I think you are quite right Lubbert. Somewhat following outside the church political patterns, as if there is some kind of connection, there has been a trend, in both realms, toward the hierarchical and away from the distributed.
I agree that violence against women should not be seen as a "women's issue" but I don't think it ever has been. I've been practicing law for 40 years. In this decades, I've not seen the sheriff, nor city police, nor DA consider violence against women as a "women's issue." Indeed, if there is a problem that I've seen, it is that law enforcement, because of internal rules, is not allowed to use their usual discretion when a woman reports an abuse. In all other cases, law enforcement is allowed to "not make an arrest" or the DA can dismiss when the woman says she wants it dismissed. But not here.
Real world example: In my last criminal trial, my client, the husband, was accused of assaulting his wife. In truth, the accusation was a lie told by the wife (in a very short marriage) because she was attempting to extort money from her husband (they were near divorce). The deputy sheriff arrested my client (husband, and not the wife) because, the deputy said, "he was bigger than she was." Listening to the 911 tape records (which the deputy could have but declined) would have provided plenty of evidence that my client (husband) did not assault his wife, and that the wife had in fact assaulted the husband (she said so in the 911 conversation after being questioned by the 911 operator, both that he did not hit her and that she hit him). But did that make a difference in terms of who was arrested and then who was -- believe it or not -- put on trial by the DA? Nope. (Fortunately, it did to the judge, who dismissed the case without requiring us to even put on our evidence). And, sadly, this case was not anomalous. The arrest and prosecution in this case reflected standard protocol.
And this was several years before the MeToo movement. It wasn't a MeToo movement pendulum swing. Law enforcement prejudice AGAINST men in domestic cases, as illustrated in this actual case, has existed for decades now -- at least in my part of the country. This assertion is probably contrary to most political narratives these days, but it is simply true, contrary narratives notwithstanding.
Understand I'm not wanting or intending to excuse male on female violence. Not at all. But I am trying to explain the reality that much of the "paradigm shift" many think is needed actually happened quite a long time ago, and in some cases resulted in a too-far pendulum swing. By the way, the wife in my case, having admitted her assault in a 911 recording, was never arrested, let alone prosecuted. The sheriff department rules that required an arrest in all domestic violence complaints (which the rules did) apparently only applied to one gender, or it applied to both genders but the department chose to ignore the rule in when the perpetrator was the wife.
And this is probably why many, men especially, are a bit ticked by the Gillette commercial. They've been told for years that their masculinity is toxic, that men are rapists, that men assault women, that men are perpetrators and women victims. Yes, some men do these things (but some women do too), but the accusations and charges have become much too generalized (which this commercial does), much too caricatured (which this commercial does), and much too sterotyped (which this commercial does). That's probably why, as this article reports, the thumbs down responses badly outnumbered the thumbs up responses.
Hansen might support it, but only if their was an emphasis on nuclear (it would be a sine qua non condition, because that's the only way it would work as designed), which to date isn't happening. In which case Hansen would say the effort is doomed.
Which is what my article says, actually.
This illustrates how nuanced this political lobbying business is. Is the CRC/OSJ ready to also pitch nuclear? It hasn't so far. Without it, by Hansen's thinking, the carbon tax effort is doomed.
Lobbying that produces real and constructive results can't be done on a piece of legislation here or there. It requires constant and long range planning subject to dynamic changing, and lots and lots and lots of resources (multiple kinds of expertise, people power of multiple kinds, and a lot of money).
If the CRCNA wants to do that--be a real and constructive lobbyist--, it has to go all in, not just do it as a hobby. Understand I'm not saying it should, firstly because our CO (our covenant) says we won't (or do a lot of other things), but if we do decide to lobby (that is, change the CO and thus let members know their church is taking on a new endeavor), it needs to do it properly, competently, with the required dollars and staffing.
