Keith: I heartily agree with your suggestion as to what the institutional church (synod or otherwise) may and should talk about (e.g., state of American society, anger, increasing percentage of children born out of wedlock, etc).
There is a fine but yet very real line between the institutional church talking, and then proclaiming, about societal issues, and the institutional church usurping sphere authority of others by becoming a political megaphone for a certain member segment's political perspective.
Sorry Gerrit but I think you are way off-base in your perspective about the Trump phenomena. First, Republicans were opposing Trump when you say they weren't, although of course it became more as time passed, but that's nothing more than normal -- and responsible -- human behavior. You don't make a big fuss about something that will slide away on its own. It was reasonable to believe that Trump would gain no traction at all and fall to the wayside early. Indeed, it was unreasonable to think otherwise.
Yes, the Republican campaign has been beyond abhorrent but also beyond precedent. But all of it -- all of it -- has to do with one candidate who could as well have run as a Democrat, whose history strongly suggests he has no political party affiliation -- or political theory perspective -- of any kind.
Your response suggests you are a bit of a victim of what you what the denomination to rant against, that is, partisanship (noting your reference to "opinionators from one end of the spectrum and one cable 'news' channel"). If you want to "prevent the prevailing ethic of obstructionism, anger, and demonizing the opposition ...," you could start by not demonizing Republicans -- or Fox News for that matter -- as you do here. The brushes you are using are far too broad (aka "partisan").
James Hansen, the father of the modern day concerns about global warming and climate change, has repeatedly said that the best "solution" to CO2 emissions is found in nuclear energy, and that neither renewable energy nor conservation strategies can close to solving the problem. Sadly, most climate change alarmists are willing to follow Hansen when he talks about the danger of CO2 emissions but not when he talks about the solutions. As to the latter, his crowd grows deafeningly silent. Hansen is no slouch scientist, including as to nuclear reactors, which he considers extremely safe, given the advancement of nuclear technology.
Consider the % of energy that is produced by nuclear in a number of countries: France 76.9%, Slovakia 56.8%, Hungary 53.6%, Ukraine 49.4%, Belgium 47.5%, Sweden 41.5%, Switzerland 37.9%, Slovenia 37.2%, Czech Republic 35.8%, Finland 34.6%, Bulgaria 31.8%, Armenia 30.7%, South Korea 30.4%. The United States lags way behind even if it should be in the lead.
Hansen and other climate alarmists have warned that we were reaching the "tipping point" to CO2 disaster quite some time ago. I disagreed with their conclusions (as have more than a few world class scientists who are experts about the subject matter), and would note that if Hansen and his crowd are correct, we have already past the "tipping point."
Nevertheless, I and many others believe common ground can be found for both sides -- in nuclear energy.
In my view, COP 21 doubles down on a failed strategy, even if one agrees with Hansen's predictions, for the simple reason that its agenda cannot produce a solution, even by Hanson's analysis. And if COP 21 is successful, the side effects in terms of world poverty will be anything but small.
If the CRCNA must enter the political fray on this topic (although I would argue it shouldn't for lack of expertise, among other reasons), it should have the courage to look for a middle ground that has the promise of being productive. The CRCNA could do a lot worse than joining hands with James Hansen in proposing much more nuclear energy production.
James Hanson can be watched and listened to about the nuclear option at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZExWtXAZ7M
This is a must view for anyone who thinks COP 21 or the Climate Witness Project are on target to be significantly helpful, EVEN IF one agrees that CO2 emissions are cause for great alarm.
Many Christians already make their voices heard in national and local conversations about immigration, without the lead, and sometimes in ways contrary to, the way the CRC/OSJ would instruct. The more pertinent question is whether OSJ should tell all CRCers what exactly they must think and express when they make their voices heard in these conversations.
