It would seem that the issue Doug raises is that the church *has* advocated particular solutions, whether that was the intent of your report or not. I don't see how the advocacy of wind and solar power subsidies to the exclusion of Nuclear, Natural Gas, Hdyro and other power sources is an intellectually honest path if the issue we are attempting to address is Carbon emissions.
As to the issue of competency, I would say that there is no way that anyone previously undecided on the issue takes the CRCNA's conclusions on climate science seriously. Personally, I *do* respect the NSF and other reputable organizations. The only reason for the CRC to take a position is to empower some of the ministers in our denominational employ who wish to do political activism on these matters. Put another way: had the CRC adopted a position contrary to that of the mainstream scientific establishment, would it change your mind? I would hope not.
Broadly, I have no problem with the church speaking on topics or instructing members on biblical principles to approach topics whether creation care and poverty or sanctity of life and marriage. I do object when we begin to advocate policy specifics. Some years back a handful of churches in West Michigan engaged in something called "Justice Sunday". The purpose was to encourage members to lobby Senators to confirm then President GW Bush's judicial nominees ostensibly because they were more likely to rule favorably on abortion issues. While sympathetic to the cause, I would object strongly to my church engaging in such an event as Christians of good conscience can have any multitude of reasons for not supporting specific federal judicial nominees. It is one thing for the church to denounce elective abortions as it has for millenia. It is quite another to endorse nuanced policy positions.
Unfortunately, the denomination seems to have gone down this road in recent decades of arbitrating nuanced policy positions, largely ignoring Calvin's views on the 2 Kingdoms. This is the route that many denominations like the PCUSA went decades ago with disastrous results institutionally. It is my hope that the CRCNA doesn't follow this path, but it may already be too late.
Doug, I became aware of the "official" link in the 2018 Synod agenda under the Ecumentical and Interfaith section: https://www.crcna.org/sites/default/files/2018_agenda.pdf
I do not know the history of this relationship. While I don't believe that this was anything the percolated up from local churches overturing Synod, I cannot find evidence that it has ever faced any scrutiny either.
Yes, to be clear my concern is not simply Sojourners or their politics. While the case can certainly be made that they are a polarizing and ideologically driven organization, it is that they are at their core, a political organization. The CRCNA belongs to Christian Churches Together, which advocates on hunger/poverty issues and the National Association of Evangelicals which sometimes speaks out on pro-life topics, but these groups are properly "ecumenical" in the sense that they are composed of Christian denominations and their purpose is not purely or primarily political activism.
And let us also be thankful for the men and women who are called to the fossil fuel industry. Their pursuit of this noble call has allowed humanity to flourish in modern times at levels few could have dreamed of in past centuries.
I have my disagreements with the current President over immigration but at the same time I am often troubled by the tone of our denominational staff as their advocacy seems to imply, at least in my reading, that it is somehow "unjust" for a modern nation-state to regulate or restrict immigration. We also seem to forget that the United States takes in more immigrants than any other developed country and, even if all of our President's proposals were enacted, that is unlikely to change. Thoughtful Christians need space to disagree.
Again, supporters of the Office of Social Justice continue to speak in vague platitudes, but do not respond to any of the specifics in the overtures. The fact that this particular Council cannot, for example, explain why drilling in ANWR or repealing the personal mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act are things that "Christians must stand up against" as the OSJ has asserted leads me to conclude that they are not seriously reflecting on the issue. Instead it seems we are seeing a steady stream of reactions from people who either 1. Are personal acquaintances with CRC leaders and want to support them for personal reasons or 2. Simply happen to be sympathetic to the political causes that the OSJ has championed. Either way the obfuscation by way of speaking in broad platitudes rather than addressing he specific concerns in the overtures is unfortunate.
I personally have no issue with agreeing to disagree with people at the foot of the cross. Prudential public policy ought not be an issue to divide the church over. I have passionate views about many public policy issues, but would never even consider asking the denomination to endorse them, out of respect for my fellow believers. My suspicion is that if the CRCNA officials were reactively aligning themselves on the other end of the political spectrum there would be no call to "Support rather than restrict or reduce" this activity.
The other possibility is that a pastor or seminary professor has nothing of substance to add to a discussion beyond what a layman already knows. It would be one thing to preach texts dealing with creation stewardship. It is quite another thing to make particular policy prescriptions related to fishing or logging regulations. It simply isn't within the sphere of competency given to the institutional church. Unfortunately, the tendency among academics is to assume expertise in their respective field somehow translates to other areas and that they are uniquely free from political or cultural biases.