Look at it this way: Imagine that the US Chamber of Commerce decided to start a denomination, or even just a theological seminary, so that it could have a real voice in the American religious community. If they then assigned a handful of lawyers and political science majors to do that job, and asked their corporate officers to periodically sign theological position statements, the Chamber wouldn't get much respect.
Calvin Sem and other seminaries would no doubt laugh at the, even if perhaps not to the Chamber's face. The other problem the Chamber would have is with their own members, all of whom had been faithfully paying their annual membership fees (read by analogy, "ministry shares"). Unlike Calvin Sem professors, Chamber members wouldn't be laughing, even if they would readily see the mismatch.
Of course the US Chamber of Commerce would never do that. So why is the CRCNA doing that in the other direction?
I'm not arguing that most assaults between men and women aren't men against women, but rather that it has not heretofore been a "women's issue" such that we need to change that now and regard it as a "men's issue."
Perhaps I don't know what you mean when you say it has been a "women's issue," but I just haven't seen, in my adult life, that people or institutions have blamed the women when they are victims of men's assault or abuse. I know that is the charge, but I've not seen that. My account of how law enforcement in my area has regarded domestic abuse allegations was to illustrate that they have so much considered domestic assault to be a "men's issue" that they simply assume that domestic assault is always and only caused my men, and never by women. They've turned the statistical reality into a specific methodology for ascertaining truth.
So if if was statistically the case that blacks commit crimes more than whites (and it is in the US), we shouldn't say we need to stop looking at crime as a "white issue" but instead look at it as a "black issue." Or should we?
I think we should look at assault/abuse and crime generally as a "criminal issue" and stay away from trying to point fingers (even if with some ambiguity) as an "issue" of men or women or blacks or whites, etc. Doing otherwise tends to result in stereotyping in a counterproductive way.
Tom: I'll skip responding to your ad hominem criticism of John Christy (declaring him laughable, and indirectly, me as well I suppose), but I will respond to the thrust of your claim that I am cherry picking (which presumably is bad?).
Your cherry picking accusation essentially suggest that must either (1) side with Hansen in all that he says and promotes, or (2) reject Hansen in all that he says and promotes. If extended to everyone as well as me, that formula is, in my view, one that will result in unresolvable polarization (and is that not where we are?).
I may not agree with Hanson as to his climate change predictions (which to date have not turned out to be accurate as historic unfolds), but I do find Hansen to be an honest broker, by which I mean my sense of him is that he believes what he says and says what he believes, politics be damned (even those politics on the political left of center which have fought nuclear power is decades past). I admire Hansen for that, even if I still think he has rather badly "over predicted" on climate change effects.
My perspective on this is in part based on the science (where I'm relatively weak) but also, and in larger part, on the the politics, which is the greater challenge on this issue, and where I'm actually quite experienced. I'm a lawyer. I listen to, examine, and cross-examine expert witnesses on cases (in this one, as to a particular bundle of science topics), but at the same time, I am constantly looking for "solutions" by which I mean this: how can the opposing parties come together to find agreement that significantly satisfies everyone, thereby avoiding a trial court decision that will likely be (as they tend to be) very much winner take all and loser take nothing. And indeed, isn't exactly what competent political lobbyists do as well? But doing that on climate change issues can be as complicated, perhaps even more so, than the science itself (which is itself extremely complicated). And wouldn't (at least shouldn't) doing that (finding the "come together to find agreement), be the point of OSJ (or anyone else) lobbying for legislation relating to climate change?
Forgetting for the moment the CO2 emissions issue, wouldn't more nuclear power be the best bet for filling the energy gap left by significantly reducing or eliminating (as the now touted Green New Deal would do) fossil fuel use? And wouldn't those whose views on climate change more reflect that of John Cristy be relatively warm to the idea of increased nuclear? And wouldn't the views on someone so highly regarded in the climate alarmist camp (that is Hansen) be a good authority to cite to persuade those on that side of the science to also warm to the idea of increased nuclear? I'd suggest that a "yes" to all three of those questions is far more the case than the oft made assertion that the "debate is over" as to the science of climate change.
