Global Warming
A Christian Concern?

In 1998, the Rev. Dr. Joan Brown Campbell, then general secretary of the National Council of Churches was quoted in a New York Times article by John H. Cushman, Jr., that belief in global warming [gw] and support for the Kyoto Protocol should be a “litmus test for the faith community.” Wow! I know what you are thinking, that is the wacky NCC. But, there are other voices too.

Michael A. Bullmore, Associate Professor of Homiletics and Practical Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, wrote in Trinity Journal 19 (NS) 1998, pp. 139-162, an article to lay out foundational Biblical thought necessary for a faithful Christian proclamation about the environment. Although not addressing gw specifically, he was speaking of a Christian environmentalism that would promote an earnest devotion to a Christian life. Add to this those in the Evangelical Climate Initiative [ECI] who are plunging head long into the gw issue and you have a groundswell of sentiment desiring to enter the fray of activism as a result of gw. Is this a valid Christian concern?

To date, the most aggressive move by Christians in the gw issue has been the ECI. Among the signatories to the initiative are Bill Hybels; Rick Warren; W. Todd Bassett, National Commander of the Salvation Army; R. Judson Carlberg, President of Calvin College; Rev. Dr. Paul Cedar, Chair, Mission America Coalition; Rev. Timothy George; Rev. David Gushee, Professor of Moral Philosophy at Union College; Rev. Dr. Jack Hayford; Duane Litfin, President, Wheaton College; Ron Sider, President, Evangelicals for Social Action; Rev. Jim Wallis and many others. They claim to lay out a “moral argument related to the matter of human induced climate change.” They do so recognizing as evangelical Christian leaders the “opportunity and our responsibility to offer a biblically based moral witness that can help shape public policy in the most powerful nation on earth, and therefore contribute to the well-being of the entire world.”

In their statement they make four claims:
1. Human induced climate change is real;
2. The consequences of climate change will be significant and will hit the poor the hardest;
3. Christian moral convictions demand our response to the climate change problem;
4. The need to act now is urgent. Governments, businesses, churches, and individual all have a role to play in addressing climate change starting now.
In prior posts we have argued that points 1 and 2 are not the certainty presented by the statement. The consequences are stated as dire with impacts “from flooding, famine, violent conflicts, and international instability, which could lead to more security threats to our nation.” And in a statement printed in bold type they state: Millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors.”

This is sensationalism of the worst kind. It reminds this writer of Paul Ehrlich. Remember him? In The Population Bomb, publishing in 1968, he said:
“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..." and "a minimum of ten million people, most of them children, will starve to death during each year of the 1970s. But this is a mere handful compared to the numbers that will be starving before the end of the century." Ehrlich was wrong because his model was flawed. Food production grew faster than population, a situation he did not think possible. The evangelical leaders of ECI are accepting a science that is uncertain and not agreed upon. They could be headed for the dust bowl of the history of failed predictions just like Paul Ehrlich.

The moral argument of the statement is that because of love of God the Creator, as well as His creation; love of neighbor and the demands of stewardship, we should all respond to the climate change problem with “moral passion and concrete action.” It seems to me this is a call to evangelism, not environmentalism. If things are as bad as they say, we need to be about bringing forth the message of justification by faith before it is too late for those who do not believe. It is God Who cursed the earth on account of our sin and Paul says all of creation is groaning. There is no question we are to be better stewards of what He has given us. But, He never had in mind salvation of the earth by us but the salvation of men by Him…the sinners who by their action have invited His wrath against sin. After all, He will be bringing about a new heaven and a new earth.

As to the need for urgent action, that is certainly an individual matter. If you are fired up about this matter, go for it. Interestingly, these evangelical leaders and Dr. Campbell agree this is a new “non-negotiable’ for Christians. That should be enough to give us pause. Other evangelical leaders such as D. James Kennedy, Chuck Colson, Richard Land and James Dobson urge that there is room for Bible believing evangelicals to disagree over cause, severity and solutions to gw. Making gw a “new crusade” for the church creates a new diversion for a contemporary church that has difficulty grasping its spiritual mooring already.

Elevating gw to a place of prominence in Christian devotion and conviction surely squeezes evagel out of evangelicalism to emphasize other “isms”. Like most social causes, it will sap the energy of followers and marginalize Biblical, Christian witness and devotion. The ECI also invites alliances with those outside the faith. The New York Times has reported that the ECI has received funding from The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Pew Charitable Trust and the Hewlett Foundation all of whom fund pro-abortion and anti-Christian causes. Hewlett has issued a $475,000 grant for ECI.