It makes me wonder if Professor Hoezee would admonish pastors to boldly preach on CRC views related to sexual ethics in certain other congregations or classes in the CRC?
Either way, clergy are better sticking to the text and proclaiming the Gospel, not in making specific public policy prescriptions even if sometimes challenging a congregation in their thinking. The sooner more of our Seminary faculty and clergy accept this, the sooner we'll see real revival in the CRCNA.
I was not taking a broad swipe at the Seminary, but your essay came across, at least to me, as a bit condescending toward the local group. As a whole, I believe CTS is one of more positive institutions of the CRCNA.
If your lectures were as you characterize them here, I am a bit puzzled as to why there would be any "push back"? I read your essay as basically stating that a. the locals felt you were taking a political stand that impacted their livelihood and b. on reflection reaching the presumptuous conclusion that you should have doubled down harder.
I may be reading your essay through a certain filter, one that is increasingly skeptical of ministers who are too quick to advocate political causes whether "left", "right" or "other". I regret if I have misinterpreted your intent.
I would clarify that some of the questionable actions of the CRC's Office of Social Justice i.e. sanctioning President Obama's Agricultural bill over the Republican alternative as well as the actions of conservative groups like the Christian Coalition (I once sat in a church that had a bulletin insert comparing candidates based on their support for an anti-flag burning amendment to the U.S. Constitution!) are what I had in mind reading Scott Hoezee's article. I have a hard time seeing that the biggest problem for the CRC or the broader church in North America today is a reluctance of clergy to speak on political matters.
I do qualify this by saying there are, obviously texts and issues that demand attention. I have no problem with a pastor lamenting the destruction of human life by abortion, for example. I strongly disagree with churches that engaged in a campaign called "Justice Sunday" some years back to rally support for then President GW Bush's judicial nominees.
I have no problem breaking bread with professing believers who disagree on public policy. I also concur pastors must sometimes address difficult topics. I only hasten to add it needs to be done with humility and reasonable restraint if we are going to move forward as a denomination. That is well there may very well be instances where pastors are too reluctant to take on topics, there are other times when, imo, there has been a lack of maturity and discernment which results in "push back".
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Tom,
It would seem that the issue Doug raises is that the church *has* advocated particular solutions, whether that was the intent of your report or not. I don't see how the advocacy of wind and solar power subsidies to the exclusion of Nuclear, Natural Gas, Hdyro and other power sources is an intellectually honest path if the issue we are attempting to address is Carbon emissions.
As to the issue of competency, I would say that there is no way that anyone previously undecided on the issue takes the CRCNA's conclusions on climate science seriously. Personally, I *do* respect the NSF and other reputable organizations. The only reason for the CRC to take a position is to empower some of the ministers in our denominational employ who wish to do political activism on these matters. Put another way: had the CRC adopted a position contrary to that of the mainstream scientific establishment, would it change your mind? I would hope not.
Broadly, I have no problem with the church speaking on topics or instructing members on biblical principles to approach topics whether creation care and poverty or sanctity of life and marriage. I do object when we begin to advocate policy specifics. Some years back a handful of churches in West Michigan engaged in something called "Justice Sunday". The purpose was to encourage members to lobby Senators to confirm then President GW Bush's judicial nominees ostensibly because they were more likely to rule favorably on abortion issues. While sympathetic to the cause, I would object strongly to my church engaging in such an event as Christians of good conscience can have any multitude of reasons for not supporting specific federal judicial nominees. It is one thing for the church to denounce elective abortions as it has for millenia. It is quite another to endorse nuanced policy positions.
Unfortunately, the denomination seems to have gone down this road in recent decades of arbitrating nuanced policy positions, largely ignoring Calvin's views on the 2 Kingdoms. This is the route that many denominations like the PCUSA went decades ago with disastrous results institutionally. It is my hope that the CRCNA doesn't follow this path, but it may already be too late.
Posted in: Concerns on Our Ecumenical Trajectory
Doug, I became aware of the "official" link in the 2018 Synod agenda under the Ecumentical and Interfaith section: https://www.crcna.org/sites/default/files/2018_agenda.pdf
I do not know the history of this relationship. While I don't believe that this was anything the percolated up from local churches overturing Synod, I cannot find evidence that it has ever faced any scrutiny either.
Posted in: Concerns on Our Ecumenical Trajectory
Yes, to be clear my concern is not simply Sojourners or their politics. While the case can certainly be made that they are a polarizing and ideologically driven organization, it is that they are at their core, a political organization. The CRCNA belongs to Christian Churches Together, which advocates on hunger/poverty issues and the National Association of Evangelicals which sometimes speaks out on pro-life topics, but these groups are properly "ecumenical" in the sense that they are composed of Christian denominations and their purpose is not purely or primarily political activism.