Wouldn't it be better to invite CRCers (and other Christians) to discuss the complexities of the issues involved instead of just tell them what they should think and what they should do? Does this topic have to be a one-way conversation? Of course, a one-way conversation isn't a conversation at all. And do we have to reduce our perspective to one that is so black and white?
I would suggest it is never the case that a phenomena as complex as legal and illegal immigration, in a nation as large as the US, with immigration numbers (legal and illegal) as great as they have been in the US of late, can be called all good or all bad (or all "blessing" or all "burden"). It will always be a mixed bag.
In contradiction to the claims made by this campaign, I personally know of people in my community, including my clients, who are substantially burdened by immigration, especially when the numbers of unlawful immigration increases as it has. To put it simply, a high number of lower-skilled immigration increases the supply of low-skilled workers as well as small businesses who, whether with appropriate licenses or not, engage in certain kinds of lower skill work and small business efforts (e.g., roofing, painting, yard work, etc). That reality effectively reduces wages and the amount of available work for some workers and some small businesses. And of course, this would be true not just where I live but anywhere there are high numbers of immigrants, especially when high level of immigration is unlawful.
The problem with declaring -- and then pushing in a political way as does this campaign -- a hyperbole (that unlawful immigration produces all upside (blessing) and no downside (burden)) is that lawmakers get caught up in the bumper sticker mantra and tend to legislate accordingly, which of course means they tend to simply ignore the problems unlawful immigration in fact creates. That is, they ignore the lower-skilled work force and the small business that can get hit hard by the effect of high unlawful immigration numbers.
A better approach would be to simply avoid hyperbole in this sort of campaign. Better yet, if avoiding the hyperbole proves too difficult, would be to allow intelligent CRC members to speak for themselves to their own political representatives, based on their own experience and fact-finding. Above all, that approach respects the rights of CRC members to be part of the CRC church without surrendering their political voice to a proxy.
That's a fascinating analogy (kids as immigrants). I'm willing to play with that. So my client Jon is in his early thirties and married with two kids. He started a roofing business some years back. The more the unlawful immigration (I distinguish between lawful and unlawful even if you and this campaign refuse to), the more "black market" (and "white market") competition he has. For Jon, unlawful immigration is a hardship. If Jon was required to accept additional children because the government said he had to, the effect would in fact be the roughly the same -- hardship. To be clear, all people are created in God's image, as are all children. But people who come to the US in violation of US law and become a particular burden to particular segments of the US population (in this case, small businesses and lower skilled employees) were as much created in God's image in Honduras, or Mexico, or Nicaragua and they are if they come to the US.
The irony in all of this is that a political campaign like this one, which advocates a simplistic message that lacks nuance, hurts the small, poorer people in the US (like my clients Jon and Andrew and others like them) and helps the big ones (like my client Larry and companies much bigger than that who are not my clients -- I mostly represent small businesses). The reason is simple: uncontrolled, unlawful immigration from third world countries favor big businesses and higher skilled employees and disfavors small businesses and lower skilled employees. As I said before, this is really the opposite of what OSJ says they advocate for.
You and OSJ are right that on the whole, when all the numbers are counted in a macro kind of way, immigration, probably including illegal immigration, is more a blessing than a burden. But peoples' lives aren't lived at the macro level; they are lived at the micro level, in the real world as it is. Why should the government ignore its own immigration laws so that the rich can get richer but the middle class and lower class are economically pinched? And why should OSJ push a political campaign that supports that?
I suspect my clients Jon and Andrew would be interested in your t-shirts, but only if you put the word "Legal" in front of the word "Immigrants." My client Larry would be interested in the shirt without that added word, and maybe even prefer the word "Illegal" (illegal immigrants are easier to manipulate and abuse for bigger business and bigger agricultural operations because they are more vulnerable).
Why are you and OSJ favoring the wealthier class of Americans over the middle and poorer classes of Americans? Micro justice for real people may be as much or even more important that macro economic growth for a nation and more wealth for the already wealthy. Not?
