Posts filed under 'global warming'
It’s a rare day when I have the opportunity to read something that manages to be alternately amusing and depressing. A recent article in Newsweek magazine highlights a book that asserts that the best way to solve the crisis facing the earth is to cleanse the earth of humans. As you might imagine, the world-view that produced this incredibly inane idea is so fractured it makes an almost too-easy target. The book is called “The World Without Us” and the article makes a few noteworthy statements about its content:
The Second Coming may be the most widely anticipated apocalypse ever, but it’s far from the only version of the end times. Environmentalists have their own eschatology—a vision of a world not consumed by holy fire but returned to ecological balance by the removal of the most disruptive species in history. That, of course, would be us, the 6 billion furiously metabolizing and reproducing human beings polluting its surface. There’s even a group trying to bring it about, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, whose Web site calls on people to stop having children altogether. And now the journalist Alan Weisman has produced, if not a bible, at least a Book of Revelation, “The World Without Us,” which conjures up a future something like … well, like the area around Chernobyl, the Russian nuclear reactor that blew off a cloud of radioactive steam in 1986. In a radius of 30 kilometers, there are no human settlements—just forests that have begun reclaiming fields and towns, home to birds, deer, wild boar and moose.
Weisman’s intriguing thought experiment is to ask what would happen if the rest of the Earth was similarly evacuated—not by a nuclear holocaust or natural disaster, but by whisking people off in spaceships, or killing them with a virus that spares the rest of the biosphere.
“Intriguing.” Would this be the word that some would choose if they read my eschatology? It’s a highly doubtful proposition. I find it more likely that a journalist would find my ideas as incredibly odd and disturbing as I find these ideas. That the author of this book finds the idea of a planet without humans “appealing” due to the glorious healing and renewal that would take place is either incredibly naive, incredibly nihilistic, or some scary place in-between. I suppose this book is the logical end of the ecological idealism that could somehow lead to being so earth-centric in thinking that all humans than are evil and unworthy of inhabiting such a place. Again, these kinds of ideas present a target that is really far too easy.
I remember the first time my wife and I took our family to the Kansas City Zoo. We were surprised and amused by the repetitive notes and plaques exalting the beauty of the animal kingdom while criminalizing the ignorance and stupidity of humans that continually wreck everything with their clumsy selfishness. The “animals good, humans bad” message was so pervasive we quickly went from amused to bored to frustrated. The message of the folks at the Kansas City Zoo was exactly the same as the one found in Mr. Weisman’s book: everyone would be better off if we all stopped having children and let ourselves die out as a species. In other words, the best way to actually accomplish what the incredibly self-serving rock concerts of “Save Our Selves” on 7/7/07 set forth to stir up is to ignite a movement that ends with a form of global self-extinction or our voluntary suicide as a species.
At least this form of atheism is a bit more honest than the self-deception of utopian cooperation without biblical morality or ethical standards. Things may not end well for us, in the mind of the radical ecologist, but it sure will end well for the earth. There is only one question that no one thought to ask:
What happens to the earth if the ones God established to govern it are fully removed? That nature and creation was never meant to govern itself apart from the leadership of men is something too bizarre for a radical ecologist to even contemplate. Didn’t nature exist for millions of years without us?
Oops - I just exposed myself as a young earth creationist. I will now relegate myself out of the “intriguing” camp and hide in the corner with the rest of my fundamentalist-freak friends, rocking gently and occasionally pacing randomly. According to Mr. Weisman, what I do for a living isn’t really helpful to the earth anyways. Unless Romans 8 is more true than “The World Without Us,” in which I must then labor to bring healing and restoration to the earth God’s way, through prayer, fasting, and fellowship with the Holy Spirit.
My way may be strange to a radical ecologist, but at least my world-view ends with me being able to enjoy the world God made.
David
July 24th, 2007
I appreciate the tip-off from David Gagne - thanks to him, I now have come to the truth of the matter. No one wants to talk about Nietzsche, humanism, or the coming global system of religious harlotry. Nope. What’s on your minds is your Live Impact!
Are you enviro-friendly and carbon conscious? Take the test! Know your score!
The great irony to me is that, since there is no real comparison, national average, pass/fail, or any standard measuring stick for some kind of objective “success”, this strikes me as a particularly useless exercise destined to fail miserably at the one thing it was designed to do: shock me into changing my lifestyle habits related to carbon emissions. If anything, my score has shocked me into a happy complacency since I scored way better than most of you. In fact, seeing the median average of the scores has spurred me on to free myself from the shackles of “turning lights off when I leave the room”.
I may upgrade to an SUV.
David
June 25th, 2007
On 7/7/07, a massive rally intended to spark a “global movement” is taking place - and many, many others will join via simulcast to participate in a drive to force behavioral change throughout the earth. Of course, if this was the stated goal of The Call Nashville, there is a good chance that we would be instantaneously ostracized from society for good, particularly on every cult watching website that ever existed. It’s not The Call, of course, but it is a call - a call to Save Our Selves.
