nuclear energy and implement a real solution that all sides, including those who may think we don't need a solution, agree on.
How is this not a sensible way foward? Why is this not the advocacy route that Christians should take? Why does the Christian Reformed Church continue to ignore James Hanson, the person who initiated the concerns about CO2 in the first place? Why does this author suggest that to be Christian, one has to advocate for a solution that James Hansen and John Christy and Roy Spencer all say is not the answer?
I'll repeat the argument made above. Government is given, as Scripture indicates (Rom 13:4, but also the clear tradition of the OT), the power of the sword, which can fairly be interpreted to mean the authority in society over whether someone lives or dies. That being the case, it would follow that if poverty existed in a particular nation that is life-threatening, government, the holder of the power over life and death, should exercise that power in a way that prevents that death -- that is, death from poverty, which could result specifically from of lack of food, lack of clothing, lack of housing, lack of health care, etc.
Peter: I'm a bit surprised at your response here. You say we need "Places where it is safe to name, discuss, agree, and disagree on critical issues that God and we deeply care about." You are the director of OSJ, which involves itself in just these sorts of subjects, and yet all of OSJ's "online publications," like DoJustice, are intentionally one-way, that is, you disable the comment functions. The discussion and disagreement you here say is so important is missing when OSJ communicates.
Yes, you and I have had this discussion (about OSJ's one-way communications) by email before and you've concluded we just disagree, which was true, but now you seem to be saying discussion, including about disagreement, is needed after all.
Understand I'm on your side on this comment, but it appears to me you aren't on your own side when it comes to presenting your/OSJ's perspective on these kinds of issues -- then/there you reject discussion. Help me out here in understanding what I perceive to be a disconnect.
What an insightful article. Indeed, political questions can and usually are far more complex than meets an individual's eye. And Christians, even CRCers, rarely agree with each other about the correct answers to almost all political questions.
Synods, the CRCNA and CRCNA Agencies might take this article to heart when tempted to declare and publicly advocate/lobby about political conclusions obvious to them.
I think prayer for the single goal of unity is incomplete. Unity alone, which as a practical matter sometimes means compromise to the extent required to achieve unity, even if faux, is not what God requires of us.
No, I not suggesting compromise can't be good. See Acts 15 for that. But compromise can be bad even if it is not always bad. No, it's not easy to discern which is which, but still I think prayers for unity must always be accompanied by equal petitions for faithfulness, lest whatever the process prayed for start with the false premise that only unity matters in an institutional church's deliberations.
Certainly, seeking unity is part of being faithful, but only "seeking" and only "part." Sometimes, I think we believe that institutional unity is required, for ourselves at least, to be one holy catholic church, as if Paul and Barnabas were no longer brothers in Christ because they disagreed to the point of separating in one of their trips and taking different companions. Wasn't the case then and still isn't now.
I would go so far as to say that institutional separation, done well, is sometime necessary to organic unity. But if we only pray for unity, we can't get to that truth, and separation is much less likely to be "done well."
I think part of the answer is expecting from all who would participate in the service a (speaking, singing, playing whatever) recognition that their participation isn't only about giving them a chance to do their thing in front of the congregation. If everyone that the point of serving is serving, the problem really disappears.
Not all will have that maturity of course. Which means another one of your jobs is to teach that, both as a preliminary to anyone who wants to participate (serve) and in an ongoing way. Another job may be to find opportunities for all to serve, even if they ultimately can't serve in the way they first wanted.
This author says, "What is most amazing is that there is no significant denunciation of Trump's comments by the Republican Party." Huh, what? I can't recall a political party that has more denunciated its own primariy season leader than the Republican Party has done this year in dununciating Trump and Trump's actions/statements, even though the Republican Party knows it risks alienate its own who support Trump by doing so.
Donald Trust does not equal Republican Party, even if this author suggests it is the case. Had there been a better opportunity in the Democratic Party to get elected, Trump would have run as a Democrat. Indeed, Trump has quite easily slipped from party to party -- and candidate to candidate -- in the past, and will continue to do so in the future, a fact not lost on Republican Party leaders and others who actually know what the phrase "political theory" means and can articulate their perspective about what government should or should not do.
Contrary to the advice in this article, The Banner should editorially stay out of the 2016 presidential race. Why? Beyond the generic sphere sovereignty arguments, because the editor and editorial board have less expertise than is needed to constructively take such positions.