Without checking the uncited Pew research, I do wonder how Pew would know. Most of the unlawful immigrants I know personally) don't publicize that they here unlawfully. But even if we assume, for the sake of the argument, that your uncited Pew reference is true, I don't understand the point. Would it be that we should decrease the number of unlawful immigrants? If not that, what?
To the broader point, I've already conceded that on the whole, from a macro perspective, immigrants as a whole probably benefit the US economy. Still, from a micro perspective, especially unlawful immigration predominantly benefits the more wealthy class but burdens the middle and lower classes.
Nor have I denied that immigrants and all other people are image bearers of God, but that's not really a particularly helpful observation either. They are image bearers of God even if they are live in their home countries of Honduras, or San Salvador, or Mexico, or China, etc. Image bearers of God don't have to unlawfully come to or stay in the United States to be image bearers of God.
Again, my point, which seems to be missed, is that we have to be more nuanced about all of this than to just say that we should lobby government to regard all immigration, legal or illegal, to be a blessing to all and a burden to no one (which is, effectively, a call for an unrestricted immigration policy). Again, we owe it to everyone involved to be more nuanced than that.
I think much progress has been made on the MDGs, although I differ as to what caused that progress to be made. I could have personally established these goals for the world back in 2000 and then claimed success in achieving them when observing progress had been made. Association doesn't mean causation.
The fact is, the world has been and is, on the whole, increasingly opening up to free (or freer) market economic policies. This is the cause for MDG progress.
Take China for example. Despite the government being a dictatorship, China has implemented policies of open market economic principles, both internally and internationally. Those policies haven't been implemented and executed without problems, but the move away from China's government controls of the past (under Mao) has brought a level of economic prosperity that few predicted possible or likely in the Mao days. And all of that prosperity works in favor of each and every United Nations MDG goal.
World poverty alleviation advocate, Bono (yes the singer with U2), began his advocacy career by meeting with high level government officials, urging them to fight worldwide policies alongside the United Nations with its Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). After years and years of advocacy, Bono has figured out that what the world needs more of is not more government effort but more free market economic activity. He has even publicly laughed about himself, saying who would have thought when he started his world-wide crusade that after this many years, he'd become a fan of free market capitalism and be asking governments to get out of the way.
So now, the UN sets more goals. That's OK I suppose, but just so we don't become fooled about why so much progress was made on MDGs. What I will celebrate is when whatever government of whatever country decides that open markets -- which really is nothing more or less than recognizing the truth contained in that old Kuyperian concept of "sphere sovereignty" -- is a key to all kinds of success. If the UN then wants to later take the bow for the success, that's OK, so long as it doesn't get in the way of the progress being made, or of the measures being taken by governments who have figured out what it takes to make economic progress, and thereby progress on pretty much everything else.
I think the US government's policy toward asylum should not consider the religion of the asylum seeker. On the other hand, to the extent a particular church is involved in the asylum process, it should sometime discriminate for or against certain religious perspectives of the asylum seeker.
Exactly how would it be better, I would ask, for a devout Muslim to be placed in Sioux Center, Iowa (in a reformed Christian host family) while a devout Christian was placed with a Muslim family in Dearborn, Michigan?
No, I'm not suggesting a strict religious match up in all cases, nor that Muslims should be declared out of luck for lack of Muslim sponsors.
I would also suggest that it is good, not bad, that Christian churches in one country ESPECIALLY look out for Christian churches, and Christians, in other countries. Raymond Ibrahim makes a very valid, and biblical, point in what he says.
James Hansen, the father of the modern day concerns about global warming and climate change, has repeatedly said that the best "solution" to CO2 emissions is found in nuclear energy, and that neither renewable energy nor conservation strategies can close to solving the problem. Sadly, most climate change alarmists are willing to follow Hansen when he talks about the danger of CO2 emissions but not when he talks about the solutions. As to the latter, his crowd grows deafeningly silent. Hansen is no slouch scientist, including as to nuclear reactors, which he considers extremely safe, given the advancement of nuclear technology.
