Thanks for the article Jason. I have long wondered the same about the CRCNA/Sojourners affiliation. Indeed, it would be a very small step for the denomination to also tie itself to People for the American Way, or the ACLU, or the Federalist Society, or, for that matter, one of the political parties.
I have always wondered: who was it that established and approved of this connection? Do you know? I don't believe it was Synod, and if not who/what?
But you side-step the point, Tom, or at least mine. You assume that "taking action" is done when an institution that institutionally has no competence in the area of concern takes positions on the questions.
My perspective is that when institutions that have no competency in the area of concern they lobby about (for or against), the result is in fact counterproductive. Larger political players see such institutions as pawns to be swayed, ultimately resulting in society wide political polarization based on political gamesmanship. The two sides resist resolution because their positions are largely based on having picked a general political inclination side, not on knowledge about the issues themselves, which is a key to have the ability to change one's mind as evidence develops.
I'd argue that the EPA was in fact created (under Nixon no less if I recall) because there wasn't then such a high degree of political politicization. I don't think the CRCNA lobbied for or against it the proposed legislation to create the EPA, did it? I doubt many other churches did either. Still, it was created (that is, "action was taken"). If churches had lobbied for or against the EPA back then, they may well have lobbied against it, for lack of competency as to the actual issues involved. Same with acid rain and catalytic converters. Churches (certainly the CRC) didn't lobby for or against that legislation either.
Do you really want institutions who have no institutional competency about whatever the proposed legislation to lobby about it? Or is it just in this case?
Dan: It's good to hear that Canadians are so of one mind as to all matters political.
I'll not respond to your points except this one: In your number 2, you decline to cite to any synodical decision but rather "every BoT report for the past decade or so for Synodical reference." While I'm quite certain the BOT references Synod and vice-versa -- as to many points -- it seems clear that Synod has not passed on this. I understand you would probably say they don't have to -- you folks in Canada have been working on this a very long time.
And I honestly appreciate that Canadian churches have their own political agenda, but that does make me wonder: if the CRC is to increasingly become political (both the US and Canada), andif US and Canadian law and politics are so, so different (as you quite emphatically claim), does it make sense to have a single, multi-national denomination? Having a single, multi-national denomination does make sense if the purposes of the institutional denomination are ecclesiastical only, but what if they are also political?
You certainly don't need to reply, Dan, but here are my observations and comments:
What you cite above, 2016 Act of Synod, Article 72, Section 8 says:
8. That synod affirm initial actions for justice and reconciliation of the CRC in Canada that are already in process: – the public acknowledgment of “systemic evils behind colonialism,” the confession of the CRC’s “sins of assimilation and paternalism,” and the commitment to live “into a sacred call of unity and reconciliation,” as expressed to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of Canada. – follow-up initiatives on the calls to action of the TRC.
This may illustrate our difference rather starkly. "The leadership of the CRC in Canada" (and you) may see in the above Synod 2016's (pre-)approval for "Canadian leadership" taking a position (now in 2019), in behalf of the Christian Reformed Church, on a particular piece of legislation, Bill (C-262), which would incorporate into Canadian federal law the entirety of UNDRIP, but I can't for the life of me find that in the above (2016 Act of Synod, Article 72, Section 8 ).
And this is where the rub is. I don't object to the institutional church advocating principles about which it can say, true to its calling and expertise (not to mention CO Art 28), "so says scripture." The CRC has done that for over a century, and that aligns with CO Art. 28. What is quite new is deciding that the CRCNA, as denomination, must also lend its name, funding and institutional reputation to lobby (for or against) highly specific legislative proposals, like Bill C-262.
There's nothing like "doing something" if you want to find out the facts about the something you want done. The other option of course (and a popular one) is to lobby government to do, or make others do, that which you are only willing to "talk about."
Continued kudos to Gateway Church as it does the work of a servant.
Note too the Green New Deal totally opposes nuclear power. It calls for no new ones and phasing out the old ones. It makes me wonder whether they have done any spreadsheet work on this at all. It reminds me of Billy McFarland and the Fyre Festival (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/fyre-festival-billy-mcfarland-millennial-marketing-fiasco).