This initiative puts its signers on the same team with fern fondlers and tree huggers who worship the creation and not the Creator. They are being funded by Christ haters who fund anti-Gospel causes. It accepts science that is not complete and highly speculative. It posits scare consequences without fact or basis. The ECI has compromised with the world in its makeup and its approach. That is at best unwise, probably foolish error and at worst, sin. Is gw a concern in which Christians can be involved? Certainly. Is it a Christian concern that is a moral imperative demanding the action of all believers and the church? Certainly not.

Advent 2006
The Magi

After stopping in Jerusalem, the Magi followed the star to find Jesus. Note that they stopped not at the manger of Bethlehem but at His house. It seems certain that Jesus was no longer a new born and, as a result, the event probably did not take place in Bethlehem. The ordering of the death of boys two years and younger seems to indicate that Jesus could have been as old as two. We know these “wise men” brought three gifts but there is no indication of how many Magi there were. The popular Christmas carol is uncorroborated on two points—they were not kings and there is no proof of 3 in the party of travelers. The gifts presented carry the marks of prophecy. Gold as a precious metal has through the ages been a special gift to royalty. Frankincense was an expensive fragrance having special significance in Old Testament Worship. The Magi knew Jesus was royalty and brought Him gold and because they came to worship Him as deity, they brought Him frankincense. The gift of myrrh was, however, another story. Myrrh was used for embalming the dead. Why would this gift be given to the new, young King? The gifts of the Magi show us that Jesus Christ was God, King and Savior. Today, we all must worship Him acknowledging Who and what He is. Even at the celebration of His birth, we must never forget why He came. Jesus Christ was born to die. Thanks be to the Triune God of Scripture and the Universe for providing the Savior from our sin and His wrath.

Global Warming
Is there a consensus?

If one were to accept what the media says about global warming [gw], one would conclude that it is an open and shut case. The Weather Channel has its resident gw person, De. Heidi Cullen. She has a program “The Climate Code” dedicated to “what you can do about gw”. She features patron saints of the gw movement such a Sir Richard Branson and Ted Turner as well as the average Joe who is helping stem the tide against gw. This is especially amusing since the network is about weather prediction which is rarely correct beyond 48 hours. Yet they pontificate about gw and its ill effects as if it is a certainty.

Global warming is the biggest of all environmental dangers at present, maintain many environmentalists. Ironically, the great fear thirty years ago was of global cooling, for scientists recognized then that the earth is nearing a downward turn in its millennia-long cycle of rising and falling temperatures, correlated with cycles in solar energy output. But no more. Now people fear that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide, called a "greenhouse gas" because it traps solar heat in the atmosphere rather than allowing it to radiate back into space, will cause global average temperatures to rise. The rising temperatures, they fear, will melt polar ice caps, raise sea levels, cause deserts to expand, and generate more and stronger hurricanes and other storms.

But, does everyone agree that this is the case? Environmental Scientist S. Fred Singer says:
Climate science is not "settled;" it is both uncertain and incomplete. The available observations do not support the mathematical models that predict a substantial global warming and form the basis for a control policy on greenhouse (GH) gas emissions. We need a more targeted program of climate research to settle major scientific problems.

In the early years of the gw movement there was a seeming consensus. The only issue was whether gw would lead to catastrophic results. However, any consensus began cracking in 1992. A Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming, released February 27, 1992, signed by forty-seven atmospheric scientists, many of whom specialized in global climate studies warned that plans to promote a carbon emissions reduction treaty to fight global warming at the upcoming Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 were "based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action.” They concluded: "We do not agree." It cited "a recently published paper [that] suggests that sunspot variability, rather than a rise in greenhouse gases, is responsible for the global temperature increases and decreases recorded since about 1880."

In 1995 came the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change, developed at the International Symposium on the Greenhouse Controversy held in Leipzig, Germany, and revised and updated after a second symposium there in November 1997. Signed by eighty leading scientists in the field of global climate research and twenty-five meteorologists, the document declared "the scientific basis of the 1992 Global Climate Treaty to be flawed and its goal to be unrealistic," saying it was "based solely on unproven scientific theories, imperfect climate models–and the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from an increase in greenhouse gases." It added, "As the debate unfolds, it has become increasingly clear that–contrary to conventional wisdom–there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both satellite and balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever–in direct contradiction to computer model results." And it concluded: "based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions. For this reason, we consider the drastic emission control policies deriving from the Kyoto conference–lacking credible support from the underlying science–to be ill-advised and premature." This was reaffirmed and updated in 2005.

There is also the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine [OISM] Global Warming Petition signed by 17,000 basic and applied American scientists The petition urged the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol "and any other similar proposals," saying boldly, "The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind." It added: “There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” [See www.oism.org/pprojects ].