Here’s the press release:
“Live Earth is a 24-hour, 7-continent series of 9 concerts taking place on 7/7/07 that will bring together more than 100 music artists and 2 billion people to trigger a global movement to solve the climate crisis.
Live Earth will reach this worldwide audience through an unprecedented global media architecture covering all media platforms - TV, radio, Internet and wireless channels.
Live Earth marks the beginning of a multi-year campaign led by the Alliance for Climate Protection, The Climate Group and other international organizations to drive individuals, corporations and governments to take action to solve global warming. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore is the Chair of the Alliance and Partner of Live Earth.”
Ironically, two of the locations include: the Seven Towers Fortress, a historic Byzantine site in Istanbul; and the Cradle of Humankind, Maropeng, just outside of Johannesburg, South Africa.
There’s not too much beyond the obvious to say at this point
I am thankful, however, that Mr. Gore and Mr. Kevin Wall (the main organizer) proved the point I was trying to make a while back with my little series on global warming. That point was driven home to me last evening as I was out with my kids at our last stop for the evening - Barnes & Noble. The main display of the “religion” section were books on global warming and environmentalism.
Is global warming a problem? Again, I am sure that it is, actually. But the greater problem is that man is completely disconnected from the solution. It is the sin and darkness of man that leads to the mismanagement of the earth and its resources. The solution to “drive behavioral change” is an interesting leadership style called “voluntary love” (Ps. 110:3) and “happy holiness” that flow from deep repentance. As I have said elsewhere, no one wants to renew and refresh the earth more than Jesus Himself - Paul told us this in Romans 8:21 -
“…because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.”
God’s environmental strategy
God has a stunning environmental plan knit to man’s repentance. It’s found in 2 Chronicles 7:14 -
“…if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”
Thus there are two plans unfolding on 7/7/07. Man’s plan is to gather, listen to music, hear some information on how to recycle from cool people, and then really think about their sin committed against the earth. Behavioral change is sure to follow. God’s plan is to gather His people, called by His name, to a Joel 2:15 solemn assembly in which repentance and turning from sin by asking for His transforming grace becomes the top priority of our lives.
If we cry out night and day for speedy justice (Luke 18:8) then we have a two-fold promise. First, He will come as Justice itself, and be established amongst the peoples and cleanse, heal, and refresh the land. Secondly, in the immediate, we become a people of prayer that learn to ask the Holy Spirit for revelation and wisdom (Eph. 1:17-19). Rather than apply human wisdom to a sin problem, we can repent, approach God with a tender heart, and ask Him for wisdom that He is happy to give us. The healing of the land begins with the daily and continual involvement of the Holy Spirit with our individual and corporate lives.
I remember the first “Save Our Selves” simulcast. It happened at the Tower of Babel, the other “cradle of civilization.” It didn’t meet its stated goals, unfortunately. The final “Save Our Selves” event in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, isn’t slated to end well either.
David
June 18th, 2007
I’m guessing that the last three posts appealed to a certain type of thinker, while others may have tuned out entirely because the time spent on the subject seems a little odd compared to the “missions statement” of this site. At the end of the day, almost everything I am writing in here is about the end of the age - specifically life in a prayer room at the end of the age. So why then, would I give so much attention to the issue (or non-issue, whatever the case may be) of global warming?
Now that the series is concluded, hopefully you discovered that these articles were not really about global warming at all. Again, that’s why I consciously avoided entering into a debate over the facts and statistics. This little series was really about the nature of man and the forces that motivate the heart as history approaches its dramatic climax. It is critical that we have an understanding of the manner in which sinful and wicked human beings are establishing a social context that rages against the Lord in our time (Ps. 2:1-3; Rom. 1:32).
This series was about being a people that watch and pray (Lk. 21:36). When it comes to these kinds of issues, I tend to watch for different cues and clues than what most observe. In poker, this is known as a “tell”. There are little “giveaways” that tip me off as I watch that something more is going on than what is being said. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks - and the heart is deceitful and wicked beyond measure. As sons of the light and sons of the day, we must not sleep as others do - but with sobriety we must lay hold of insight and clarity regarding the real issues that trouble the whole earth in this hour.
Again, if you connected with the analogy I made about AIDS/HIV, then you understood that global warming may truly be a serious issue that mankind needs to confront in the days to come. AIDS/HIV actually is a serious issue in some parts of the world that needs critical attention and resource. Socially, politically, and most importantly, biblically, human trafficking is one of the most serious issues that will condemn the nations before the Lord in judgment. Babylon is judged in Revelation 18:13 for trading “bodies and the souls of men”. Abortion, of course, is one of the most critical issues facing the nations in the days to come - again, murder in the book of Revelation being one of the four most critical issues facing the nations.