Posted in: Thank God for Fossil Fuels!
And let us also be thankful for the men and women who are called to the fossil fuel industry. Their pursuit of this noble call has allowed humanity to flourish in modern times at levels few could have dreamed of in past centuries.
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
I have my disagreements with the current President over immigration but at the same time I am often troubled by the tone of our denominational staff as their advocacy seems to imply, at least in my reading, that it is somehow "unjust" for a modern nation-state to regulate or restrict immigration. We also seem to forget that the United States takes in more immigrants than any other developed country and, even if all of our President's proposals were enacted, that is unlikely to change. Thoughtful Christians need space to disagree.
Posted in: Communication to Synod - Let's Discuss
Again, supporters of the Office of Social Justice continue to speak in vague platitudes, but do not respond to any of the specifics in the overtures. The fact that this particular Council cannot, for example, explain why drilling in ANWR or repealing the personal mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act are things that "Christians must stand up against" as the OSJ has asserted leads me to conclude that they are not seriously reflecting on the issue. Instead it seems we are seeing a steady stream of reactions from people who either 1. Are personal acquaintances with CRC leaders and want to support them for personal reasons or 2. Simply happen to be sympathetic to the political causes that the OSJ has championed. Either way the obfuscation by way of speaking in broad platitudes rather than addressing he specific concerns in the overtures is unfortunate.
I personally have no issue with agreeing to disagree with people at the foot of the cross. Prudential public policy ought not be an issue to divide the church over. I have passionate views about many public policy issues, but would never even consider asking the denomination to endorse them, out of respect for my fellow believers. My suspicion is that if the CRCNA officials were reactively aligning themselves on the other end of the political spectrum there would be no call to "Support rather than restrict or reduce" this activity.
Posted in: Think Globally, Push Back Locally
The other possibility is that a pastor or seminary professor has nothing of substance to add to a discussion beyond what a layman already knows. It would be one thing to preach texts dealing with creation stewardship. It is quite another thing to make particular policy prescriptions related to fishing or logging regulations. It simply isn't within the sphere of competency given to the institutional church. Unfortunately, the tendency among academics is to assume expertise in their respective field somehow translates to other areas and that they are uniquely free from political or cultural biases.
It makes me wonder if Professor Hoezee would admonish pastors to boldly preach on CRC views related to sexual ethics in certain other congregations or classes in the CRC?
Either way, clergy are better sticking to the text and proclaiming the Gospel, not in making specific public policy prescriptions even if sometimes challenging a congregation in their thinking. The sooner more of our Seminary faculty and clergy accept this, the sooner we'll see real revival in the CRCNA.
Posted in: Think Globally, Push Back Locally
Professor Hoezee:
I was not taking a broad swipe at the Seminary, but your essay came across, at least to me, as a bit condescending toward the local group. As a whole, I believe CTS is one of more positive institutions of the CRCNA.
If your lectures were as you characterize them here, I am a bit puzzled as to why there would be any "push back"? I read your essay as basically stating that a. the locals felt you were taking a political stand that impacted their livelihood and b. on reflection reaching the presumptuous conclusion that you should have doubled down harder.
I may be reading your essay through a certain filter, one that is increasingly skeptical of ministers who are too quick to advocate political causes whether "left", "right" or "other". I regret if I have misinterpreted your intent.
Posted in: Think Globally, Push Back Locally
I would clarify that some of the questionable actions of the CRC's Office of Social Justice i.e. sanctioning President Obama's Agricultural bill over the Republican alternative as well as the actions of conservative groups like the Christian Coalition (I once sat in a church that had a bulletin insert comparing candidates based on their support for an anti-flag burning amendment to the U.S. Constitution!) are what I had in mind reading Scott Hoezee's article. I have a hard time seeing that the biggest problem for the CRC or the broader church in North America today is a reluctance of clergy to speak on political matters.
I do qualify this by saying there are, obviously texts and issues that demand attention. I have no problem with a pastor lamenting the destruction of human life by abortion, for example. I strongly disagree with churches that engaged in a campaign called "Justice Sunday" some years back to rally support for then President GW Bush's judicial nominees.
I have no problem breaking bread with professing believers who disagree on public policy. I also concur pastors must sometimes address difficult topics. I only hasten to add it needs to be done with humility and reasonable restraint if we are going to move forward as a denomination. That is well there may very well be instances where pastors are too reluctant to take on topics, there are other times when, imo, there has been a lack of maturity and discernment which results in "push back".