As I said in my original blog article, my point was not to convince the others that I'm right about climate change science. In fact, I've not here even laid out my overall views about the science questions, assuming they carried any scientific weight anyway (and they really don't). You misread me rather badly when you say "From my reading, your opinion is that we should do nothing about the problem." To the contrary, I have argued that, if we assume (for the sake of argument) that the climate change alarmist position (Hansen's) is correct, then promoting a carbon tax while at the same time failing to also promote the only alternative energy source that would be the key component of a strategy to significantly reduce CO2 is a poorly conceived, doomed to failure, lobbying strategy. And my main point was that the denomination has not had, and doesn't have, what it takes to competently lobby for solutions on subject matters this complex (this particular lobbying strategy being evidence of that lack). And so shouldn't.
That argument is not a "strawman" as you suggest. Rather, it is similar to Hansen's argument against the Paris Accords (which the CRCNA lobbies for). The Paris Accords provide no solution at all, according to Hansen, so if folks think they do, climate change will have its way with the planet because people thought they had implemented a solution in the Paris Accords and so didn't find a real solution. Likewise, passing this legislation without also enacting legislation that will promote a lot more nuclear power plants, is a mirage solution. It cannot work, even if we assume the climate alarmists' perspective.
Dan: Thanks for engaging. My responses (correlating with your point numbers):
1. UNDRIP's Article 26, as literally written, cannot be regarded as less than "breathtaking" (which was the word I used). As I had suggested, it may be that the Canadian Sup Ct will alter its literal effect by construction, but that is yet to be seen. To say it another way, if, as you say, Article 26 is already the "law of the land," there really would be no point to passing Bill C-262, would there? I'm quite sure there is no current Canadian statutory (or case) law language that says what UNDRIP's Article 26 says. That's why new law gets written.
2. My reference to "CRC Leadership in Canada" quotes from the DoJustice article (see link in my article), which is a publication of OSJ. Whatever impression is given by that is essentially an impression given by the DoJustice article. And however "robust" the process denominational process may be, I'm not aware of any Synodical decision to endorse and lobby for the statutory adoption of the provisions of UNDRIP (which is what Bill C-262 does of course). Can you provide a cite to the Acts of Synod or something else that indicates otherwise?
3. You suggest I have a "bias against ecclesial involvement in the political process." While I may have that, my more immediate objection would be the that the CRC's Church Order (Article 28) has that same bias, or more accurately put, the CRC Church Order prohibits "involvement in the political process," not my own personal bias As you may know, I've advocated for those who favor a change in CO Art. 28 to propose that change and so ask Synod to consider making that change, just as those those who wanted to change CRC Church Order to allow women's ordination did. That way, the question could be resolved. At present, the rule contained in Art 28 (which is a covenant among the churches) is simply being ignored. I do agree with you that reconciliation is very important. Where we perhaps disagree that creating a law that says what UNDRIP's Article 26 says would help reconciliation. I think it will more likely prove to have opened the door to the the opposite.
4. I'm sure there are plenty of Canadians who oppose C-262. If there weren't, C-262 would have been passed a very long time ago. Similarly, I'm sure there are Canadian CRCers who oppose the denomination endorsing C-262. An action isn't "noncontroversial" just because someone who favors the action says so.
5. I'd respectfully disagree with your suggestion in #5. Any time statutory language is passed that overstates an intention (which the adoption into law of UNDRIP Article 26 does, unless it really means what it says, in which "breathtaking" is a very mild characterization), the result is an increase in litigation and dissension. Certainly that is my opinion, but I've practiced law for 40 years in a country (US) whose legal system also stems from the English system. I've engaged in Canadian legal matters enough to know it is different in some respects from the US system but not that different.
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.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
I think you are quite right Lubbert. Somewhat following outside the church political patterns, as if there is some kind of connection, there has been a trend, in both realms, toward the hierarchical and away from the distributed.