Consider the % of energy that is produced by nuclear in a number of countries: France 76.9%, Slovakia 56.8%, Hungary 53.6%, Ukraine 49.4%, Belgium 47.5%, Sweden 41.5%, Switzerland 37.9%, Slovenia 37.2%, Czech Republic 35.8%, Finland 34.6%, Bulgaria 31.8%, Armenia 30.7%, South Korea 30.4%. The United States lags way behind even if it should be in the lead.
Hansen and other climate alarmists have warned that we were reaching the "tipping point" to CO2 disaster quite some time ago. I disagreed with their conclusions (as have more than a few world class scientists who are experts about the subject matter), and would note that if Hansen and his crowd are correct, we have already past the "tipping point."
Nevertheless, I and many others believe common ground can be found for both sides -- in nuclear energy.
In my view, COP 21 doubles down on a failed strategy, even if one agrees with Hansen's predictions, for the simple reason that its agenda cannot produce a solution, even by Hanson's analysis. And if COP 21 is successful, the side effects in terms of world poverty will be anything but small.
If the CRCNA must enter the political fray on this topic (although I would argue it shouldn't for lack of expertise, among other reasons), it should have the courage to look for a middle ground that has the promise of being productive. The CRCNA could do a lot worse than joining hands with James Hansen in proposing much more nuclear energy production.
I do like the idea of disbursing the denominational offices. It may not be as "efficient" in some ways, but it seems to me that not enough people have resisted to the urge to centralize power just because they can. A healthy respect for Kuyperian spheres would accomplish some of the same benefits as would disbursing the denomination offices, but my observation is that the sense of those institutional boundaries no longer exist much in Western Michigan.
Hence, if you are in NW Iowa, you support church (as a separate institution) and college (Dordt, as a separate institution), and political advocacy (as a separate institution--Center for Public Justice came from NW Iowa). But not in Western Michigan, where Calvin College and the denomination, and OSJ, etc. are becoming an authority monolith, which is, really, moving to a model much more resembling the Roman Catholic tradition (what the church says goes in any sphere and they may always be the political proxy for their members).
What is particularly interesting is this: the Roman Catholics has been, as a practical matter though perhaps not officially, decentralizing (giving more regard to sphere sovereignty) in recent decades, while the CRC is moving in the opposite direction. John Kennedy's election as President might be seen to have started that shift in the American RC community, but there have been lots of other signs as well. It used to be that Catholics were Democrats because they were "social justice" advocates (again, switching going on between RC and CRC). Increasingly, American Catholics are deciding "social justice" often hurts people more than helps (eg., Lyndon Johnson's Great Society initiatives), and so they are becoming Republicans, wanting to do mercy privately, not via government. I've lived, worked, and coached with a lot of Catholics in my area. None of them are "social justice" types. Understand that when I say "social justice," I mean a perspective that demands government right all wrongs, and for people to right wrong by advocating for government action that does it. It also means there is no more talk of mercy, but only of rights and justice. Catholics still tend to be very "merciful" (personally charitable, giving) but not so much anymore demanding that goverment do their charity work.
A very striking example of the RC shift is found on the US Supreme Court. Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are all RC, the last four very conservative (de-centristic) and the first pretty much so. Arguably, none of them fit into the "social justice" mold, even though the RC's were the "religious" pillar within the "social justice" crowd just decades ago.
Posted in: Is the Republican Option Still Viable for Christians?
Keith: I heartily agree with your suggestion as to what the institutional church (synod or otherwise) may and should talk about (e.g., state of American society, anger, increasing percentage of children born out of wedlock, etc).
There is a fine but yet very real line between the institutional church talking, and then proclaiming, about societal issues, and the institutional church usurping sphere authority of others by becoming a political megaphone for a certain member segment's political perspective.