Since we’re there, what does the Bible tell us is the real “number one issue facing humanity”? If there is one thing I appreciate about the global warming debate, it’s that it identifies a key problem, or symptom of man’s sickness in his separation from God - man is a lover of self, a lover of pleasure rather than a lover of God (2 Tim. 3:3-5). Man does not love what God loves, nor does he value true power from God in authentic godliness; instead, he is content with a form or outward appearance of godliness that masks the true ambitions that burn and rage beneath the surface. Our incessant and unyielding consumption of goods and resources is symptomatic of our insatiable lust. We lust and do not have. We murder and covet and cannot obtain.
James, in chapter four of his letter, is identifying the greatest problem facing humanity - we ask amiss, that we may spend what we receive on our pleasures (Jas. 4:3). We are in a state of enmity with God. We have made peace with a wicked world system that is corrupt and unredeemable. This world system is birthed out of man’s perpetual sin and pride; then men labor in vain to solve the issues that they themselves initiated and established. It is a seemingly unending cycle of brutality, callous indifference, conflict, and injustice. The nations have not (true peace, justice, and righteousness) because they ask not. For what? Heavenly wisdom, of God, from God, on His terms - not our own. James is appealing to men to ask God from a place of humility and recognition of His sovereignty and superiority.
Of course, this posture sets a whole chain of events in motion that exposes the irreconcilable nature of the problem facing men. Once we find ourselves in the place of weakness and need by which we would appeal to God for His answer, we must then (by necessity) submit to Him and His way (Jas. 4:7). We must say no to wickedness and renounce our sinful and self-centered lifestyles - or, “resist the devil”. It requires a radical lifestyle change that actually embraces the wisdom we must ask for. The lifestyle described in Matthew 5-7 is the wisest way to live in light of the issues facing the planet - I will get back to this point in a moment. Continuing in James 4:7-10, James then fires off a series of necessary changes in rapid succession - submit, resist, draw near, cleanse, purify, lament, mourn, weep, and humble yourselves. The greatest problem facing mankind is that he has no interest in doing any of these things.
It is far easier for the voices, power brokers, and celebrities to stand in judgment of the selfishness and ignorance of the rest of the planet. The post about Al Gore that is making the rounds related to his personal lifestyle is not about character assassination, it is about the realities of the heart divorced from God and the choices it refuses to make. One of the commenters in the last post (Stephanie) asked about the boundaries and limitations of an eco-friendly lifestyle. I thought it was a brilliant point, actually, touching on an issue intuitively that needs to be addressed: the prescribed lifestyle of Jesus to us who believe His words are true and His ways are righteous is a fasted, or simple lifestyle.
This is the solution that the nations of the earth refuse to entertain. The “wise” and the “strong” rage against the seemingly “weak” and “simple” solution that the Lord has presented the peoples. Using both the human body and the earth as our templates here, there are many who can relate to the manner in which diet, exercise, and health issues can become an all-consuming reality. The same holds true of “green-friendly” living - one can go so far in that philosophy of lifestyle that it consumes you. Your every choice, your every decision, your every meal becomes one in which you have to expend a great deal of time, money, and energy to maintain consistency philosophically. That’s why you can’t find anyone actually “living” the global warming message to its logical conclusion.
The solution for mankind’s greatest problem is the simple lifestyle prescribed in the sermon on the mount, empowered by grace and fueled by fasting and prayer. The solution for mankind in this hour is a free heart not bound to or dependent on the things of this world, reflected by a life wholly abandoned in love, loyalty, and devotion to God and His value system. Then, over time, we can learn to honor Him in the manner in which we care for our bodies and our home. Much of our “consumption crisis” would be taken care of if we conformed to biblical wisdom, which transcends eco-wisdom. The best of our time, energy, and money must go to kingdom things relating to prayer, fasting, giving, serving, and forgiving first - all other considerations must be secondary. Not unimportant, but secondary.
I love James’ solution to Stephanie’s (and my) dilemma. If we lack wisdom, we can ask God - and He will give to us liberally (Jas. 1:5). If we are concerned about what constitutes “overboard” in health and environmentalism, we can search the scriptures and be given in prayer and fasting for God’s answer to the question. I know that for me, I want to live simple, not obsessed. I want to be wholly given to God, not environmentalism or physical health. I love and appreciate the Holy Spirit’s leading and prompting as I grow in how to navigate these secondary issues that matter to Jesus. I want to walk worthy of the calling He has set before me, in every area I have understanding.
Thus, while the nations of the earth have an untenable crisis on their hands, I can walk in peace and confidence in the leadership of Jesus. There is no way to avoid what men are struggling mightily to stop - men will destroy themselves in their sin and wickedness, and the earth will suffer mightily as a result (i.e. Rev. 6:3-8). This is not fatalism - I do not want to leave the peoples of the earth to their own devices and wash my hands of their actions. I know, however, my limitations - I am not the one who is going to save the earth. I simply want to be obedient and humble in partnering with Jesus to do the part that I was called to. The manner in which I influence and affect my sphere matters to Him.