I'm not a fan of the trends.
Posted in: Gillette: The Best a Man Can Get?
I agree that violence against women should not be seen as a "women's issue" but I don't think it ever has been. I've been practicing law for 40 years. In this decades, I've not seen the sheriff, nor city police, nor DA consider violence against women as a "women's issue." Indeed, if there is a problem that I've seen, it is that law enforcement, because of internal rules, is not allowed to use their usual discretion when a woman reports an abuse. In all other cases, law enforcement is allowed to "not make an arrest" or the DA can dismiss when the woman says she wants it dismissed. But not here.
Real world example: In my last criminal trial, my client, the husband, was accused of assaulting his wife. In truth, the accusation was a lie told by the wife (in a very short marriage) because she was attempting to extort money from her husband (they were near divorce). The deputy sheriff arrested my client (husband, and not the wife) because, the deputy said, "he was bigger than she was." Listening to the 911 tape records (which the deputy could have but declined) would have provided plenty of evidence that my client (husband) did not assault his wife, and that the wife had in fact assaulted the husband (she said so in the 911 conversation after being questioned by the 911 operator, both that he did not hit her and that she hit him). But did that make a difference in terms of who was arrested and then who was -- believe it or not -- put on trial by the DA? Nope. (Fortunately, it did to the judge, who dismissed the case without requiring us to even put on our evidence). And, sadly, this case was not anomalous. The arrest and prosecution in this case reflected standard protocol.
And this was several years before the MeToo movement. It wasn't a MeToo movement pendulum swing. Law enforcement prejudice AGAINST men in domestic cases, as illustrated in this actual case, has existed for decades now -- at least in my part of the country. This assertion is probably contrary to most political narratives these days, but it is simply true, contrary narratives notwithstanding.
Understand I'm not wanting or intending to excuse male on female violence. Not at all. But I am trying to explain the reality that much of the "paradigm shift" many think is needed actually happened quite a long time ago, and in some cases resulted in a too-far pendulum swing. By the way, the wife in my case, having admitted her assault in a 911 recording, was never arrested, let alone prosecuted. The sheriff department rules that required an arrest in all domestic violence complaints (which the rules did) apparently only applied to one gender, or it applied to both genders but the department chose to ignore the rule in when the perpetrator was the wife.
And this is probably why many, men especially, are a bit ticked by the Gillette commercial. They've been told for years that their masculinity is toxic, that men are rapists, that men assault women, that men are perpetrators and women victims. Yes, some men do these things (but some women do too), but the accusations and charges have become much too generalized (which this commercial does), much too caricatured (which this commercial does), and much too sterotyped (which this commercial does). That's probably why, as this article reports, the thumbs down responses badly outnumbered the thumbs up responses.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Tim. Good to hear from you. :-)
Hansen might support it, but only if their was an emphasis on nuclear (it would be a sine qua non condition, because that's the only way it would work as designed), which to date isn't happening. In which case Hansen would say the effort is doomed.
Which is what my article says, actually.
This illustrates how nuanced this political lobbying business is. Is the CRC/OSJ ready to also pitch nuclear? It hasn't so far. Without it, by Hansen's thinking, the carbon tax effort is doomed.
Lobbying that produces real and constructive results can't be done on a piece of legislation here or there. It requires constant and long range planning subject to dynamic changing, and lots and lots and lots of resources (multiple kinds of expertise, people power of multiple kinds, and a lot of money).
If the CRCNA wants to do that--be a real and constructive lobbyist--, it has to go all in, not just do it as a hobby. Understand I'm not saying it should, firstly because our CO (our covenant) says we won't (or do a lot of other things), but if we do decide to lobby (that is, change the CO and thus let members know their church is taking on a new endeavor), it needs to do it properly, competently, with the required dollars and staffing.
Look at it this way: Imagine that the US Chamber of Commerce decided to start a denomination, or even just a theological seminary, so that it could have a real voice in the American religious community. If they then assigned a handful of lawyers and political science majors to do that job, and asked their corporate officers to periodically sign theological position statements, the Chamber wouldn't get much respect.