Posted in: Is the Republican Option Still Viable for Christians?
Sorry Gerrit but I think you are way off-base in your perspective about the Trump phenomena. First, Republicans were opposing Trump when you say they weren't, although of course it became more as time passed, but that's nothing more than normal -- and responsible -- human behavior. You don't make a big fuss about something that will slide away on its own. It was reasonable to believe that Trump would gain no traction at all and fall to the wayside early. Indeed, it was unreasonable to think otherwise.
Yes, the Republican campaign has been beyond abhorrent but also beyond precedent. But all of it -- all of it -- has to do with one candidate who could as well have run as a Democrat, whose history strongly suggests he has no political party affiliation -- or political theory perspective -- of any kind.
Your response suggests you are a bit of a victim of what you what the denomination to rant against, that is, partisanship (noting your reference to "opinionators from one end of the spectrum and one cable 'news' channel"). If you want to "prevent the prevailing ethic of obstructionism, anger, and demonizing the opposition ...," you could start by not demonizing Republicans -- or Fox News for that matter -- as you do here. The brushes you are using are far too broad (aka "partisan").
Posted in: COP 21: A Crash Course
James Hansen, the father of the modern day concerns about global warming and climate change, has repeatedly said that the best "solution" to CO2 emissions is found in nuclear energy, and that neither renewable energy nor conservation strategies can close to solving the problem. Sadly, most climate change alarmists are willing to follow Hansen when he talks about the danger of CO2 emissions but not when he talks about the solutions. As to the latter, his crowd grows deafeningly silent. Hansen is no slouch scientist, including as to nuclear reactors, which he considers extremely safe, given the advancement of nuclear technology.
Consider the % of energy that is produced by nuclear in a number of countries: France 76.9%, Slovakia 56.8%, Hungary 53.6%, Ukraine 49.4%, Belgium 47.5%, Sweden 41.5%, Switzerland 37.9%, Slovenia 37.2%, Czech Republic 35.8%, Finland 34.6%, Bulgaria 31.8%, Armenia 30.7%, South Korea 30.4%. The United States lags way behind even if it should be in the lead.
Hansen and other climate alarmists have warned that we were reaching the "tipping point" to CO2 disaster quite some time ago. I disagreed with their conclusions (as have more than a few world class scientists who are experts about the subject matter), and would note that if Hansen and his crowd are correct, we have already past the "tipping point."
Nevertheless, I and many others believe common ground can be found for both sides -- in nuclear energy.
In my view, COP 21 doubles down on a failed strategy, even if one agrees with Hansen's predictions, for the simple reason that its agenda cannot produce a solution, even by Hanson's analysis. And if COP 21 is successful, the side effects in terms of world poverty will be anything but small.
If the CRCNA must enter the political fray on this topic (although I would argue it shouldn't for lack of expertise, among other reasons), it should have the courage to look for a middle ground that has the promise of being productive. The CRCNA could do a lot worse than joining hands with James Hansen in proposing much more nuclear energy production.
Posted in: COP 21: A Crash Course
James Hanson can be watched and listened to about the nuclear option at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZExWtXAZ7M
This is a must view for anyone who thinks COP 21 or the Climate Witness Project are on target to be significantly helpful, EVEN IF one agrees that CO2 emissions are cause for great alarm.
Posted in: Change the Conversation About Immigrants in the U.S.
Many Christians already make their voices heard in national and local conversations about immigration, without the lead, and sometimes in ways contrary to, the way the CRC/OSJ would instruct. The more pertinent question is whether OSJ should tell all CRCers what exactly they must think and express when they make their voices heard in these conversations.
Wouldn't it be better to invite CRCers (and other Christians) to discuss the complexities of the issues involved instead of just tell them what they should think and what they should do? Does this topic have to be a one-way conversation? Of course, a one-way conversation isn't a conversation at all. And do we have to reduce our perspective to one that is so black and white?