So I will give myself to that with all of my heart in the place of prayer. I will then be free to trust God with the rest that is beyond my control, ability, or sphere of influence to change. Great and marvelous are His works! Just and true are His ways! The One who is seated on the throne leading history is not threatened nor thrown off by the destructive ways of man - and so neither am I.
In other words, while the nations rage and the hearts of men are in great turmoil and storm over the issues facing us all, I will rest in Him in the place of prayer and dependency. I trust Him. I will not and can not imagine that I care more about the environment more than He does. So I will look to Him and follow as He leads.
David
March 16th, 2007
Imagine that the home you now live in is actually owned by your fabulously wealthy dad. The plan is simple - in the days to come, you’re going to inherit the home. Even better, you’re going to be given a fantastic mansion to live in - you are actually going to inherit a wonderful new home as well your old one, which you will manage when you move into your new space. Knowing that, how do you treat your current home - the one you’re going to inherit and manage from afar? Do you trash the home, with the understanding that it’s going to be someone else’s problem to clean up? Or do you actually care for and cultivate what you’re going to be given - labor to improve the home, landscape the yard, and make it nice for the people that will live in it next?
Remember - though there will be tenants in your home, it will still be your home. Secondly, how you treat your home now matters, even after you move out.
Of course, my analogy is speaking of the glorious promise Jesus made to His church in Matthew 5:5 - that the meek shall “inherit the earth”. This is the same promise given in Daniel 7:27 - that the “greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High.” Even more critically, the scriptures establish a dynamic relationship between the people and the land - for example, Isaiah 62:4 speaks of the “marriage” between the people and the land. This is after Isaiah spoke of a millennial people rebuilding, restoring, and repairing the broken and shattered planet (Isa. 61:4). In Deuteronomy 28, obedience and righteousness had a direct connection with blessing released on the land itself; 1 Kings 8:36-37 speaks to the same idea. The well known 2 Chronicles 7:14 passage about humility and repentance ends with a promise to heal the land. That is not a colloquialism for revival amongst the people. God’s desire is to heal the actual land itself.
This is what Paul is talking about in Romans 8, in verses 19-22. The creation itself has been subjected to “futility”, or the curse, but not willingly. That which was precious and special to God - or what God created and called “good” in Genesis 1, is precious because it was made to be His dwelling place with man forever (Ezek. 43:7, Isa. 66:1-2). The One who subjected it did so in hope - that hope being knit to a people who would arise as “sons of God” who walk in agreement with God, authority, and power in glorified bodies. These children of God, who walk in “glorious liberty”, will partner with Jesus as a Bride to deliver the creation itself from the “bondage of corruption”. Presently, the sinful nature of man is defiling the earth - and the whole creation groans and labors in the meantime, waiting for the coming renewal of the earth under the leadership of Jesus.
Understanding this, we then understand that it is the believer who must now become the foremost environmentalists on the planet. Because of bad theology, many believers have an escapist mentality regarding their current home - they treat it poorly because it will seemingly be someone else’s problem when God takes them away. Others believe that God will simply return and burn up the home that they have been given, so any improvements that they would make would only be a huge waste of time. These mindsets are tragic - and it leads to a significant error in our dealings with “the creation” that God has given us authority over (and will give in greater measure).
In establishing our role as the caretakers of the earth from the days of Adam, it was never God’s intention that we care for the earth with an “attitude”. We are not to tend to the needs of the planet with arrogance, or disillusionment with the self-centered, self-absorbed nature of our fellow man. We are not called to manipulate others to walk with us in our God-given responsibilities. It’s not even our job to educate unbelievers in these biblical truths. We are simply called to serve in meekness, tenderness, and a gentle spirit as we love what He loves related to the creation itself. In regards to those who don’t know Christ, we plead with men in light of the gospel that men might be saved. We want to win men and women of the earth to Christ that they would escape the coming judgment. I have no interest in indoctrinating unbelievers into an environmentally-friendly lifestyle. I want them to escape the fires of hell.
One of the things I have consciously avoided in this discussion is the much debated and disputed data related to the issue of global warming. The reason for this is simple - I do not trust the agendas of confused, darkened, and wicked men. I do not trust the philosophical foundations of their world view. I do not buy, scripturally, into their inherent goodness and decency of motive. I’ll be even more blunt. Behind the zeal for global warming, and fueling the debate, lie ungodly environmentalists that are raging against Jesus in their inner man. As I said from the first post, environmentalism without Jesus is deceived, demonic, and deceptive. Again, to take it one step further, good works apart from the Living God is an abomination and a stench to Him. I have avoided tackling the actual statistics because the people behind the statistics are suspect. I want to pull back the curtain and take a hard look at the people and their need for a savior.
As with the issue of AIDS/HIV, encountering Jesus changes the conversation greatly. It is necessary for me to separate the issue of global warming from the issue of environmental responsibility - and again, I find that for many it is impossible to separate the two. Why does global warming need to be “undebatable” or no longer open for discussion? Why is the case “closed” in the minds of those who are convinced of its truth? Why can’t the need for environmental responsibility stand on its own merits?