Calvin Sem and other seminaries would no doubt laugh at the, even if perhaps not to the Chamber's face. The other problem the Chamber would have is with their own members, all of whom had been faithfully paying their annual membership fees (read by analogy, "ministry shares"). Unlike Calvin Sem professors, Chamber members wouldn't be laughing, even if they would readily see the mismatch.
Of course the US Chamber of Commerce would never do that. So why is the CRCNA doing that in the other direction?
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Herb. Let me know your email address and I'll respond.
Posted in: Gillette: The Best a Man Can Get?
I'm not arguing that most assaults between men and women aren't men against women, but rather that it has not heretofore been a "women's issue" such that we need to change that now and regard it as a "men's issue."
Perhaps I don't know what you mean when you say it has been a "women's issue," but I just haven't seen, in my adult life, that people or institutions have blamed the women when they are victims of men's assault or abuse. I know that is the charge, but I've not seen that. My account of how law enforcement in my area has regarded domestic abuse allegations was to illustrate that they have so much considered domestic assault to be a "men's issue" that they simply assume that domestic assault is always and only caused my men, and never by women. They've turned the statistical reality into a specific methodology for ascertaining truth.
So if if was statistically the case that blacks commit crimes more than whites (and it is in the US), we shouldn't say we need to stop looking at crime as a "white issue" but instead look at it as a "black issue." Or should we?
I think we should look at assault/abuse and crime generally as a "criminal issue" and stay away from trying to point fingers (even if with some ambiguity) as an "issue" of men or women or blacks or whites, etc. Doing otherwise tends to result in stereotyping in a counterproductive way.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Tom: I'll skip responding to your ad hominem criticism of John Christy (declaring him laughable, and indirectly, me as well I suppose), but I will respond to the thrust of your claim that I am cherry picking (which presumably is bad?).
Your cherry picking accusation essentially suggest that must either (1) side with Hansen in all that he says and promotes, or (2) reject Hansen in all that he says and promotes. If extended to everyone as well as me, that formula is, in my view, one that will result in unresolvable polarization (and is that not where we are?).
I may not agree with Hanson as to his climate change predictions (which to date have not turned out to be accurate as historic unfolds), but I do find Hansen to be an honest broker, by which I mean my sense of him is that he believes what he says and says what he believes, politics be damned (even those politics on the political left of center which have fought nuclear power is decades past). I admire Hansen for that, even if I still think he has rather badly "over predicted" on climate change effects.
My perspective on this is in part based on the science (where I'm relatively weak) but also, and in larger part, on the the politics, which is the greater challenge on this issue, and where I'm actually quite experienced. I'm a lawyer. I listen to, examine, and cross-examine expert witnesses on cases (in this one, as to a particular bundle of science topics), but at the same time, I am constantly looking for "solutions" by which I mean this: how can the opposing parties come together to find agreement that significantly satisfies everyone, thereby avoiding a trial court decision that will likely be (as they tend to be) very much winner take all and loser take nothing. And indeed, isn't exactly what competent political lobbyists do as well? But doing that on climate change issues can be as complicated, perhaps even more so, than the science itself (which is itself extremely complicated). And wouldn't (at least shouldn't) doing that (finding the "come together to find agreement), be the point of OSJ (or anyone else) lobbying for legislation relating to climate change?
Forgetting for the moment the CO2 emissions issue, wouldn't more nuclear power be the best bet for filling the energy gap left by significantly reducing or eliminating (as the now touted Green New Deal would do) fossil fuel use? And wouldn't those whose views on climate change more reflect that of John Cristy be relatively warm to the idea of increased nuclear? And wouldn't the views on someone so highly regarded in the climate alarmist camp (that is Hansen) be a good authority to cite to persuade those on that side of the science to also warm to the idea of increased nuclear? I'd suggest that a "yes" to all three of those questions is far more the case than the oft made assertion that the "debate is over" as to the science of climate change.