Certainly, the institutional church (including Banner editor and ed board) can take a position against being crass, against calling names, against demagoguery, against racism, against hating, against dishonesty, against all sorts of things that it might decide it sees in this election, but it should not try to definitively describe the nuances of the make up of the Republican Party, nor the Democratic Party for that matter, nor any of the candidates, let alone endorse or oppose any.
Posted in: Time to Take Action: Post-COP21
Actually, Bangladesh's problem result from increased population, de-forestation, pollution other than CO2, and other man-made molding to the environment -- far more so than sea rise caused by global CO2 emissions. It has become a poster-child for climate change alarmists, but Bangladesh's other problems dwarf those caused by climate change.
Sea rise has been happening -- although very slowly -- and is going to continue happening -- again, although very slowly --, whether fossil fuels increase the CO2 in the atmosphere or not. We are still on the recovery side of ice ages, geologically speaking and so the sea level is supposed to rise -- again even while very slowly. See at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1880-2013.png
Given the amount of public relations money behind the mantra that climate change is the cause of all troubles, it is not, and Bangladesh is one of the cases in point, even if climate change alarmists like to make Bangladesh their poster child.
Look, for example, at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/embankments-exacerbate-sea-level-rise-in-bangladesh/ and
http://bangladeshunique.blogspot.com/2010/07/deforestation-in-bangladesh.html and
http://blog.cifor.org/9434/bangladesh-forests-disappearing-at-alarming-rate-says-expert?fnl=en and
http://bankofinfo.com/population-growth-in-bangladesh/
http://www.muhammadyunus.org/index.php/news-media/articles-by-professor-yunus/219-the-problem-of-poverty-in-bangladesh
Posted in: The Role of the Government as Taught by the Bible
Larry: So exactly what to you mean when you say "take care of the poor?" My response clearly indicated that government had an obligation to provide a "safety net" but I'm not sure -- and said so in my comment to your post -- that qualifies as "providing for the poor," as you understand that phrase.
So let's clarify what we might be agreeing or disagreeing about. What do you mean when you say that "government should take care of the poor?"
Posted in: Live Justly for Lent: Welcoming Returning Citizens
I would enthusiastically agree that both churches and individuals do well in providing help to past or present incarcerated persons and their families. There are few areas of concern where the need is greater and potential impact more profitable.
But I do cringe at how this article frames what is discussed as strictly a matter of "justice." Indeed, neither the lead-in verse and sentence -- nor any other part of the post -- makes mention of "mercy." A better lead-in verse would be Micah 6:8, which commands us to both "do justice" and "love mercy."
As an attorney, I have been involved in questions of justice in behalf of inmates and ex-inmates. But we do well to clearly understand that we are obliged to extend mercy even when there is no question about justice. Most of those we should help out are in fact not "oppressed" persons we must "[let] free," as this articles states. Some should remain incarcerated inmates. Still, we do well to serve them, while incarcerated, and their family members waiting for their release -- because of our "love of mercy."
Posted in: A Question of Governance and Scripture Teaching
If government in fact exclusively wields the power of the sword (and that proposition finds biblical support), which I think fairly implies that it uniquely has the power of life and death, then I would think it can be reasonably concluded that government ought -- as a matter of justice, not mercy, based on its power over life and death -- provide the means by which the poor might live. The caveat to that is that this (justice) obligation is not to provide a comfortable life but rather the minimal means by which the poor will, essentially, avoid dying.
This is not a "wisdom" argument but a "justice" argument (I missed the argument from "last week" and can't find it).
In terms of a "wisdom" argument, but also in terms of "what the role of government is" argument, I think government should/does have the authority to do that which benefits the citizenry as a whole (for the "common good"). Examples would be: (1) creating contract law so that the citizenry can better engage in economic relationships; (2) creating electricity creating dams on rivers to provide energy; (2) creating all sorts of civil laws (torts, property, etc), again so that the citizenry can engage in life, with others, in a more orderly way; (3) build needed roads, or mail systems, or other services that are helpful to the citizenry as a whole; (4) establishing anti-trust laws so that the government will not lose the "most powerful status" to any business or other organization (in which case the existence of government as government is threatened); (5) defining/recognizing institutional spheres and sphere boundaries in society (e.g., church, family, voluntary organizations, etc); (6) regulating behavior that significantly threatens the citizenry as a whole (e.g., possession of nuclear weapons, requiring banks and insurance companies to hold reserves, limiting use or harvest of commonly owned, natural resources that might otherwise go extinct or become unusable); (7) if the government is democratically elected, to ensure the voting population will be sufficiently educated so as to be capable of intelligently voting.