It boils down then, to this for me: ungodly men motivated by hubris are looking to drive both policy and public opinion in an alarmist manner that constitutes an intelligent strategy to deal with the self-absorbed nature of man. At best, the manner in which intelligent and ambitious men are dealing with the global community is simplistic and slightly cynical. The issue of environmental responsibility cannot stand on its own merits simply because fallen human nature will not allow it. It is within the heart of sinful and wicked men to destroy the earth. In Revelation 11:18, part of the judgment of Jesus is connected to man’s self-destructive tendencies:
“The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints, and those who fear Your name, small and great, and should destroy those who destroy the earth.”
Man apart from God will devour himself and destroy everything that God delights in. He is longsuffering towards us in His lovingkindness, but He is not blind to the darkness within men hidden beneath the facade of benevolence, the self-interest and ambition hidden beneath the sheen of seemingly helpful intentions. Paul knew what he was talking about when he quoted Psalm 14 related to the condition of man - there is no one righteous. Unrighteous men are fueling debate for cynical reasons. Scientists who want funding, job security, and credibility amongst a certain community of influencers would naturally follow suit. Selective use of facts and apocalyptic scenarios are meant to target western self-centeredness and play on fears. We need more than truth and sound data in regards to the global warming debate - we need theology.
Let me use a different analogy again to illustrate what I am talking about, lest I sound more harsh than I mean to. Have you ever wondered why many of the modern peace protesters are among the most vile, violent, angry, and abusive people one could meet anywhere? Have you ever seen the look on the face of a peace protester as they shout at soldiers doing their duty? Has the dichotomy (and the irony) ever made you stop and wonder?
You will find the same “symptoms” among many environmentalists. There is a reason “eco-terrorism” takes place in different pockets and regions. What fuels the activism? What propels the zealous to act in such a manner? There is a rage within different ones at their fellow man. There is a rage against others who are callous in their disregard for nature. The zeal is knit to what some environmentalists worship - you can call her “Mother Nature”, “Mother Earth”, or “Gaia” - but the zeal is knit to the foolishness Paul highlights in Romans 1:18-32. In verse 22-25, Paul exposes those who “profess to be wise”, yet have become fools. Why? They exchanged knowledge of the Creator to instead worship creation itself, exchanging truth for a lie. They did not love the truth (2 Thess. 2:12-13) in regards to the one issue that truly matters. Truth in the inward parts, from which all else (including activism and environmental responsibility) must flow - there is no way to get around the divine order of things.
If global warming is true, than let’s hear it from other sources than the ones Al Gore respects. I want to hear it from scientists that I trust, who profess to have more than knowledge but walk in heavenly (not earthly) wisdom - as a commenter aptly noted in an earlier post. Seemingly sincere yet corrupt and broken men applying earthly wisdom invariably leads to disaster - and much worse. Those who were in a rush to implement the Kyoto Protocols forgot about James 3:13-18, specifically verses 14-15:
“But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic.”
One must ask soberly the following - do these men, the ones driving the debate about global warming…do they have bitter envy and self-seeking in their hearts? From where, then, are their solutions coming from? From what source? James is unflinching and unsentimental in his answer. Their wisdom is earthly, sensual…and demonic. If their is a global warming problem, than I want to hear from someone else. I want someone loyal to another kingdom speaking into the thing with divine ideas and godly solutions that actually bless the nations rather than hurting third world development and economic growth. I do not want to make room for demonic wisdom and demonic ideas that subtly and secretly fuel agendas and plans that cannot be anything less than destructive in the end.
I want to say that again. If there is something demonic in regards to wisdom fueling the conversation, the very ones who endeavor to save the earth will destroy it. The scriptures are clear - in regards to human nature, and the course of human history, these men are not going to save the earth. They are creating the context to destroy it. The book of Revelation graphically depicts this scenario, in Revelation 6. Later, in Revelation 8, God burns a third of the trees and green grass with something other than carbon emissions. Without twisting and spiritualizing scripture, it is very difficult to find the actual scenarios described by those who believe in global warming; any scenarios that seem similar are actually being initiated supernaturally by God, not men. Most worst case scenarios presented have time-tables that move well beyond what I believe the earth as we know it presently will be around for, in regards to the current time frame of human history.
Does that absolve us from environmental responsibility? Again, no. My point is that the people behind the projections do not study the end-times. They do not care what God’s opinion is. They want to make adjustments and set policy in a way that cannot end well. I do not care who drives the policy - Republican or Democrat. Neither side has solutions that will endure. Both the Republican and Democratic philosophies that fuel current public policy have dire consequences for society if carried out to their logical conclusions - only the mercy of God as He gently intervenes in human affairs is saving us from ourselves.
