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).
First, I'm not hesitant to say that much of the reason the CRC has become as political as it has is because Synods have chosen to act in contravention to Church Order rules. It has disappointed me that, to my knowledge at least, when Synod declared as it did about climate change, not one delegate stood up to say, "point of order, the question before synod should not be answered because it is outside the Church Order rules that constrains Synod, that being CO Article 28."
So when OSJ says they have a mandate from Synod to do what they do, they have a good point. But even then not always.
Which brings us to my second point. Mandates have to be carefully examined and fairly construed to determine what the mandate is and what it isn't.
In the case of it's lobbying for this legislation, OSJ assumes I'm sure they have a Synodical mandate to do so, but I think they stretch that mandate. I have a hard time finding Synodical resolution language that would include a mandate to lobby for this kind of legislation. I think you have to stretch the language to get there.
But let's assume the Synodical language does create a broader mandate than I think is does. Even if one has the mandate doesn't mean one has the ability. I can't see where OSJ has anything resembling sufficient expertise in climate science, economics, or law to decide this proposed legislation should or should not be passed. What I think OSJ does--because it has to--is rely on what people or organizations they politically favor say about this proposed legislation. But then of course we have to ask the questions: who are they and what expertise do they have, and then who is really deciding for CRC members what their denominational agencies are going to politically do in behalf of their members?
These are the difficulties necessarily encountered when organizations step beyond their jurisdiction. For good reason, they don't have expertise in those extra-jurisdictional areas. And to boot, members of that organization didn't become members because of the position the organization might take on questions outside its jurisdiction. And so taking on these issues will invariably create division within the organizational membership.
And this is why Church Order Article 28 exists: to define the jurisdictional boundaries of the denomination known as the Christian Reformed Church. One could say that Article 28 rather succinctly embeds the Kuyperian concept of social sphere sovereingty, as that concept relates to the institutional church, into the CRC church order.
To answer your second question, Herb, to my knowledge, those who have lobbied in behalf if the CRC have not, publicly at least, taken a position against nuclear. And I'm pleased, certainly not displeased, that such is the case.
On the other hand, I know the lobbying business reasonably well. In this business, not saying something is often as significant as saying something. Thus, for example, the slogans, "Black Lives Matter" or "Blue Lives Matter" says something affirmatively, even if by unmistakable innuendo, by not saying something affirmatively about other lives.
Border security is simply a foundational prerequisite to any system of immigration law excepting that of "open borders" ( that is, no regulation of immigration).
In the Reagan years, a fairly extensive amnesty was granted to unlawful immigrants in a promised two-step plan to then "secure the border." Sadly, step two just never happened (and we've been dealing with the dysfunctionality resulting from that in the decades since).
One of the biggest barriers to progress on this is evidenced by California's newly elected Governor Gavin Newsom, whose very recent announcement declared that his state would be open to all. Newsom is an "open borders" guy and not afraid to say it. Germany was that too not so long ago (but since has abandoned that perspective). Many more are also "open borders" advocates but are unwilling to simply say that. Instead, they argue about how a wall might not be the smart way to solve the problem, or that ICE should be abolished because it has been so mean, and then do nothing to secure the border (which is a de facto open border policy).
It is not Trumpian to say that if a nation doesn't regulate entrance to its geographical territory, it is, by definition, not a nation. Germany could do that only so long. If Newsom has the power to open California's border to all (which he may not), he could do that only so long without threatening California's existence as a political sub-entity (a state within a federalist nation).
Yes, it is complicated. Which is why repeating simple mantras like "welcome the stranger" and "immigrants are a blessing and not a burden" are less than constructive. Indeed, repeating mantras like that only increase the political polarization.
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).
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Dan. Good question. Here's my take.
First, I'm not hesitant to say that much of the reason the CRC has become as political as it has is because Synods have chosen to act in contravention to Church Order rules. It has disappointed me that, to my knowledge at least, when Synod declared as it did about climate change, not one delegate stood up to say, "point of order, the question before synod should not be answered because it is outside the Church Order rules that constrains Synod, that being CO Article 28."
So when OSJ says they have a mandate from Synod to do what they do, they have a good point. But even then not always.
Which brings us to my second point. Mandates have to be carefully examined and fairly construed to determine what the mandate is and what it isn't.
In the case of it's lobbying for this legislation, OSJ assumes I'm sure they have a Synodical mandate to do so, but I think they stretch that mandate. I have a hard time finding Synodical resolution language that would include a mandate to lobby for this kind of legislation. I think you have to stretch the language to get there.
But let's assume the Synodical language does create a broader mandate than I think is does. Even if one has the mandate doesn't mean one has the ability. I can't see where OSJ has anything resembling sufficient expertise in climate science, economics, or law to decide this proposed legislation should or should not be passed. What I think OSJ does--because it has to--is rely on what people or organizations they politically favor say about this proposed legislation. But then of course we have to ask the questions: who are they and what expertise do they have, and then who is really deciding for CRC members what their denominational agencies are going to politically do in behalf of their members?
These are the difficulties necessarily encountered when organizations step beyond their jurisdiction. For good reason, they don't have expertise in those extra-jurisdictional areas. And to boot, members of that organization didn't become members because of the position the organization might take on questions outside its jurisdiction. And so taking on these issues will invariably create division within the organizational membership.
And this is why Church Order Article 28 exists: to define the jurisdictional boundaries of the denomination known as the Christian Reformed Church. One could say that Article 28 rather succinctly embeds the Kuyperian concept of social sphere sovereingty, as that concept relates to the institutional church, into the CRC church order.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
To answer your second question, Herb, to my knowledge, those who have lobbied in behalf if the CRC have not, publicly at least, taken a position against nuclear. And I'm pleased, certainly not displeased, that such is the case.
On the other hand, I know the lobbying business reasonably well. In this business, not saying something is often as significant as saying something. Thus, for example, the slogans, "Black Lives Matter" or "Blue Lives Matter" says something affirmatively, even if by unmistakable innuendo, by not saying something affirmatively about other lives.
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
Border security is simply a foundational prerequisite to any system of immigration law excepting that of "open borders" ( that is, no regulation of immigration).
In the Reagan years, a fairly extensive amnesty was granted to unlawful immigrants in a promised two-step plan to then "secure the border." Sadly, step two just never happened (and we've been dealing with the dysfunctionality resulting from that in the decades since).
One of the biggest barriers to progress on this is evidenced by California's newly elected Governor Gavin Newsom, whose very recent announcement declared that his state would be open to all. Newsom is an "open borders" guy and not afraid to say it. Germany was that too not so long ago (but since has abandoned that perspective). Many more are also "open borders" advocates but are unwilling to simply say that. Instead, they argue about how a wall might not be the smart way to solve the problem, or that ICE should be abolished because it has been so mean, and then do nothing to secure the border (which is a de facto open border policy).
It is not Trumpian to say that if a nation doesn't regulate entrance to its geographical territory, it is, by definition, not a nation. Germany could do that only so long. If Newsom has the power to open California's border to all (which he may not), he could do that only so long without threatening California's existence as a political sub-entity (a state within a federalist nation).
Yes, it is complicated. Which is why repeating simple mantras like "welcome the stranger" and "immigrants are a blessing and not a burden" are less than constructive. Indeed, repeating mantras like that only increase the political polarization.