And I agree, BTW, on your "unequivocally no," Eric, but I wonder if there is any disagreement in the CRC. I would actually expect there would be, although I'm not sure "what side" they'd be on. :-)
Actually, this is a real good illustration in support of the argument that institutions like the CRC should stay out of these kinds of things.
Wendy: Thanks much for that information. That is really good to hear. I've long been a big fan of World Renew's work generally and knowing this gives me even more cause for being a fan. :-)
I just finished reading the entire New Green Deal document. Your characterization of it, Eric, is far too gracious. I would never have guessed I would see something like this come from anyone who holds a federal congressional office.
There is no doubt, Ken, that God blesses us with energy sources of all kinds (including the sun that shines on us daily even when not captured by solar panels).
But Dan appropriately give thanks for fossil fuel energy because fossil fuels are much too much regarded as a curse as opposed to a blessing. And Dan is quite right in suggesting that the newer "renewal energy" sources, e.g., predominantly solar and wind, are simply inadequate to supply the energy needs of today's population. They are not and will not be for the foreseeable future, a scientific fact too many choose to resist.
Tim: OK, I'm not sure I can directly quote Hansen, although referring to Wikipedia as you have done is hardly a primary source for that either.
But what I can do is point to Hansen's own clear and unequivocal statements -- his own words -- about the sine qua non need for nuclear power to solve what he considers the climate problem to be. See at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change
And that was my point. And in making it, I'm applying Hansen's own words, which have not been withdrawn to the best of my knowledge. My argument was and still is that any carbon tax plan that is not accompanied by a really aggressive nuclear program is doomed to failure, for reasons clearly clearly articulated by the Hansen's own words. No, Hansen does not oppose renewables. Neither do I. But sans nuclear, what Hansen wants -- demands -- be done can't be done.
BTW, did you notice the newly release "Green New Deal" resolution. Apparently the anti-nuclear sentiment continues and even increases (the plan is to dismantle existing plants as well). And this has to make Hansen groan (although OK, I can't quote him on that and Wikipedia may at some point suggest otherwise), given what he has clearly said.
So if you take Hansen's own clear words (see link above), how would a carbon as proposed and support by OSJ possibly fill the energy gap? Why would the result not merely be a tax on current energy sector that would compress our economy but not significantly reduce fossil fuel use (except to the extent a compressed economy will reduce demand) because those products would still be needed for lack of options (again, see Hansen's article)?
Really good question Herb. I would suggest those lobbyists are in three categories. The first is OSJ staff. You can find out who they are in particular by going to the OSJ website, and then by googling for information (education, experience, etc) of those staffers.
The second category is, although to a lesser extent, the ED and agency heads who every now and then makes public statements about current political issues. Those names are also readily available, and can be googled as well.
The third category, and also to a lessee extent, is Synod itself, which sometimes declares on political issues. Synod also authorizes/directs (often with ambiguous language) others, like OSJ, to "advocate" (does that mean political? -- answer unknown and debatable) about this or that.
The lobbying activity done comes in different categories as well. One is direct lobbying with political representatives (legislators, etc). Another is lobbying of CRC members, usually encouraging them to write to (email to) their legislators to take certain positions on particular legislation (OSJ will usually pressure the email text for you). Another is making public statements that take political positions, ranging from general to quite specific. Another is what could be called "communal" lobbying, by which I mean having CRC staffers participate in political conferences and the like (e.g., the Paris Accords), lend the CRC name to the supporter list for it), and/or then publically tout (by articles, email blasts, etc), to CRCers and otherwise, the results of them (again, e.g., the Paris Accords).
Posted in: Concerns on Our Ecumenical Trajectory
Thanks for the article Jason. I have long wondered the same about the CRCNA/Sojourners affiliation. Indeed, it would be a very small step for the denomination to also tie itself to People for the American Way, or the ACLU, or the Federalist Society, or, for that matter, one of the political parties.