Posted in: Change the Conversation About Immigrants in the U.S.
I would suggest it is never the case that a phenomena as complex as legal and illegal immigration, in a nation as large as the US, with immigration numbers (legal and illegal) as great as they have been in the US of late, can be called all good or all bad (or all "blessing" or all "burden"). It will always be a mixed bag.
In contradiction to the claims made by this campaign, I personally know of people in my community, including my clients, who are substantially burdened by immigration, especially when the numbers of unlawful immigration increases as it has. To put it simply, a high number of lower-skilled immigration increases the supply of low-skilled workers as well as small businesses who, whether with appropriate licenses or not, engage in certain kinds of lower skill work and small business efforts (e.g., roofing, painting, yard work, etc). That reality effectively reduces wages and the amount of available work for some workers and some small businesses. And of course, this would be true not just where I live but anywhere there are high numbers of immigrants, especially when high level of immigration is unlawful.
The problem with declaring -- and then pushing in a political way as does this campaign -- a hyperbole (that unlawful immigration produces all upside (blessing) and no downside (burden)) is that lawmakers get caught up in the bumper sticker mantra and tend to legislate accordingly, which of course means they tend to simply ignore the problems unlawful immigration in fact creates. That is, they ignore the lower-skilled work force and the small business that can get hit hard by the effect of high unlawful immigration numbers.
A better approach would be to simply avoid hyperbole in this sort of campaign. Better yet, if avoiding the hyperbole proves too difficult, would be to allow intelligent CRC members to speak for themselves to their own political representatives, based on their own experience and fact-finding. Above all, that approach respects the rights of CRC members to be part of the CRC church without surrendering their political voice to a proxy.
Posted in: Change the Conversation About Immigrants in the U.S.
That's a fascinating analogy (kids as immigrants). I'm willing to play with that. So my client Jon is in his early thirties and married with two kids. He started a roofing business some years back. The more the unlawful immigration (I distinguish between lawful and unlawful even if you and this campaign refuse to), the more "black market" (and "white market") competition he has. For Jon, unlawful immigration is a hardship. If Jon was required to accept additional children because the government said he had to, the effect would in fact be the roughly the same -- hardship. To be clear, all people are created in God's image, as are all children. But people who come to the US in violation of US law and become a particular burden to particular segments of the US population (in this case, small businesses and lower skilled employees) were as much created in God's image in Honduras, or Mexico, or Nicaragua and they are if they come to the US.
The irony in all of this is that a political campaign like this one, which advocates a simplistic message that lacks nuance, hurts the small, poorer people in the US (like my clients Jon and Andrew and others like them) and helps the big ones (like my client Larry and companies much bigger than that who are not my clients -- I mostly represent small businesses). The reason is simple: uncontrolled, unlawful immigration from third world countries favor big businesses and higher skilled employees and disfavors small businesses and lower skilled employees. As I said before, this is really the opposite of what OSJ says they advocate for.
You and OSJ are right that on the whole, when all the numbers are counted in a macro kind of way, immigration, probably including illegal immigration, is more a blessing than a burden. But peoples' lives aren't lived at the macro level; they are lived at the micro level, in the real world as it is. Why should the government ignore its own immigration laws so that the rich can get richer but the middle class and lower class are economically pinched? And why should OSJ push a political campaign that supports that?
I suspect my clients Jon and Andrew would be interested in your t-shirts, but only if you put the word "Legal" in front of the word "Immigrants." My client Larry would be interested in the shirt without that added word, and maybe even prefer the word "Illegal" (illegal immigrants are easier to manipulate and abuse for bigger business and bigger agricultural operations because they are more vulnerable).
Why are you and OSJ favoring the wealthier class of Americans over the middle and poorer classes of Americans? Micro justice for real people may be as much or even more important that macro economic growth for a nation and more wealth for the already wealthy. Not?
