GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL. BUT ...

Climatologists tell us that for the past twelve years the earth has not been warming.  Some people suggest that this data proves that there is no global warming.  But it seems to me that most people agree that a true warming trend started in the 1850s.  This warming has been, on average, about 1.5 degrees C.  For the past twelve years we might have been in a plateau and the warming will resume, or we might be at the peak.  For Christians, there are two fundamental questions.

QUESTION 1

Is global warming bad? 

(For this question and some comments about it, I am indebted to a marvelous lecture by Jay Richards which can be accessed through the website for The Acton Institute: www.acton.org.  Here is a link to the lecture, which is one hour. http://www.acton.org/media/20080417_christians_and_global_warming.php) 

When Jay Richards speaks to this questions he mentions that one college professor virtually thought he should be imprisoned for voicing such heresy.  But an argument can be made that a small amount of warming can be good.  Growing seasons can be lengthened, helping some populations get food.  Because ten times more people die from extreme cold as opposed to extreme heat, lives would be saved.  Obviously excessive warming would be bad.  There have always been warming and cooling trends so a good scientific enterprise would be to determine the optimum global temperature.

QUESTION 2

Is human behavior responsible for global warming?

Unlike the first question this one has been frequently asked and hotly (sorry) debated.  I recommend you watch a debate between two Evangelicals, E. Calvin Beisner and David P. Gushee.  It is an excellent resource and available on DVD for under $20 and I have seen it on CD for just a few dollars.  It is titled Evangelicals & Global Warming: A Formal Debate.  You can buy it at www.nicenecouncil.com or Amazon.  While some would have us believe that the question has already been decided in the affirmative, the debate shows that the skeptics have a case.

Why is there strong presumption that humans are responsible for global warming?

Here is my take:
     1. Scientists discovered that the earth is warming.
     2. Some scientists hypothesized that this is due to human activity increasing levels of CO2.
     3. Grant requests were made to research this possibility.
     4. Grant givers, many of whom are very liberal and prone to believe in redistribution of wealth, found this hypothesis to hold great promise for them.  If humans were at fault, then the highly developed nations, especially the United States, owed a huge debt to the rest of the world.
     5. Liberals found a wonderful justification for redistribution of wealth
     6. Liberal grant givers created a climate (sorry again) in which scientists had to express support for human causation of global warming if they wanted grant money for their projects.
     7. Many scientists asserted human causation of global warming in order to get grant money for their projects.

The intimidation suggested above is not just conservative paranoia.  It is documented by Dr. Richard Lindzen in an article in the Wall Street Journal of April 12, 2006.  Dr. Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at M. I. T.

We should note that the tide is turning.  Scientists by the thousands are now expressing doubts about human causation of global warming.

WHAT DO FDR & JESUS HAVE IN COMMON

My daughter attends Renovatus Church in Charlotte, North Carolina where the pastor is Jonathan Martin. Naturally I get some CDs of his sermons. I listened to one in which he mentioned how much he dislikes fear-mongering by politicians and I thought he was right on the money.

If I am not mistaken, the most common admonition in Scripture is, “Fear not.” John 4:18 says, “perfect love casts out fear.” If the Bible consistently tells us not to be fearful, perhaps we should even apply that to politics. The Bible would not go as far as FDR who said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” but the spirit is the same.

The blog Provocative Christian (http://provocativechristian.wordpress.com/category/god-is-sovereign/) gives two reasons why we should not be afraid. The first is that God is sovereign and the second is that Jesus is with us. That blog post is an excellent read.

But politicians want us to be fearful. Why? Because they think that certain fears will drive us to vote particular ways or provoke us to tolerate legislation they want to pass. This problem exists among conservatives as well as liberals.


Here are some examples from the left.

1. Concern about nuclear weapons has given rise to a Doomsday Clock in New York. It was recently reset to six minutes until midnight – doomsday. The odd thing is that the clock was started in 1947 when it was set to seven minutes to midnight. In the fifties it was reset as close as two minutes from Doomsday. One would think that after sixty years of sitting on the edge of our seats worried about nuclear devastation, those involved would get the clue that things are not as urgent as they had thought.