I have always wondered: who was it that established and approved of this connection? Do you know? I don't believe it was Synod, and if not who/what?
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
But you side-step the point, Tom, or at least mine. You assume that "taking action" is done when an institution that institutionally has no competence in the area of concern takes positions on the questions.
My perspective is that when institutions that have no competency in the area of concern they lobby about (for or against), the result is in fact counterproductive. Larger political players see such institutions as pawns to be swayed, ultimately resulting in society wide political polarization based on political gamesmanship. The two sides resist resolution because their positions are largely based on having picked a general political inclination side, not on knowledge about the issues themselves, which is a key to have the ability to change one's mind as evidence develops.
I'd argue that the EPA was in fact created (under Nixon no less if I recall) because there wasn't then such a high degree of political politicization. I don't think the CRCNA lobbied for or against it the proposed legislation to create the EPA, did it? I doubt many other churches did either. Still, it was created (that is, "action was taken"). If churches had lobbied for or against the EPA back then, they may well have lobbied against it, for lack of competency as to the actual issues involved. Same with acid rain and catalytic converters. Churches (certainly the CRC) didn't lobby for or against that legislation either.
Do you really want institutions who have no institutional competency about whatever the proposed legislation to lobby about it? Or is it just in this case?
Posted in: Should the CRC Endorse and Lobby for Making UNDRIP Federal Canadian Law?
Dan: It's good to hear that Canadians are so of one mind as to all matters political.
I'll not respond to your points except this one: In your number 2, you decline to cite to any synodical decision but rather "every BoT report for the past decade or so for Synodical reference." While I'm quite certain the BOT references Synod and vice-versa -- as to many points -- it seems clear that Synod has not passed on this. I understand you would probably say they don't have to -- you folks in Canada have been working on this a very long time.
And I honestly appreciate that Canadian churches have their own political agenda, but that does make me wonder: if the CRC is to increasingly become political (both the US and Canada), and if US and Canadian law and politics are so, so different (as you quite emphatically claim), does it make sense to have a single, multi-national denomination? Having a single, multi-national denomination does make sense if the purposes of the institutional denomination are ecclesiastical only, but what if they are also political?
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
And of course my question is: Should the CRCNA formally get behind this (whether in support or opposition)?
Tom Ackerman: Would love to hear your thoughts on this.
Posted in: Should the CRC Endorse and Lobby for Making UNDRIP Federal Canadian Law?
You certainly don't need to reply, Dan, but here are my observations and comments:
What you cite above, 2016 Act of Synod, Article 72, Section 8 says:
8. That synod affirm initial actions for justice and reconciliation of the CRC
in Canada that are already in process:
– the public acknowledgment of “systemic evils behind colonialism,” the
confession of the CRC’s “sins of assimilation and paternalism,” and the
commitment to live “into a sacred call of unity and reconciliation,” as
expressed to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of Canada.
– follow-up initiatives on the calls to action of the TRC.
This may illustrate our difference rather starkly. "The leadership of the CRC in Canada" (and you) may see in the above Synod 2016's (pre-)approval for "Canadian leadership" taking a position (now in 2019), in behalf of the Christian Reformed Church, on a particular piece of legislation, Bill (C-262), which would incorporate into Canadian federal law the entirety of UNDRIP, but I can't for the life of me find that in the above (2016 Act of Synod, Article 72, Section 8 ).
And this is where the rub is. I don't object to the institutional church advocating principles about which it can say, true to its calling and expertise (not to mention CO Art 28), "so says scripture." The CRC has done that for over a century, and that aligns with CO Art. 28. What is quite new is deciding that the CRCNA, as denomination, must also lend its name, funding and institutional reputation to lobby (for or against) highly specific legislative proposals, like Bill C-262.
Posted in: The Top 5 Things Gateway Church Discovered Running an Extreme Weather Shelter
There's nothing like "doing something" if you want to find out the facts about the something you want done. The other option of course (and a popular one) is to lobby government to do, or make others do, that which you are only willing to "talk about."