Posted in: Change the Conversation About Immigrants in the U.S.
Without checking the uncited Pew research, I do wonder how Pew would know. Most of the unlawful immigrants I know personally) don't publicize that they here unlawfully. But even if we assume, for the sake of the argument, that your uncited Pew reference is true, I don't understand the point. Would it be that we should decrease the number of unlawful immigrants? If not that, what?
To the broader point, I've already conceded that on the whole, from a macro perspective, immigrants as a whole probably benefit the US economy. Still, from a micro perspective, especially unlawful immigration predominantly benefits the more wealthy class but burdens the middle and lower classes.
Nor have I denied that immigrants and all other people are image bearers of God, but that's not really a particularly helpful observation either. They are image bearers of God even if they are live in their home countries of Honduras, or San Salvador, or Mexico, or China, etc. Image bearers of God don't have to unlawfully come to or stay in the United States to be image bearers of God.
Again, my point, which seems to be missed, is that we have to be more nuanced about all of this than to just say that we should lobby government to regard all immigration, legal or illegal, to be a blessing to all and a burden to no one (which is, effectively, a call for an unrestricted immigration policy). Again, we owe it to everyone involved to be more nuanced than that.
Posted in: Pro-Life Series: I Was Proven Wrong
I think much progress has been made on the MDGs, although I differ as to what caused that progress to be made. I could have personally established these goals for the world back in 2000 and then claimed success in achieving them when observing progress had been made. Association doesn't mean causation.
The fact is, the world has been and is, on the whole, increasingly opening up to free (or freer) market economic policies. This is the cause for MDG progress.
Take China for example. Despite the government being a dictatorship, China has implemented policies of open market economic principles, both internally and internationally. Those policies haven't been implemented and executed without problems, but the move away from China's government controls of the past (under Mao) has brought a level of economic prosperity that few predicted possible or likely in the Mao days. And all of that prosperity works in favor of each and every United Nations MDG goal.
World poverty alleviation advocate, Bono (yes the singer with U2), began his advocacy career by meeting with high level government officials, urging them to fight worldwide policies alongside the United Nations with its Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). After years and years of advocacy, Bono has figured out that what the world needs more of is not more government effort but more free market economic activity. He has even publicly laughed about himself, saying who would have thought when he started his world-wide crusade that after this many years, he'd become a fan of free market capitalism and be asking governments to get out of the way.
So now, the UN sets more goals. That's OK I suppose, but just so we don't become fooled about why so much progress was made on MDGs. What I will celebrate is when whatever government of whatever country decides that open markets -- which really is nothing more or less than recognizing the truth contained in that old Kuyperian concept of "sphere sovereignty" -- is a key to all kinds of success. If the UN then wants to later take the bow for the success, that's OK, so long as it doesn't get in the way of the progress being made, or of the measures being taken by governments who have figured out what it takes to make economic progress, and thereby progress on pretty much everything else.
Posted in: A Coptic Christian's Comments on the Syrian Refugee Crisis
I think the US government's policy toward asylum should not consider the religion of the asylum seeker. On the other hand, to the extent a particular church is involved in the asylum process, it should sometime discriminate for or against certain religious perspectives of the asylum seeker.
Exactly how would it be better, I would ask, for a devout Muslim to be placed in Sioux Center, Iowa (in a reformed Christian host family) while a devout Christian was placed with a Muslim family in Dearborn, Michigan?
No, I'm not suggesting a strict religious match up in all cases, nor that Muslims should be declared out of luck for lack of Muslim sponsors.
I would also suggest that it is good, not bad, that Christian churches in one country ESPECIALLY look out for Christian churches, and Christians, in other countries. Raymond Ibrahim makes a very valid, and biblical, point in what he says.
