Doug Vande Griend

Tom.  I'll not respond to most of that except for your question regarding 'when the church has expertise.'  That question is at the core of this blog article.

My answer is that the church (by which I mean the institutional church known as the CRC) has expertise to declare on whatever the subject is when (1) it's own rules say it does (this is a jurisdictional considrration) and (2) when it, institutionally, actually has the expertise to responsibly do so.

To elaborate, the CRC has a seminary, and a great number of theologians it has produced who pastor it's churches, all of whom are persons the CRC hires/engages (and who have formal and informal education and experience in certain matters) to teach, opine about, and declare relating "ecclesiastical" issues (using the word used by CO Art. 28).

Thus, the CRC is competent to declare about creeds, confessions, hermeneutics, Biblical translation, church education materials (relating to the aforesaid), etc.

Certainly, therefore, the CRC, again as institution, can and should, e.g., declare that people should be stewards of creation.  This declaration draws from that about which it has expertise (and is within that which the local churches have agreed to "do" together).  Synod 2012 declared that I would support that (even if the CRC has said that before).  It was within Synod's jurisdiction and expertise.

In contrast, if the question is: "what percentage of scientists say this or that about climate change?" (which Synod 2012 also did), we should be asking, "what is it in our denomination's expertise and our agreed upon denominational jurisdiction that would justify that declaration?"  Is that the kind of thing the churches (via church order) agreed to do?  Does the denomination have staffers who are experts in polling and statistical analysis such that its opinion on the question would be more authoritative than anyone else's?  And if CRC did have that expertise (although it doesn't), did it in fact do a scientific analysis of the claimed basis for that specific statistical claim? I think the answers to all three questions are clearly "no."  And I've never encountered anyone claiming otherwise, as to any of those three questions.

The same questions should be asked of course if the denomination declares that the federal government should pass certain legislation that imposes a variety of taxes and creates a variety of other regulations relating to fossil and other energy sources.  And I think it clear that the answers are clearly the same: it lacks both jurisdiction and competence.

Different question: should Christians (individually or togethers in organizations they aggregately create with jurisdictional boundaries of their choice) advocate, declare, push, lobby, whether for or against such legislation? Of course, although I'd never say it is the obligation of every Christian to so engage.  And Christians in fact do just that, individually, with other Christians, and with non-Christians.

I understand that some people would like to have their institutional church megaphone their own opinions about all kinds of things.  Whenever we feel strongly about something (e.g., I think the US should abolish its income tax and replace it with a value added tax) we are inclined to use whatever we might have at our disposal to "push" that idea and "push against" contradicting ideas.  The problem for me and my idea about income taxes and VAT schemes (and thousands of other ideas) is that my church, the institutional CRC, is not "at my disposal." It is not mine, nor my instrument, even if I think a VAT is more just (and beneficial in other ways).  It is also not the instrument of CRC members (plural) who might comprise a majority of CRC members, or even a majority of delegates at a particular Synod.  Questions about government imposed tax systems may be within my expertise (and others I groups I may join), and pushing for or against them may be within my jurisdiction (and that of the groups I join), but they are not within the expertise or jurisdiction of the CRC.

Herb: I'd probably start by pointing to an article by James Hansen, at http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/353/6299/547.full.pdf?ijkey=7.4C0Yg90r8G.&keytype=ref&siteid=sci

In case you aren't acquainted with Hansen, he is the former head of NASA who got the concern about global warming (then called) on the world's radar via his testimony to Congress (in the 1980s) and his subsequently detailed work and advocacy in the area.  Hansen is indisputably the godfather of all things that represent concerns about climate change.

Hansen believes the Paris Accords will get us nowhere (he uses the word "fraud" to describe the Paris Accords), because he does the math.  What Hansen proposes is that only a lot of new nuclear power can replace the energy needs of the US, or the world for that matter (whose energy consumption is growing rapidly, e.g., China and underdeveloped countries), while also sufficiently reducing CO2 levels.  Hansen's problem is that when he proposes nuclear, his otherwise fan base goes silent, because they are opposed to nuclear (irrationally in Hansen's opinion).

The reason for the heavy push to reduce the CO2 footprint of everyone and everything is because of the recognition that renewables can't come close to replacing the energy we now use.  Hansen insists we are fooling ourselves.  Those opposing him suggest we can get there by a combination of increasing renewables and cutting our footprint.  Hansen's further response is that even if that were possible in the United States (and he says it isn't), there is the entire globe to consider and the rest of the world's energy consumption is going to go up, not down.  Thus, Hansen wants those new energy demands met by the only non-CO2 source that can provide great quantities of it: nuclear.

I'll decline providing you with an exhaustive list of scientists to back the claim that "renewables can't replace fossil fuels" but would suggest that you won't find those scientists in any significant numbers, and if you do, you will find scientists who are in unrelated areas, or who haven't actually run the numbers, or have been highly politicized, or are expressing a hope rather than a fact (like the current "Green New Deal," which is a political proposition that admittedly, see AOC's comments, relies on hope and not the current state of facts and technology).

Herb.  You can gather together as many theologians as you want and they'll still not be competent at practicing law, running a dairy, operating a nuclear power plant, determining the causes of changing climate, or analyze the macro and micro economic impacts of carbon use taxes, nor the national ability to develop enough renewal energy to eliminate or substantially reduce the need for fossil fuels. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Those theologians can guess about all of these things I suppose, but why should their guesses be better than mine?  Why would their guesses should be endorsed and promoted by OUR ministry shares and not mine, or yours.  Whose guesses get to lord it over whose?