Let no man or political party take any credit for the moderate success America has enjoyed over the past few hundred years. I want to be clear - I am not anti-America, anti-Gore, or anti-anyone. Romans 13 commands us to pray for and be subject to the governing authorities, godly or ungodly (Paul was speaking about Nero, after all). They are God’s ministers for my good. Behind them, however, is a sovereign God who is truly in control of history and is more zealous than I am about restoring the natural order into right alignment with His will.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize that I am not advocating putting our heads in the sand regarding global warming. I am advocating a departure from being naive about the nature of the human heart divorced from God and a fresh loyalty to the scriptures on this subject. There is no safer ground than standing on the rock of the word of God, and allowing our perspective to flow from that place. Remember (as another commenter noted), many of these same scientists that are providing global warming data are the same ones who are convinced that you evolved from a monkey. These are not infallible men, nor is their data foolproof. It is questionable at best - and I want to free us to ask questions boldly and unashamedly. I have a nasty habit of furrowing my brow when someone gets emotional about this subject and objects to dissent.
Let us be a people that are unafraid to look behind the curtain to unveil the true thing, pressing the envelope for clarity before we act as if there is certainty. As Paul said in 1 Thess. 5:21: “Test ALL things, hold fast to what is good.” Before you throw your voice behind a thing, test it to see what is there. If there is something good - something that God Himself would testify is good, then hold fast. If earthly wisdom is involved, don’t hold fast - hold on. It’s going to be a bumpy ride before we’re done.
I don’t care about global warming. No one has proven conclusively to me that I should. I care about the environment, and I care about people - and I care about seeing both reconciled to God.
David
March 14th, 2007
If you haven’t already, I strongly suggest you take the time to read part one of this article here.
Global warming is a sensitive subject, one that stirs deep emotions in the hearts of those who follow the issue. Part of the reason is that global warming and the issue of environmental responsibility have become inextricably linked. Personally, I find this to be a brilliant tactic employed by any who wish to make their issue, cause, or argument unassailable. This is why the issue of abortion is knit to the issue of choice and women’s rights. If one were to simply debate the biological truths related to the issue of children, the pro-choice movement would be trounced and bereft of any moral ground to cling to; thus the inviolable freedoms and rights that all mankind deserves becomes the centerpiece of the war they are fighting. A pro-choice proponent can really immerse themselves in the belief that they are not fighting for themselves, but for the good of all mankind.
Many issues find their way to our heart-strings before too long. Health care reforms then become about the children (the ones that make it out of the womb, of course) - and who wants to oppose children? In politics, the line between truth, facts, rhetoric, and propaganda is often difficult to discern. Because these tactics are so often employed by Democrats in our nation in a manner that is knit to what is known as a “populist” message (government that provides services for the people), those on the Republican side have zeal and energy to expose the illogical but often heart-string pulling tactics of their opponents. Of course, this presumes that Republicans would never use social issues for personal gain.
The central issue, of course, is that ultimately few of these issues truly matter to most politicians of any shade of red and blue. The core issue is simply one of job security. Job security is one of the most powerful forces driving and motivating the hearts of men and women on the planet today. It has always been this way - for example, in the first century one of the primary issues that led to the crucifixion of Jesus was the zeal of the Pharisees for job security. It’s why they only highlighted the aspects and interpretations of the law that they could keep consistently, overlooking the parts of the law they could not. Even more insidiously, they really highlighted the aspects of the law that the rest of the Jews could not keep - and thus the Pharisees and scribes were sought after for their counsel and “expertise” in the matters of the law and righteousness. Job security.
Job security fuels Republican politicians who have a vested interest in crying out for justice in regards to abortion every four years or so, while making sure to do little about it in the meantime. I refuse to believe that many of these politicians truly care about issues related to justice and societal change knit to kingdom of God values. There is little political gain in fighting for orphans in Africa with AIDS that few Americans care about. Politicians care about what people care about, and people care about themselves. Thus, the main issue that almost every politician focuses on is the economy, not social justice.
Let’s deviate for a minute from self-serving politicians and their self-centered constituencies. Let’s talk about environmentalists. Last Thursday I read a not-very-surprising article about the disappointment of the Ten network related to “disastrous” ratings for a much-hyped save the environment special. Here’s an interesting quote from the article:
“Truthfully, we’re confused,” says Ten’s network head of programming, Beverley McGarvey. “They didn’t come. It’s not like they came to the show, sampled it and went away. They didn’t come.
“We had study guides in schools, we had the full support of the print media, both editorially and with advertising, and an extensive [Ten Network] on-air campaign with a number of different creative treatments and different stances.
“We spent a fortune to get the audience there and it didn’t work. We’ve talked about it quite a lot internally. We’re disappointed.”
Ten isn’t alone. Despite the focus on climate change, the green conundrum is alive across myriad product categories, including toilet paper.
The “green conundrum” is defined as follows, according to the article: “Toilet paper and TV shows are entirely different categories but both are facing the same challenge on the green front - how to get mass appeal and then turn a buck.” The environmentalists have suddenly found that they have the ear of both television producers and marketing agencies for a few reasons. There was the assumption that “where the treasure is, there the heart shall be” - that the hearts of the people had been captured by the environmental crisis facing the planet and thus their “treasure” would follow, reflected in responsible, or “green”, spending. These men, and others who are now mass-producing environmentally sound products, had seen themselves positioned to reap the benefits.