Finally, as recently as 3 days ago, Richard Gray, Science Correpondent for the Sunday Telegraph in London reported that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will be reporting in February that “[m]ankind has had less effect on global warming than previously expected.” Gray reports that the IPC is also halving their sea level rise prediction. This is not, experts say, a backing off gw predictions but a “refinement due to better data on how the climate works.” Translation: Our models are wrong and we must recalibrate based on real facts. Golly, if the UN, where Hugo Chavez can call the President “Satan” among the giggles and applause of the delegates, is moving away from their dire predictions of 2001, maybe there will be more “refinement” forthcoming.

Now, I am sure most of you readers have never seen any of this information. You have heard Al Gore, the Hollywood elites and the envirocrrazies proclaiming the doom and gloom of gw. You will not see balance in the popular media. They are the chief propagandists of the gw movement seeing themselves as the oracles of a new gospel…salvation through environmental activism. But, when you look into the facts and examine the science, gw appears to fall short of truth. There is no consensus and great skepticism about gw, so Christians and all others interested in truth must approach the topic with great care.

Advent 2006
The Shepherds

Bethlehem is only a short distance from Jerusalem. The announcement of the Messiah was made to lowly shepherds in the field. The birth of Christ was the culmination of Old Testament prophecy, but there was not formal acknowledgement of that to the religious folks in Jerusalem. When God sends His messengers, the angelic host to the shepherds, we have an endorsement of faith over works. Jerusalem was where the temple was located, where the sacrifices were made and where the pious religious leaders resided. But, God sent no messenger to Jerusalem to proclaim the miraculous event of God incarnate. The shepherds were unlikely recipients of the Christmas message. They had no status, no money, no authority in Jewish society. The proclamation to the shepherds was a harbinger of things to come. During His ministry, Jesus always sought out the humble, weak and unpretentious. Jesus was, and still is, not interested in religious ceremony or ritual but in faithfulness and obedience to Him. Make no mistake about it, the religious folk of Jerusalem were worshipping God. While doing so they missed Him. The birth of Jesus is not about religion. It is not about pageants, cantatas, advent wreaths and candles, midnight services, singing of Christmas carols and liturgical recitations of the Christmas story. Christmas is the unrepeatable, miraculous incarnation of the perfect God-Man once and for all in history and the beginning of His earthly life, death, resurrection and ascension which is the basis for our faith in Him. So fall on your knees as those shepherds who first received the message of His birth and believe on Him by faith, not just today, but every day of your life.

Global Warming
The New Dogma

I have spent the majority of my professional life practicing environmental law. When I attended law school, environmental law was the new kid on the block. A course on this new, emerging legal issue was introduced my middler year. Little did I know that I would be involved in more litigation involving environmental issues than any other. I spent 25 years trying cases representing industrial clients…known as “polluters” to the press and enforcement agencies.

In the early seventies when there was increasing pressure for more legislation regulating the bituminous surface mining industry, many in the industry thought this was just a passing fancy. They could not have been further from the truth. Environmental protection is part of the warp and woof of our society. Being “green” is a socially sound ideal. The December 2006/January 2007 issue of Plenty: It’s Easy Being Green, pronounced:
Someday historians may look back at 2006 and decide that this was the year when environmentalism became a mainstream American movement adopted by people of all political persuasion, businesses small and large and churches both progressive and conservative.

While I have never objected to environmentally sound public policy, I do take issue with the dogmatism of environmentalism. [As a Christian, I wonder about the claim that the church is involved in a “mainstream American movement”. Doesn’t the church have its own movement to foster? But, that is a discussion for another time.] Environmental policy in this country is not decided by fact or science but by emotional appeals and pre-determined assumptions.

Take for instance, global warming [gw]. It is the new Darwinism. It is to be accepted as the latest gospel of environmentalism and it is heresy not to believe that it is happening and that the consequences of gw are dire. You are a right wing moron or ignorant backwoods nitwit to not be a believer in the catastrophe of gw. As one who keenly follows the environmental movement, I was interested in the November climate report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climate Data Center in Asheville, NC. NOAA reported for the second straight month that America saw below normal temperatures.

After a record warm Jan to Aug, Oct combined with Sept’s lower than average temperatures to drop the year from the warmest on record to the 3rd warmest from Jan to Oct. The warmest Jan thorough Oct occurred 72 years ago in 1934. Just in the 1970’s there was concern of the new Ice Age but in the last 30 years the greenies have been trumpeting a warmer earth because of increased greenhouse gas emissions. Well, this seems to belie that conclusion. Doesn’t gw mean the globe is warming…increasingly each year. This does not seem to be the case.

Interestingly, these recent findings have been largely ignored by the mainstream media. The electronic and print media have shown themselves to “true believers” not shaken by contrary evidence. Maybe we should call the NOAA findings “inconvenient facts”?! Some might say “this is just America, not the world”. But, is not America part of the world and it is a warming of the whole globe that is being touted. And, is not America the chief culprit in gw? So, should it not be warming faster than the “cleaner” places?