Tom. Thanks for discussing.  No, I don't agree with Hansen on everything at all.  As I think you know, I have been and still am much more of a John Christy fan.  I do think Hansen was demonstrably wrong in his predictions, but he's not entirely wrong on everything (no one is, or is right about everything), and I've never thought otherwise.  I think CO2 emissions will increase global temperatures (always have) but the significant question is how much.  Predictions largely depend on assumptions about positive feedbacks, and the net of that is still not well known.  As you know, the IPCC still qualifies its predictions by a statement of likelihood.  Everyone agrees CO2 will cause temperature increases.  Where the great disagreement remains is about how much, and also about how much of a net positive feedback exists (assuming there is not a net negative feedback, e.g.., an "iris effect"), and thus how much warming there will be.  The "how much" question is not a small disagreement by any means.

On the other hand, I always try to look for common ground (especially) when an issue like this becomes so politicized, and this is the mother of all issues in terms of having been hyper-politicized. 

Nuclear is that common ground, or at least the best that we have.  And Hansen pushes hard for it.

BTW, I am not opposed to renewables at all but greatly in favor of them where they otherwise make sense.  My oldest son has solar panels on his house and two electric cars.  But he lives in a place in California where all of that makes sense.  There are relative advantages to renewables but also disadvantages, as there are for fossil fuels.

I don't disagree with you that Christians should care for the creation, but I don't want my institutional church to take a position of the details of a law like a carbon tax for me because (1) it has agreed not to (CO Art 28), and (2) it isn't equipped to.  Why should the CRCNA take my favored position on a specific complicated law in behalf of you, or your position in behalf of me?   You and I can take positions and join with others, Christians or otherwise, in taking those positions.  I really don't see what is gained (but it is clear what will be lost) if any of us succeeds in getting our church to become a megaphone for our own position.  Certainly, no one in Congress respects the CRC's climate science expertise, do you think?  Yes, folks in Congress are looking for votes but those votes belong to citizens, not the denominational CRC.  Who says so?  The CRC (again, CO Art 28).

Finally, a carbon tax such as that here proposed will have economic consequences, possibly (probably in my thinking) very large ones.  Again, does the CRC have the expertise to know what they will be such that the CRC can responsibly advise on that, decide on that in member's behalf, megaphone for some CRCers?  If so, exactly who Is it in the CRCNA that has it such that they should speak for you or me?

To be clear and to respond to your last paragraph, no, I don't think the CRC should take the lead on pushing or opposing legislation like this carbon tax legislation.  Assuming the CRC was a climate expert (which it is not), it also needs to be a legal and economics expert (plus more)  to competently -- translated, responsibly -- claim the right to lead.

Can the CRC talk about our obligation to steward the creation?  Sure (but there is really no disagreement there among CRC members).  Can it bring legislation like this to CRCers attention?  Sure (although I certainly don't need the CRC to tell me about such things). 

But be my proxy (or yours if my perspective prevails in a subsequent Synod)?  No.  We have another CO rule about that, prohibiting "lording over."  Archaic language perhaps but still a good rule.

Maybe not all are theologians, Herb, but most are (probably more than the percentage of scientists said to agree with the alarmist climate perspective).

And frankly, I do not think the part of the denomination that hires the people who lobby in our behalf intends the expertise needed to analyze carbon tax legislation.  If you believe some of those the CRC has hired to lobby in our behalf has that competence, I'd like to know who they are.  Don't post names here, but I invite you to send by email: [email protected].

Couldn't have said it better Dan.  Obviously, I've chosen path #2, as have you if I'm not mistaken. :-)

Herb: No, you don't have to do my research for me.  On the other hand, I have done that research and my conclusions are based on that research.  I appreciate that you "trust the church."  I guess I neither trust nor distrust but choose to look at what has been and is. 

Come on Tom.  Stop with the snarky stuff ("I imagine that you think that your comments are quite witty, but I find them far less so").

And again, you side-step my fundamental point.  I am not advocating that the denomination adopt my view about all things climate change (let alone a proposed federal carbon tax bill).  Re-read my article.  I'm not even intending to have a public debate about climate change.  If I was advocating that the denomination adopt my view about all things climate change, I would be acting quite inconsistently, but I'm not.  What I'm advocating is that the denomination (1) stay within it's rules (CO Art 28), and (2) if it wants to wander outside that, change its rules and then acquire the expertise to take on its expanded mandate.

In contrast, you want the denomination to adopt your view, both on climate change and, apparently (tell me if you believe I'm mistaken), as to this proposed, OSJ-supported legislation.

Herb: Well maybe, but lets drill down.

The alternate fuels that are now receiving the political advocacy (including from institutions like the CRC) are wind and solar, and are NOT nuclear.

Wind and solar cannot sufficiently expand to come anywhere close to replacing carbon sources because of physics.  Can't be done.

Nuclear could (that is, not a physics problem) but the generalized current political support is behind non-nuclear and against nuclear.  This comes from too much political lobbying that is uninformed.  In my view, the CRCNA has hopped on that bandwagon.

So unless the political posture against nuclear doesn't change, the only realistic tool for replacing or even significantly reducing fossil fuel sources isn't an "allowed option."  And given that reality, the passing of the proposed carbon tax legislation will simply result in generally economic damage, and not help with claimed fossil fuel issues.

Thanks for posting that Lubbert.  As often as I've appealed to CO Art 28 in the past years, I don't recall anyone engaging me as to the meaning of it, nor arguing with my assertion as to what the Article means in terms of the boundaries it creates for denominational (institutional church) activities.  

I find that discouraging because it means there may well be something of a widespread willingness to break covenant (which is what the CO is, read its preface) with the CRC churches and members.  Some may think that's a small deal so long as their sense of "justice" is pursued by means larger than themselves (which is what the denomination is).

I think it's a big deal, and that our willingness to ignore (or just disobey) this foundational CO rule will be destructive.