This isn't an exhaustive list of course, but the common thread in the examples is that government acts in these cases for the "common good," not as a means of deciding that some in the population should be nice (should mercy) to others. The power of the sword should never be used to force some citizens to be merciful to others.
Posted in: A Question of Governance and Scripture Teaching
Well, your lead post says, "It was pointed out that nowhere in scripture can you find support for the idea of government being obligated to care for the poor." I was merely pointing out that there IS scripture that "support[s] the idea of government being obligated to care for the poor."
Don't interpret what I say as suggesting government should try to keep people close to death, but rather that it is simply not the justice obligation of government to provide it citizenry a very comfortable living.
Let's look at it this way. Have you ever been motivated to really put in some extra effort because if you didn't, you and your family might be headed for some real financial trouble? That if you didn't really put out, your business would fail, or you wouldn't be able to send a child to a college of choice, or you couldn't afford your spouse's elective surgery that would be really nice, or you wouldn't be able to afford piano lessons for your child (etc etc etc etc)? If government's justice obligation is to give you a comfortable living, or if your justice right is to demand that government make you comfortable, what will you be tempted to do? Answer: not worry, not put in the extra effort. For that matter, why would you put in all that work to get the education you need to get to that next step? Live is guaranteed comfortable, not?
Sure, some people are self-motivated to the point that they will do what they should do (use and develop their gifts) regardless of external incentives/disincentives, regardless of a government guarantee of a comfortable living, but if you and I or anyone was asked, we must admit that many people do require the incentive of sheer WANT to the point of NEED to get them motivated to do what they should do to live more fully. Indeed, many people would be deprived of that incentive if they knew government would offer them a comfortable life if they did nothing.
Beyond that, consider that government is not the only societal institution that can and does provide truly needed help. My goodness, if we live or die based on government, what kind of society have we actually become?
Do you really think that Romans 13:4, "For he is God's servant to do you good," intends to suggest that government will provide materially for you? Consider the context. The Roman government provided economically for no one (except the political elite of course). If a subject was blind, he/she needed to beg. Doing good, in an NT biblical context, means maintain "law and order," I would suggest. That is, restrain thieves and murderers and others with the power to harm you. And that was a big deal -- and still is -- "... that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness."
I'm not sure how old you are, but I'm 61. When I was young, only women and children were eligible for any kind of welfare benefits. If males "needed help," except if they were disabled in some way (in which case medicaid type of benefits could kick in), then males needed to figure out how to help themselves, get help from parents, get help from friends, or something else. Did those maies die back in the 1960s when that was the case? Nope. Did NEED motivate them to do something? Yep. In fact, I would say adults today who grew up as children in households that were very financially challenged when they were young, who grew up as children having to work 20, 30, 40 or more hours a week, are now blessed as adults. Why? Because they know how to handle that stress, how to work even when it isn't fun or even pleasant, how to get themselves to do what it takes to "prosper" (in a good way), and how to take care or their families -- and then also their neighbors. And sometimes, they also learned what the true meaning of friendship is, of local community, of a church that is true family.
Do we really want Caesar to guarantee a comfortable life to all who need the nudge of economic motivation? I don't think so. And if the government does provide a true safety net, a subsistence that is uncomfortable, and someone really should have more than that, there still is family, friends, community, church. Indeed, I think too many people never become a part of community and church because they perceive they don't need to. If all else fails, the government will take care of them after all.
"With liberty and justice for all" says nothing about government owing anyone a comfortable life. That idea would be considered absurd to the founding fathers, probably to all early church Christians and Jews living then as well. Liberty means the right to live without an oppressive government or other force, and justice roughly the same. Neither suggests a right to not struggle to provide for yourself.
Thanks for the exchange. I think this is a critically important area of concern for us today.
Posted in: After Paris, It's Time for Christians to Take on Climate Change
There's not much in this article I agree with. Here's the other side.
The author begins by declaring a "disconnect" between "Christians and climate change," by which is meant that if you are Christian, you should be on board with the climate change related positions and suggestions this author articles is about to take and make. But maybe, just maybe, there is a "connect" between "Christians and climate change," except that Christians should be taking a position opposite of that taken by this author. Here's the case for that.
First, no one believes human activity doesn't affect climate. No one. Whether it's burning fuels that release CO2 or raising cattle that pass methane gas or growing rice that does much the same as cattle, human activity affects the land, sea and atmosphere. But that's not really the important question. The important questions are: (1) how much does human activity affect climate, (2) in what ways does human activity affect climate, (3) what are the effects of the effect humans have on climate, (4) what should we do, if anything, to mitigate the effects of the effects humans have on climate.