2. I used to get volumes of direct mail from the ACLU. They would sometimes strongly suggest that if Jerry Fallwell was not stopped, we would have an exclusively Christian government in no time and religious freedom would be a thing of the past.

3. Global warming has been a fruitful vineyard for fear. Remember the Time magazine cover that said, “Be afraid. Be very afraid?” Many of the prophecies concerning global warming have been without reason or restraint.

Fear-mongering from the right is just as bad.

1. A direct mail piece said, “In the next 120 days, they’re launching an all-out attack on your family.”

2. Another says, “Should Washington liberals force your child’s religious school to hire homosexual instructors?”

3. A talk show host said, “Liberals are trying to destroy our government from within.”

4. From a right-wing web site and speaking of a coming food shortage: “We may be facing the biggest disaster in our countries history.”


In Newsweek of Dec 24, 2007 Barack Obama rightly said, “We have been operating under a politics of fear: fear of terrorists, fear of immigrants, …” To be balanced he should have added fears of population disasters, environmental destruction, or right-wing takeovers.

So what should a Christian do if God calls him to work on an issue? He or she should work on it with passion and energy, but he or she should not be full of fear about that issue. When the day’s work is done and the Christian lays his head on his pillow, he or she should not lose one nanosecond of sleep due to anxiety, because God is in control and Jesus is with us.

WHAT IS PRO-LIFE?

In 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court rendered the decision for the Roe v Wade case. That decision made abortion legal in the United States. Not long thereafter Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, started the pro-life movement to work in opposition to abortion. Since most pro-life political candidates were conservative, this movement was not popular with politically liberal Christians.

Ron Sider, an Evangelical Christian who is politically liberal, wrote a book in 1987 entitled “Completely Pro-life.” In it he asserted that Christians should be pro-life on abortion, but also on other issues such as nuclear arms, social justice, and feminism. In a final chapter he even brings in tobacco, alcohol, racism, and environmentalism.

In the years that followed other politically liberal Evangelical Christians such as Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, and Brian McClaren have repeated and expanded the idea of being totally pro-life, sometimes rephrasing it as “consistently pro-life,” or “totally pro-life.” In so doing more issues have been added to the pro-life list. War, poverty, and capital punishment are all presented as pro-life issues.
It is not surprising that as more ingredients are tossed into the pot called pro-life the clarity of what is pro-life gets obfuscated. Two clarifications will help us regain our focus.

TWO CLARIFICATIONS

1. LIFE & DEATH VS QUALITY OF LIFE

First we must distinguish between life & death issues versus quality of life issues. War, abortion, and capital punishment are examples of true life & death issues. Poverty and justice are examples of quality of life issues and as such they should not be assigned to the pro-life category. This is not to say that they are not important. The word “poor” appears in the English Standard Version of the Bible 173 times and most of those references are to people in poverty. Historically Christians have shown great sensitivity to the poor but we must observe that in the twentieth century, for a variety of reasons, Evangelical Christian concern for the poor ebbed. Fortunately we are seeing significant resurgence of compassion for those in poverty. Nonetheless, this issue in the United States is not a matter of life and death and thus should not qualify as a pro-life issue.

2. RELATIVE IMPORT

Second, once we establish which issues are pro-life we must ask ourselves if they are of equal import. If abortion, war, and the death penalty are in this category do they merit equal attention? The notion of moral equivalence needs to be explored.

In 1986 Dr. Jeane Kirkpatrick wrote an essay entitled The Myth of Moral Equivalence. She pointed out that some people look at two flawed nations and call them morally equivalent. Nation A is totally dictatorial with no free elections while nation B has free elections but an instance of voter fraud has been found. Thus the two nations are morally equivalent say the critics. Nation A keeps tens of thousands of its own citizens imprisoned for decades for political reasons. Nation B abused its principles and kept a journalist in prison for a year, unjustly. Thus the critics claim the two nations are morally equivalent. You get the idea. The myth of moral equivalence wrongly equates two things that are not equal.