Posted in: The Climate Witness Project - Christian Reformed Church in North America
James Hansen, the father of the modern day concerns about global warming and climate change, has repeatedly said that the best "solution" to CO2 emissions is found in nuclear energy, and that neither renewable energy nor conservation strategies can close to solving the problem. Sadly, most climate change alarmists are willing to follow Hansen when he talks about the danger of CO2 emissions but not when he talks about the solutions. As to the latter, his crowd grows deafeningly silent. Hansen is no slouch scientist, including as to nuclear reactors, which he considers extremely safe, given the advancement of nuclear technology.
Consider the % of energy that is produced by nuclear in a number of countries: France 76.9%, Slovakia 56.8%, Hungary 53.6%, Ukraine 49.4%, Belgium 47.5%, Sweden 41.5%, Switzerland 37.9%, Slovenia 37.2%, Czech Republic 35.8%, Finland 34.6%, Bulgaria 31.8%, Armenia 30.7%, South Korea 30.4%. The United States lags way behind even if it should be in the lead.
Hansen and other climate alarmists have warned that we were reaching the "tipping point" to CO2 disaster quite some time ago. I disagreed with their conclusions (as have more than a few world class scientists who are experts about the subject matter), and would note that if Hansen and his crowd are correct, we have already past the "tipping point."
Nevertheless, I and many others believe common ground can be found for both sides -- in nuclear energy.
In my view, COP 21 doubles down on a failed strategy, even if one agrees with Hansen's predictions, for the simple reason that its agenda cannot produce a solution, even by Hanson's analysis. And if COP 21 is successful, the side effects in terms of world poverty will be anything but small.
If the CRCNA must enter the political fray on this topic (although I would argue it shouldn't for lack of expertise, among other reasons), it should have the courage to look for a middle ground that has the promise of being productive. The CRCNA could do a lot worse than joining hands with James Hansen in proposing much more nuclear energy production.
Posted in: Affirm the Belhar? Yes, but Not as a Doctrinal Standard
@ b-ver
I do like the idea of disbursing the denominational offices. It may not be as "efficient" in some ways, but it seems to me that not enough people have resisted to the urge to centralize power just because they can. A healthy respect for Kuyperian spheres would accomplish some of the same benefits as would disbursing the denomination offices, but my observation is that the sense of those institutional boundaries no longer exist much in Western Michigan.
Hence, if you are in NW Iowa, you support church (as a separate institution) and college (Dordt, as a separate institution), and political advocacy (as a separate institution--Center for Public Justice came from NW Iowa). But not in Western Michigan, where Calvin College and the denomination, and OSJ, etc. are becoming an authority monolith, which is, really, moving to a model much more resembling the Roman Catholic tradition (what the church says goes in any sphere and they may always be the political proxy for their members).
What is particularly interesting is this: the Roman Catholics has been, as a practical matter though perhaps not officially, decentralizing (giving more regard to sphere sovereignty) in recent decades, while the CRC is moving in the opposite direction. John Kennedy's election as President might be seen to have started that shift in the American RC community, but there have been lots of other signs as well. It used to be that Catholics were Democrats because they were "social justice" advocates (again, switching going on between RC and CRC). Increasingly, American Catholics are deciding "social justice" often hurts people more than helps (eg., Lyndon Johnson's Great Society initiatives), and so they are becoming Republicans, wanting to do mercy privately, not via government. I've lived, worked, and coached with a lot of Catholics in my area. None of them are "social justice" types. Understand that when I say "social justice," I mean a perspective that demands government right all wrongs, and for people to right wrong by advocating for government action that does it. It also means there is no more talk of mercy, but only of rights and justice. Catholics still tend to be very "merciful" (personally charitable, giving) but not so much anymore demanding that goverment do their charity work.
A very striking example of the RC shift is found on the US Supreme Court. Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are all RC, the last four very conservative (de-centristic) and the first pretty much so. Arguably, none of them fit into the "social justice" mold, even though the RC's were the "religious" pillar within the "social justice" crowd just decades ago.