The issue here isn’t that these men were going to profit from global warming - there are lots of ways that enterprising and creative men and women can make money. The issue is that they were going to make money in a manner that helped them sleep better at night - they felt like their products were going to fly off of the shelves and save the earth at the same time. They felt like they were going to make a difference. “For the first time this year people say they can make a difference when it comes to the environment,” says Grey’s managing director, Jane Emery. “Roughly 60 per cent say they can make a difference.” Much to their disappointment, the ultimate indicator of the hearts of the people - what they spend their money on - reveals where people truly stand on the issue of global warming.
The global warming conversation serves a critical purpose for environmentalists that, to this point, has not borne the fruit that they were hoping for. Global warming serves as a flash point - an easily communicable set of ideas that stir urgency that will hopefully lead to activity. Activists that had long felt alone in a sea of human selfishness suddenly have a cause to rally the masses. The global warming issue, functionally, is a vehicle to bring societal change by appealing to the very self-centered desire for continued peace, comfort and safety that keeps environmental issues off the grid of what people care about. To oppose global warming, then, is to oppose environmental responsibility and necessary societal changes.
Global warming, then, becomes the means to transform selfish people into environmental activists. It becomes the issue that finally gets politicians to care about environmental laws and issues. It becomes the means to stir the nations towards responsibility in their productivity and consumption. The goals of the men and women behind the global warming conversation are the same as those of believers throughout the body of Christ - revival, in the way that they understand it. The men and women who are fueling the discussion are the “end-times” teachers of the environmental movement, and they are prophesying much doom and gloom if there is no repentance.
This is why it is becoming more and more difficult to oppose these environmental evangelists. Whether or not the facts are on their side - and I am not commenting on the facts right now - the moral imperative is clear. They are sure that they are on the right side and are aggressive in recruiting leaders and others of influence from every sphere of society to call the earth to change - before it’s too late. In a 2005 article about his movie, the 11th hour, Leonardo DiCaprio made the following statement: Global warming is not only the No. 1 environmental challenge we face today, but one of the most important issues facing all of humanity.” In 2004, the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” provided an apocalyptic glimpse at the sudden climate changes that could seemingly overwhelm the earth, practically overnight. Of course, even the global warming proponents cringed at both the science and the script for this universally panned attempt at eco-evangelism.
“Happy Feet”, the animated penguin movie that came out last year, was another attempt to indoctrinate both kids and their parents into the crisis facing the environment. The “people bad, animals good” message, however, was fairly and soundly rejected by many, including movie critics. Thus we have the critical, watershed moment for environmentalists - “An Inconvenient Truth” by Al Gore, besides being the most successful documentary in movie history, also becomes one of the most universally lauded and applauded presentation of the global warming issue to date. Whether all the facts line up is not the issue - even the filmmakers, producers, and scientists involved admit as much, in a New York Times article released just yesterday. This is an important article to read on the issue - and the sentiment is as follows: some of the details are inaccurate, but the big picture is important.
So, the question remains, for the moment: does the end justify the means? Though we probably agree that DiCaprio is incorrect - global warming is not the most critical issue of our time - is it important? Are we headed for climatological disaster on en epic scale? Though we may not agree with their methods, shouldn’t we get on board with what these men and women are saying?
Now that I’ve laid out what I consider to be some of the central issues in the first two parts, I’ll wrap up this conversation on global warming and the end of the age in the final article on my little series.
I’ll give one more hint as to where I’m going to throw in the mix with the two I gave a few days ago - is global warming depicted in the Bible?
David
March 13th, 2007
Warning: long post. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. I do think this will be worth your time, however.
Brent Steeno has been crying out in the wilderness of his web journal about global warming. I think some have missed the point of what he is doing. Global warming is the hot button issue of the hour, but I am convinced that the issue itself is a non-issue - and that the numbers and facts presented by its proponents are but mere tools unto a desired end. The closest example to illustrate what I feel is not just wrong, and not just dishonest, but actually dangerous - that I can think of - is the AIDS “epidemic” of the 90’s.
The word “epidemic” is in quotes because of the complete unreality of attributing such a word to the disease. The statistical grounds to make such a claim were completely unfounded. In fact, by 2005, according to the Center for Disease Control, the total number of AIDS/HIV cases in the United States totaled 988,376. With the U.S. population at that time at about 296.5 million, we would be talking about less than 1% of the population. In 2005, more people died of the flu. More people died from diabetes. 15 times more people in the U.S. died of heart disease than contracted AIDS/HIV that year. I don’t remember reading about a flu epidemic two years ago, do you?