Second, contrary to what our president says (the same president who said he'd put a comprehensive plan for immigration reform in front of Congress within 90 days of being elected, the same president who said debates about health care would be done in the open and carried by C-SPAN, and the same president who promised everyone could keep their insurance plan and doctor, and that insurance costs would go down, under Obamacare) is simply incorrect (or misrepresenting again) when he claims "... if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You’ll be pretty lonely ...." Many, not just a couple, not just a few, world class climatologists, and thousands of other supporting non-climatologist scientists, vigorously disagree. Take, for example, world class climatologist John Christy (Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville) and his climate science working partner, Roy Spencer. Together, these men, both of whom are brothers in Christ, developed our nation's satellite based temperature measuring/tracking system. Both have impeccable, untarnished credentials. Neither are funded by the evil fossil fuel industry. And both vigorously disagree with today's "climate alarmist" community. And Christy and Spencer are by no means the end of the list. I'll decline to list more here, but I certainly am able.
There is one point made in this article that I agree with, that being "Climate change is an exceedingly technical issue...." Indeed it is. Which is why I'm a bit surprised that the author of this article would, as this article does, equate being on one side of the issue with being Christian. For that matter is it remarkable that the CRC, an insitution devoid of even a single world class climatologist, would take a position about this "exceedingly technical issue." The implication of course, from this article and the CRC's taken position, is that "being on the other side: means "not being Christian." In contrast, I regard persons on both sides of the issue as quite capable of being Christians.
There is another point made in this article that I agree with, that being "Climate change is ... also a deeply moral issue." But while the author of this article believes that means we should support Barak Obama's and the United Nation's position, I believe otherwise. Indeed, I and many world class economists believe that following the Paris Agreement may result in that which is immoral. Limiting the amount of energy people can use, especially in undeveloped countries, comes at a price that is extracted in terms of human life sometimes, and always in terms of human prosperity (or said more fashionably, human flourishing).
But there is a way through this impasse, this disagreement about the science, and the effect of the effect of humans on the climate. What if we would develop a lot more non-CO2 emitting energy resources? OK, but how do we do that?
James Hansen, the "climate alarmist" who started this all, the guy who "climate alarmists" hold in near god-like status, had said, over and over and over and over (go Google it), that solar, wind, geothermal and other similar renewable energy sources are good, but clearly and certainly not robust enough to fill the energy need gap that will be created if we reduce fossil fuel consumption to the extent needed to avoid his prediction of CO2 Armageddon. And while John Christy and many others would disagree about the CO2 Armageddon part, they too would support dramatically increasing nuclear energy. So it would seem there is a middle ground, a solution that both James Hanson and John Christy and Roy Spencer would agree to: nuclear engergy. James Hanson has been saying, again over and over and over (again, go Google it) that nuclear energy is clean, safe, CO2 free, efficient, and sufficiently abundant to "fill the gap" that fossil fuel reductions would leave. Christy and Spencer would agree.
So then, what's the problem? If both sides agree on the real solution (which is not the Paris Agreement), why can't we do that? Answer: because when James Hanson pitches nuclear energy, all of his otherwise supportive "climate alarmist" community goes silent. They don't like nuclear energy. Why? Hard to know for sure, but probably because of their irrational fears, or more likely perhaps of their political obstructionist positions taken in the past about nuclear energy.
But notice this: France produces 85% of its electricity via new nuclear plants. Scandinavian countries have gone nuclear (yes, Sweden and Norway). But these are countries that are ecologically sensitive, not? Exactly.
I would thus argue that if Christians -- or anyone else for that matter -- want to be Christian (or responsible), they might want to advocate not for the Paris Agreement but along with James Hanson (remember, the near-god representative of the "climate alarmist"), that the US should set aside irrational fears (and political history) about nuclear energy and implement a real solution that all sides, including those who may think we don't need a solution, agree on.
How is this not a sensible way foward? Why is this not the advocacy route that Christians should take? Why does the Christian Reformed Church continue to ignore James Hanson, the person who initiated the concerns about CO2 in the first place? Why does this author suggest that to be Christian, one has to advocate for a solution that James Hansen and John Christy and Roy Spencer all say is not the answer?