In pro-life matters there is a sad myth of moral equivalence. Ron Sider and the other writers never actually say that a particular issue is as compelling as abortion but they imply it by widely sidestepping any discussion of which issues are more morally salient. Because in recent years I have turned against capital punishment in the United States, I will use it as a comparison issue with abortion. I believe both are wrong, but abortion is the greater injustice. My analysis will be for the United States only.

(1) First consider the number of victims. Since 1973, 1,146 people have been put do death via the justice system. In the same period there have been over 49,000,000 babies aborted.

(2) Second consider innocence. By human standards all babies aborted are innocent of any crime. We cannot say that all people put to death via the judicial system are guilty but surely at least 95% are.

(3) Finally consider defense. All people who lost their lives via the capital punishment have received multiple defenses in courts of law. Compare this to the unborn who are the most defenseless human beings in existence.

So the comparison is this: 49 million defenseless, innocent persons die via abortion. 1,146 defended and mostly guilty persons die via capital punishment. There is no moral equivalence between these two issues. Abortion is dramatically and overwhelmingly the worse tragedy.

For the war issue I will consider the war in Iraq. The death toll for American soldiers is approaching 5,000. These are volunteer soldiers bearing arms so we cannot call them innocent. The defense they have is among the best in military history. Any outrage for the fatalities in this war does not compare with the offense we should feel from abortion.

But some would say. "What about the fatalities of the other armies?"  What about citizen fatalities? The Associated Press estimates that there have been 110,600 violent deaths, through April of 2009, due to the war.

Four thoughts:

(1) If the U.S. had not gone to war in Iraq there would still have been thousands of deaths, possibly more than 110,600.
(2) Citizen deaths must sadly be considered the loss of innocent people, but not so with military deaths.
(3) Citizen deaths in Iraq may come from very little defenses for noncombatants, but whatever defense they have it is more than abortion victims.
(4) This number, 110,600, which is the total for the war since its beginning in 2003, is approximately equal to the deaths due to abortions in a single month in the United States.

It’s all bad so why do such an analysis? The answer is that Christians have a certain amount of resources at their disposal; things such as time, money, votes, influence, compassion, and energy.  Ron Sider and other politically liberal Evangelical writers have led American Christians to believe that these resources should be distributed fairly among all morally equivalent concerns. My conclusion is this: Christians should give their resources most heavily to the worst moral pro-life issue which is abortion, and it is not even close. Just like slavery was the issue that ultimately determined the character of nineteenth century America, it is abortion that will signal our moral fiber.

WHO SHOULD PAY INCOME TAXES?

What percentage of American adults do not pay income taxes? In 2006 it was 40%. This year it will be 43% and next year it will be 49%.

I do not think the very poor should pay taxes but, this concerns me. We are getting perilously close to a tipping point where 51% are saying to 49%, “You pay the bills, friend.” (Another 11% pay less than a thousand dollars per year.) In Federalist Paper 10 James Madison expressed concern about the violence that the majority could force upon the minority. Alexis de Tocqueville called it “tyranny of the majority.” But common sense alone seems to suggest that a majority of nontaxpaying citizens should not be allowed to tax the minority.

When polled, 66% of Americans said that everyone should have at least some tax liability.

As a Christian, I surely do not want to impose difficult taxes on the very poor. But my inclination is to establish some minimal income tax so that at least 70% or 80% of our adults pay something.

On the other hand, if I were supporting my family on $30,000 per year and someone came to me and said, “Good news. Your tax burden is only $300,” I think I would respond by saying, “Where am I going to get $300?”

Scripture seems to tug us in both directions. Lev. 14:21 talks about the required offerings for cleansing of lepers. If the leper is poor, the offering is reduced. Lev. 27:8 also talks about a price reduction for the poor. In both of these cases the obligation of the poor is reduced but not eliminated.