As I said in my original blog article, my point was not to convince the others that I'm right about climate change science. In fact, I've not here even laid out my overall views about the science questions, assuming they carried any scientific weight anyway (and they really don't). You misread me rather badly when you say "From my reading, your opinion is that we should do nothing about the problem." To the contrary, I have argued that, if we assume (for the sake of argument) that the climate change alarmist position (Hansen's) is correct, then promoting a carbon tax while at the same time failing to also promote the only alternative energy source that would be the key component of a strategy to significantly reduce CO2 is a poorly conceived, doomed to failure, lobbying strategy. And my main point was that the denomination has not had, and doesn't have, what it takes to competently lobby for solutions on subject matters this complex (this particular lobbying strategy being evidence of that lack). And so shouldn't.
That argument is not a "strawman" as you suggest. Rather, it is similar to Hansen's argument against the Paris Accords (which the CRCNA lobbies for). The Paris Accords provide no solution at all, according to Hansen, so if folks think they do, climate change will have its way with the planet because people thought they had implemented a solution in the Paris Accords and so didn't find a real solution. Likewise, passing this legislation without also enacting legislation that will promote a lot more nuclear power plants, is a mirage solution. It cannot work, even if we assume the climate alarmists' perspective.
Posted in: Should the CRC Endorse and Lobby for Making UNDRIP Federal Canadian Law?
Dan: Thanks for engaging. My responses (correlating with your point numbers):
1. UNDRIP's Article 26, as literally written, cannot be regarded as less than "breathtaking" (which was the word I used). As I had suggested, it may be that the Canadian Sup Ct will alter its literal effect by construction, but that is yet to be seen. To say it another way, if, as you say, Article 26 is already the "law of the land," there really would be no point to passing Bill C-262, would there? I'm quite sure there is no current Canadian statutory (or case) law language that says what UNDRIP's Article 26 says. That's why new law gets written.
2. My reference to "CRC Leadership in Canada" quotes from the DoJustice article (see link in my article), which is a publication of OSJ. Whatever impression is given by that is essentially an impression given by the DoJustice article. And however "robust" the process denominational process may be, I'm not aware of any Synodical decision to endorse and lobby for the statutory adoption of the provisions of UNDRIP (which is what Bill C-262 does of course). Can you provide a cite to the Acts of Synod or something else that indicates otherwise?
3. You suggest I have a "bias against ecclesial involvement in the political process." While I may have that, my more immediate objection would be the that the CRC's Church Order (Article 28) has that same bias, or more accurately put, the CRC Church Order prohibits "involvement in the political process," not my own personal bias As you may know, I've advocated for those who favor a change in CO Art. 28 to propose that change and so ask Synod to consider making that change, just as those those who wanted to change CRC Church Order to allow women's ordination did. That way, the question could be resolved. At present, the rule contained in Art 28 (which is a covenant among the churches) is simply being ignored. I do agree with you that reconciliation is very important. Where we perhaps disagree that creating a law that says what UNDRIP's Article 26 says would help reconciliation. I think it will more likely prove to have opened the door to the the opposite.
4. I'm sure there are plenty of Canadians who oppose C-262. If there weren't, C-262 would have been passed a very long time ago. Similarly, I'm sure there are Canadian CRCers who oppose the denomination endorsing C-262. An action isn't "noncontroversial" just because someone who favors the action says so.
5. I'd respectfully disagree with your suggestion in #5. Any time statutory language is passed that overstates an intention (which the adoption into law of UNDRIP Article 26 does, unless it really means what it says, in which "breathtaking" is a very mild characterization), the result is an increase in litigation and dissension. Certainly that is my opinion, but I've practiced law for 40 years in a country (US) whose legal system also stems from the English system. I've engaged in Canadian legal matters enough to know it is different in some respects from the US system but not that different.
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.