In an era when truth is relative, gw joins evolution, smoking, race, homosexuality and gender issues as those where there is truth that must not be compromised or rejected. Challenge the notion of gw and you will not experience the tolerance touted as the virtue of the age. Instead, you will discover a narrow mined bigotry of the kind Bible believing Christians are accused. During the next few weeks we will examine this multi-faceted issue from its science to the response Christians need make to gw, the new dogma.

Advent 2006
The Innkeeper

He is not mentioned in Scripture but plays a large role in the Christmas story. It was census taking time and all the inns were doing a big business. No vacancy signs wee hung everywhere, No doubt when Joseph came to the inn; the innkeeper saw no reason to find a place for this poor carpenter. True, he had a pregnant wife with him, but his appearance was such that he probably couldn’t pay for a room if one was available. The inn was full of paying guests and their needs required attending. There was the shed out back where the livestock is kept. It wouldn’t hurt for these two to bed down there for the night. There is not even a need to charge this poor waif a full room rate.

Yes, the innkeeper was a busy man…not malicious or greedy or necessarily uncompassionate…just, you know, very busy. We all know that feeling during the Christmas season…shopping, baking, parties, church functions, caroling, family gatherings…all piled on to our usual daily duties and obligations. As we move through the days approaching 25 December with hectic activities, we really do not mean to do it. Some of us even wear those “Jesus is the Reason” pins on our overcoats. Yet, every year millions make the same mistake the Bethlehem innkeeper made. Christmas comes and goes and we miss Jesus. The innkeeper missed the Lord and Savior of the world. Do not be an innkeeper. Do not miss the Son of God appearing in 2006.

Advent 2006
Mary & Joseph

We live in a world where the role models are celebrities be they politicians or sports figures. You know, the folks in People magazine or on Oprah. We know about them from carefully crafted public relations releases or exploits on and off the stage, screen or playing field. But, we know little about their character…what they believe and how their beliefs affect the way they live.

Consider the difference when we examine Mary & Joseph. Mary’s story is compelling. She was betrothed to Joseph but unmarried in the sense we understand marriage. Under Jewish law they were legally pledged to be married but lived apart without physical contact. The betrothal was to give the couple an opportunity to see if there were problems in their relationship and how those problems would be handled before the formal wedding ceremony. Now, she was pregnant before it was permitted! What would she tell Joseph? If he now rejected her and asked for a divorce, it would be an awful life for her. A single woman with a child would never be married. How would the priests, her community, her family understand that she is pregnant but it is not because she or Joseph has broken their marriage vows? Who ever heard of a virgin birth?

In spite of all she faced, Mary’s response to Gabriel resonates throughout history as a powerful but simple statement of faith. She did not say: “Joe, I had a horrible dream, I better see an analyst.”. She did not say: “Joe we can’t have a baby now. I better get an abortion.” She did not say: “How can we have what we want if we have a baby now? I have got to work, Joe.” No, to the mighty Gabriel she responded:
Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.
[Luke 1: 38]
Mary chose to believe, trust and obey God as His servant. What an example of faith for us all!

And, how about Joseph? What a shock, Mary was going to have a baby! Here they were in the betrothal period of their marriage when they were to live apart without physical contact for a year. Now, she is pregnant. And, she claims it is by divine intervention! The entire matter was confusing and potentially humiliating to Joseph, Mary and their families. What was there to do? Joseph was a righteous man so he wanted to do the right thing. He was a sensitive and compassionate man to Mary for he knew no matter how farfetched the story sounded; she was an honest and faithful person. He believed her.

Should he silently obtain a divorce to avoid humiliation? Joseph knew the law. If Mary was found not to be a virgin upon their formal marriage ceremony, she would then be put to death because it was a disgrace to be unfaithful while still living with her natural father [Deut. 22: 20, 21]. Joseph wanted neither to disgrace her nor sentence her to death. He resolved to divorce her quietly. While considering these matters, like with Mary, God sends an angelic messenger to Joseph [Matt. 1: 18 – 25]. The angel gives Joseph God’s answer—marry Mary. The angel corroborates Mary’s story; Joseph does the right thing. He took Mary as his wife and had no physical contact or sexual union with her until the birth of Jesus. He exhibits his character in dealing with this situation…righteousness, sensitivity, and responsiveness to the commands of God.

These two had no PR person. They were faced with a serious dilemma and they acted faithfully and obediently to their God. Is that not the test of character? Trusting the sovereign God of the universe no matter the circumstances in our lives? For after all, we believe in His providence in all things and His provision for His faithful, don’t we? We live in a world where contrived image and personality trumps character. But, that is not the way of believers. If we are His servants, we listen to His revelation to us in His Word and trust and obey Him no matter what. Faithfulness and obedience to Almighty God are the character traits of Mary & Joseph. What are our character traits?