Continued kudos to Gateway Church as it does the work of a servant.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Note too the Green New Deal totally opposes nuclear power. It calls for no new ones and phasing out the old ones. It makes me wonder whether they have done any spreadsheet work on this at all. It reminds me of Billy McFarland and the Fyre Festival (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/fyre-festival-billy-mcfarland-millennial-marketing-fiasco).
And I agree, BTW, on your "unequivocally no," Eric, but I wonder if there is any disagreement in the CRC. I would actually expect there would be, although I'm not sure "what side" they'd be on. :-)
Actually, this is a real good illustration in support of the argument that institutions like the CRC should stay out of these kinds of things.
Posted in: Concerns on Our Ecumenical Trajectory
Wendy: Thanks much for that information. That is really good to hear. I've long been a big fan of World Renew's work generally and knowing this gives me even more cause for being a fan. :-)
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
I just finished reading the entire New Green Deal document. Your characterization of it, Eric, is far too gracious. I would never have guessed I would see something like this come from anyone who holds a federal congressional office.
This beats even the Fyre Festival.
Posted in: Thank God for Fossil Fuels!
There is no doubt, Ken, that God blesses us with energy sources of all kinds (including the sun that shines on us daily even when not captured by solar panels).
But Dan appropriately give thanks for fossil fuel energy because fossil fuels are much too much regarded as a curse as opposed to a blessing. And Dan is quite right in suggesting that the newer "renewal energy" sources, e.g., predominantly solar and wind, are simply inadequate to supply the energy needs of today's population. They are not and will not be for the foreseeable future, a scientific fact too many choose to resist.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Tim: OK, I'm not sure I can directly quote Hansen, although referring to Wikipedia as you have done is hardly a primary source for that either.
But what I can do is point to Hansen's own clear and unequivocal statements -- his own words -- about the sine qua non need for nuclear power to solve what he considers the climate problem to be. See at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change
And that was my point. And in making it, I'm applying Hansen's own words, which have not been withdrawn to the best of my knowledge. My argument was and still is that any carbon tax plan that is not accompanied by a really aggressive nuclear program is doomed to failure, for reasons clearly clearly articulated by the Hansen's own words. No, Hansen does not oppose renewables. Neither do I. But sans nuclear, what Hansen wants -- demands -- be done can't be done.
BTW, did you notice the newly release "Green New Deal" resolution. Apparently the anti-nuclear sentiment continues and even increases (the plan is to dismantle existing plants as well). And this has to make Hansen groan (although OK, I can't quote him on that and Wikipedia may at some point suggest otherwise), given what he has clearly said.
So if you take Hansen's own clear words (see link above), how would a carbon as proposed and support by OSJ possibly fill the energy gap? Why would the result not merely be a tax on current energy sector that would compress our economy but not significantly reduce fossil fuel use (except to the extent a compressed economy will reduce demand) because those products would still be needed for lack of options (again, see Hansen's article)?
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Really good question Herb. I would suggest those lobbyists are in three categories. The first is OSJ staff. You can find out who they are in particular by going to the OSJ website, and then by googling for information (education, experience, etc) of those staffers.
The second category is, although to a lesser extent, the ED and agency heads who every now and then makes public statements about current political issues. Those names are also readily available, and can be googled as well.
The third category, and also to a lessee extent, is Synod itself, which sometimes declares on political issues. Synod also authorizes/directs (often with ambiguous language) others, like OSJ, to "advocate" (does that mean political? -- answer unknown and debatable) about this or that.
The lobbying activity done comes in different categories as well. One is direct lobbying with political representatives (legislators, etc). Another is lobbying of CRC members, usually encouraging them to write to (email to) their legislators to take certain positions on particular legislation (OSJ will usually pressure the email text for you). Another is making public statements that take political positions, ranging from general to quite specific. Another is what could be called "communal" lobbying, by which I mean having CRC staffers participate in political conferences and the like (e.g., the Paris Accords), lend the CRC name to the supporter list for it), and/or then publically tout (by articles, email blasts, etc), to CRCers and otherwise, the results of them (again, e.g., the Paris Accords).