Posted in: A Question of Governance and Scripture Teaching
I'll repeat the argument made above. Government is given, as Scripture indicates (Rom 13:4, but also the clear tradition of the OT), the power of the sword, which can fairly be interpreted to mean the authority in society over whether someone lives or dies. That being the case, it would follow that if poverty existed in a particular nation that is life-threatening, government, the holder of the power over life and death, should exercise that power in a way that prevents that death -- that is, death from poverty, which could result specifically from of lack of food, lack of clothing, lack of housing, lack of health care, etc.
Posted in: Think Globally, Push Back Locally
Peter: I'm a bit surprised at your response here. You say we need "Places where it is safe to name, discuss, agree, and disagree on critical issues that God and we deeply care about." You are the director of OSJ, which involves itself in just these sorts of subjects, and yet all of OSJ's "online publications," like DoJustice, are intentionally one-way, that is, you disable the comment functions. The discussion and disagreement you here say is so important is missing when OSJ communicates.
Yes, you and I have had this discussion (about OSJ's one-way communications) by email before and you've concluded we just disagree, which was true, but now you seem to be saying discussion, including about disagreement, is needed after all.
Understand I'm on your side on this comment, but it appears to me you aren't on your own side when it comes to presenting your/OSJ's perspective on these kinds of issues -- then/there you reject discussion. Help me out here in understanding what I perceive to be a disconnect.
Posted in: Freedom of Expression
What an insightful article. Indeed, political questions can and usually are far more complex than meets an individual's eye. And Christians, even CRCers, rarely agree with each other about the correct answers to almost all political questions.
Synods, the CRCNA and CRCNA Agencies might take this article to heart when tempted to declare and publicly advocate/lobby about political conclusions obvious to them.
Posted in: Preparing for Summer and Synod
I think prayer for the single goal of unity is incomplete. Unity alone, which as a practical matter sometimes means compromise to the extent required to achieve unity, even if faux, is not what God requires of us.
No, I not suggesting compromise can't be good. See Acts 15 for that. But compromise can be bad even if it is not always bad. No, it's not easy to discern which is which, but still I think prayers for unity must always be accompanied by equal petitions for faithfulness, lest whatever the process prayed for start with the false premise that only unity matters in an institutional church's deliberations.
Certainly, seeking unity is part of being faithful, but only "seeking" and only "part." Sometimes, I think we believe that institutional unity is required, for ourselves at least, to be one holy catholic church, as if Paul and Barnabas were no longer brothers in Christ because they disagreed to the point of separating in one of their trips and taking different companions. Wasn't the case then and still isn't now.
I would go so far as to say that institutional separation, done well, is sometime necessary to organic unity. But if we only pray for unity, we can't get to that truth, and separation is much less likely to be "done well."
Posted in: Excellence vs. Community?
I think part of the answer is expecting from all who would participate in the service a (speaking, singing, playing whatever) recognition that their participation isn't only about giving them a chance to do their thing in front of the congregation. If everyone that the point of serving is serving, the problem really disappears.
Not all will have that maturity of course. Which means another one of your jobs is to teach that, both as a preliminary to anyone who wants to participate (serve) and in an ongoing way. Another job may be to find opportunities for all to serve, even if they ultimately can't serve in the way they first wanted.
Posted in: Is the Republican Option Still Viable for Christians?
This author says, "What is most amazing is that there is no significant denunciation of Trump's comments by the Republican Party." Huh, what? I can't recall a political party that has more denunciated its own primariy season leader than the Republican Party has done this year in dununciating Trump and Trump's actions/statements, even though the Republican Party knows it risks alienate its own who support Trump by doing so.
Donald Trust does not equal Republican Party, even if this author suggests it is the case. Had there been a better opportunity in the Democratic Party to get elected, Trump would have run as a Democrat. Indeed, Trump has quite easily slipped from party to party -- and candidate to candidate -- in the past, and will continue to do so in the future, a fact not lost on Republican Party leaders and others who actually know what the phrase "political theory" means and can articulate their perspective about what government should or should not do.
Contrary to the advice in this article, The Banner should editorially stay out of the 2016 presidential race. Why? Beyond the generic sphere sovereignty arguments, because the editor and editorial board have less expertise than is needed to constructively take such positions.
Certainly, the institutional church (including Banner editor and ed board) can take a position against being crass, against calling names, against demagoguery, against racism, against hating, against dishonesty, against all sorts of things that it might decide it sees in this election, but it should not try to definitively describe the nuances of the make up of the Republican Party, nor the Democratic Party for that matter, nor any of the candidates, let alone endorse or oppose any.