The Bible also sites times when debts are forgiven, for the poor and nonpoor alike (Dt 15:1,2.) Also owners of vineyards and fields are to leave food for the poor. My research was not exhaustive, but it is interesting that I did not find instances where Scripture gave total relief to the poor regarding institutional obligations, such as offerings or taxes. Nonetheless concern for the poor permeates Scripture. In Dt 24:12, 13 we are instructed that if we give a loan to a poor person, and he gives his cloak as collateral, but he needs that garment for comfort, then we are to return the cloak to the borrower.

We do not want to be insensitive to the poor, but all things considered, I think more than 51% of us need to pay some income taxes. As Christians, though, we need to be careful that we reflect God’s compassion for the poor.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of the data for this post comes from two sources.
1) An interview with Arthur Brooks in World Magazine, Jan 16, 2010.
2) An article in the Wall Street Journal by Adam Lerrick, Oct. 22, 2008.

SCRIPTURE AND POVERTY

Most Christians study Scripture from time to time. Usually the study focuses on a verse, a word, or a chapter, but on occasion, it could be an entire book. Sometimes believers need to look at God’s Word from 30,000 feet. We need to get the big picture.

When we do this, we see things like: God is extraordinarily patient with his people.

Another theme we observe from the broad view is that God cares passionately about poor people. This theme is everywhere in the Bible, both old and new testaments. Because it is so prevalent in Scripture, this subject, which obviously relates to economics, will often be a part of this blog.

I will often differentiate between two types of poverty. (1)Poverty in the United States is one thing. (2)Extreme poverty in developing countries is quite a different thing. (see NOTE 1) Those suffering from extreme poverty often live on a few dollars per day for an entire household. They sometimes go to bed hungry. Even if they are fed for a day, they do not know where tomorrow’s food will come from. Their health options are minimal and sometimes they endure terrible injustices at the hands of governments or powerful people.

Poverty in the U. S. is different. 97% of the U. S. poor have at least one color TV in the home. Two or more cars are owned by 30% of American poor households. 76% of poor households have air conditioning. PLEASE do not misunderstand me. I am not being cynical and implying that these folks are not really poor. They are poor. I would not want to change places with them for one day. My point is that American poverty and extreme world poverty are two different things. As I write future blog posts I will often make it clear that I am speaking of one or the other.

According to the World Bank, one in two people living in developing world countries in 1981 were living in extreme poverty. By 2005 that ratio had dropped to one in four. (see NOTE 2) Most of the improvement came in Asian countries where free market capitalism boosted the economy at a rapid rate. When economies prosper, poverty diminishes and nothing makes economies boom like capitalism. There are a number of evils that are often blamed on capitalism and I will take them up in future blogs.

Some authors aptly describe a problem, but their solutions might be wrongheaded. (see NOTE 3) So it is with Ron Sider. His book Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger does a marvelous job of showing how dire worldwide poverty is, even though his solutions can be, and often are, criticized.

For now we can be pleased that extreme poverty is declining. Nonetheless there are still 1.4 billion people in developing countries living in extreme poverty. That is a staggering number that should move the heart of every Christian.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WE ARE ALL BUSY so I will try to keep my posts short. After a post I may have NOTES for those that are interested in a bit more detail.

NOTE 1. Extreme poverty is often referred to by that name, “extreme poverty,” so I will do likewise. I will try to think of a name to describe the type of poverty we have in the United States. Nonextreme poverty does not sound good because it seems to minimize the suffering of those people. I am open to suggestions for a name for that group.

NOTE 2. World Bank data is from this world bank web article:
http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/0,,contentMDK:21882162~pagePK:64165401~piPK:64165026~theSitePK:469382,00.html


NOTE 3. Another example of this phenomenon is Ayn Rand. Her novels show the sad effects of stifling individuality and freedom. But her solution, called objectivism, is horribly selfish and inappropriate for Christians.