Hold steady, I have more numbers. About 765,000 of those cases involved males; 183,000 of those cases involved females; and roughly 9,000 of those cases involved children. Thus, about 80% of all AIDS/HIV cases involve males. Of those, 454,000 involved male to male sexual contact. 170,000 cases involved drug use. Another 66,000 cases involved both homosexual activity and drug use. These statistics are stunning to me - if you are a drug-free heterosexual, you have virtually no chance of contracting AIDS/HIV. In 2005, the “other” category - the number of people that contracted AIDS/HIV outside of drug use or sexual interaction - was 540 people. 540. So, if you add “abstinence” or “marriage” to being drug-free and heterosexual, you have better odds of drowning than contracting AIDS/HIV. Yet, for years we heard about the AIDS epidemic. Still no word on the drowning epidemic yet.
The idea that anyone at anytime could contract AIDS, that it was not just a “gay disease”, was a popular one in the 1990’s. This was said so often many assumed it must be true. Few actually checked the actual statistics to see if there was indeed a problem that needed more attention. A small number of activists just…well…said that there was an epidemic. Loudly. To the media. Often. A movie star dies quietly. A famous pro athlete contracts it. Suddenly, the rhetoric (and a selective presentation of the facts) kicks into a new gear, and the idea that AIDS/HIV is an epidemic takes hold of the American psyche. Movie stars and important people wear ribbons. It becomes the cause of the moment, and it feels good to take a stand for unknown friends that are passing away in shame. Movies are produced (Philadelphia), Broadway plays are performed (Rent), and HBO specials sign headline actors to get the message out there (And the Band Played On). Where are the activists today? Has AIDS/HIV been conquered in our time? Did they achieve victory? Have they funded a cure? Or is there still an epidemic?
There is a phrase that haunts me when I think about the agenda that presses people to push ideas that they patently know to be untrue. It’s the Latin phrase, cui bono. Who profits? What advantage is gained?
In the case of AIDS/HIV, the primary issue was funding related to finding a cure. When less than 1% of the population has contracted a disease, and the vast majority of that 1% are homosexuals, drug abusers, and homosexual drug abusers, how does one commission doctors to spend time, energy, and resource to work towards conquering the disease? In the Hollywood and Broadway communities in particular, there was an uncomfortable number of friends and loved ones contracting this disease. People that had influence and a measure of power over what the masses cared about wanted the masses to care about their friends. I appreciate that. That they had to trumpet facts selectively and carefully, and often times blatantly untruthfully could easily be justified by the cause itself - “doing good” would trump the little half-truths and white lies that swayed public opinion and influenced the flow of real dollars to real doctors.
Secondarily, and more insidiously, is the itch of the soul that is scratched by doing good. Who profits? The one whose life needs more meaning than entertainment. The one who longs to do good and help their fellow man. The one who wants to feel like all of the trouble, all of the discomfort, and all of the pain and loneliness that comes with fame actually means something, somehow, someday. The cost of fame and power is great, and weighs heavily. The threat of vanity, meaninglessness, and emptiness gnaw and tug at the heart of the one who has given up much to gain the whole world. Is it possible to gain the whole world AND keep your soul a the same time? Well, one could actually trade on their fame and power to make some kind of difference - and wouldn’t that make everything - all the sleepless nights, the disrupted, abnormal life, the maladjusted children, the addictions and the fear - really, wouldn’t it make everything worth it in the end if that fame and power made a difference in just one life?
The vanity. The emptiness. The meaninglessness. One can solve the pain and ache that burns within the hidden places of the soul with but one word - repentance. Jesus - the name that instantly transforms a life from meaningless and empty to meaningful and full of real impact. I would have no problem with a believer that fought night and day to bring aid to AIDS victims, homosexual or otherwise. Acts of mercy done in the name of Jesus have much meaning. There really is an AIDS epidemic, a grave crisis, in Africa - and there has been for years (you never hear about it, however). A believer who spends their life serving orphans with AIDS in Africa is living a life well lived before God, and will find much reward in the kingdom at the return of Jesus. Even a cup of cold water given in His name finds its reward.
You wouldn’t have to trump up the facts. You could take on AIDS honestly, and give yourself to a passionate outreach to homosexuals in the name of Jesus. You could rally other believers to the cause that has stirred your heart. Your labors would have eternal impact. They would not be in vain.
Who profits? The one who wants the whole world and keep their soul in the bargain. The one who wants to soothe their aching conscience by finding a way to make an impact without involving Jesus. The one who wants to assign meaning to their life and depth to their name on their terms. Who profits? The one who can make a difference without repentance, without any changes in their lifestyle or sensibilities, without any need to confess Jesus as Lord. The honor and the esteem of men then provide a deceptive and seductive reward for the heart in this life.
It’s tragic.
Part 2 coming soon - I’ll connect this analogy to the current mania over global warming, though I am sure you can anticipate where I am going. Two pre-post thoughts to satiate your curiosity:
1. Christians should be the world’s leading environmentalists.
2. Environmentalism without Jesus is dangerous, demonic, and destructive. In our day you can now add “deceptive” and you have the full preview of where I am going with this….cui bono…
David
March 10th, 2007
