Global Warming farfromproven

fahrfromprovin fahrfromproven farfromprovin climategate

Anybody remember those old Fahrvergnügen commercials?

They spawned a whole industry of cheap t-shirts of German-sounding neologisms:

Fahrfrompoopin - constipated

Fahrfromthinkin - an idiot

Fahrfrompukin - partying

Fahrfromnewgen - old/used

You get the picture. Anyway, I've been thinking of a new word to describe the fiasco over the fake science & data manipulation that has been at the heart of the global warming scam. Here's what I've come up with: FARFROMPROVEN


It's time to face the facts. Anthropogenic global warming isn't science...it's a religion for people with a deficient apocalyptic.

Advent gives us a chance to look at the coming King who will truly baptize the world with Fire, and find Him while he still presents himself in the vulnerability of the incarnation.

Climategate: Exposing the Lie That Needs to Die

James Delingpole has been doing yeoman's work exposing the disgusting underbelly of the anthropogenic global warming sham. He recently exposed a massive conspiracy among climate 'scientists' to cover up data that undermined their hypothesis.

Sorry, Goracle, you're just going to have to find another way to make a living than jetting around the world telling people that they have to...stop jetting around the world.

Read it and keep an eye out. There are people who love to concoct a crisis so they can use it to take away your freedom. (Yes, GWB did this. Yes, BHO is doing it now. Yes, the one-worlders are still trying to use the dead horse of "climate change" to undermine the economies of the West.)

Here's my point. People are falling for the apocalypse now garbage coming from these groups because they've stopped listening to the one person who actually knows how the world is going to end. (Hint: it's the same person who actually knows how the world began.)

Dew Lord O Dew Lord O Dew Remember Me!

From my hometown paper:

Jonesborough resident Jim Stevens admits he’s not a particularly religious person, but even he is awed by what he has seen nearly every morning for the last couple of weeks on the driver’s side window of his Isuzu pickup truck.

It was two weeks ago today that an image, resembling the face of Jesus, made its first appearance on the window. Stevens, who said he has a “bum shoulder,” was having friends from Rogersville help move some items. He entered his truck from the passenger’s side to put his drink inside the vehicle. He said when he went around the truck to the driver’s side, the image was there. Initially, Stevens said he figured the image would go away and that would be the end of it.

But since it first showed up, a morning dew has led to the appearance of the image. Later in the day, when the dew from the morning evaporates, Stevens said the image goes with it. However, when the dew returns the next morning so does the image on the window. Even rolling the window up and down has not stopped it from reappearing.

My bias is to be against the whole idea of apparitions in general. I know some Christians of a catholic bent live by them, but since they aren't something seen in all branches of Christendom, I treat them with some skepticism.

But from the picture, this looks like something that could be done using oil or a film of sorts.

NSF Scientists find links between solar activity and climate change

Looks like somebody didn't get the memo.

From NCAR:

An international team of scientists led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) used more than a century of weather observations and three powerful computer models to tackle one of the more difficult questions in meteorology: if the total energy that reaches Earth from the Sun varies by only 0.1 percent across the approximately 11-year solar cycle, how can such a small variation drive major changes in weather patterns on Earth?

The answer, according to the new study, has to do with the Sun's impact on two seemingly unrelated regions. Chemicals in the stratosphere and sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean respond during solar maximum in a way that amplifies the Sun's influence on some aspects of air movement. This can intensify winds and rainfall, change sea surface temperatures and cloud cover over certain tropical and subtropical regions, and ultimately influence global weather.

"The Sun, the stratosphere, and the oceans are connected in ways that can influence events such as winter rainfall in North America," says NCAR scientist Gerald Meehl, the lead author. "Understanding the role of the solar cycle can provide added insight as scientists work toward predicting regional weather patterns for the next couple of decades."

Source 1 & 2

What? you mean my van isn't causing global warming, but instead it's that ginormous thermonuclear furnace near our planet? Preposterous.

Now how am I supposed to salve my conscience - especially since Obama's energy* is going into health-care instead of Waxman's wealthcare cap-n-trade?

Whew...that's better. So would this be vehicular confession?

Dog Walks on Water

If you want to hear about God walking on water, go here.

I invoke Godwin's Law

Okay...I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but...

The Goracle has tripped to the ridiculous...he's now saying that global warming (or, more properly, skeptics of anthropogenic global warming) is the Nazism of our time.

So, I guess he's using Godwin's Law to shut down the argument since - despite his constant crowing - the science is still unsettled.

P.S. - Hey sunspots, welcome back!

It's Not Rocket Science

From the DUH department....

Scientists at NASA have found a correlation between solar activity cycles and the recent warming trends that the global-warbling greenieweenie alarmists have been telling us about - when they aren't talking about shutting down the skeptics by murder or enacting taxes of dubious repute. (Story from Science Daily here.)

Over the past century, Earth's average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change, according to computer modeling results published by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies researcher David Rind in 2004.

The sun is relatively calm compared to other stars. "We don't know what the sun is going to do a hundred years from now," said Doug Rabin, a solar physicist at Goddard. "It could be considerably more active and therefore have more influence on Earth's climate."

Or, it could be calmer, creating a cooler climate on Earth similar to what happened in the late 17th century. Almost no sunspots were observed on the sun's surface during the period from 1650 to 1715. This extended absence of solar activity may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe and may reflect cyclic or irregular changes in the sun's output over hundreds of years. During this period, winters in Europe were longer and colder by about 1 C than they are today.

I know that the man-as-the-measure-of-all-things ideology is comfortingly arrogant, but there are forces of nature that are beyond our control. And they have a much bigger impact on our planetary climate systems than does your choice between a Prius and an Land Rover. Heck...plankton probably have a bigger impact.

Since then, there seems to have been on average a slow increase in solar activity. Unless we find a way to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning, the solar influence is not expected to dominate climate change. But the solar variations are expected to continue to modulate both warming and cooling trends at the level of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.18 to 0.26 Fahrenheit) over many years.

Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques. (Not to mention that the political machine - both in national policy and academic policy - is shamelessly in the greenieweenie court.)

The inconvertible fact, here is that even NASA's own study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past and is likely the main culprit for current trends. And even the study's members, mostly ardent supports of AGW theory, acknowledge that the sun may play a significant role in future climate changes.

More hard data at SORCE.

All I have to say is this: As Al Gore and other people who stand to make a lot of money from global warming scare tactics will tell you, “the science is settled.” Unless you drive a hybrid, stumble around in the dark at night, and only eat things you find in your yard, you’re killing the planet.

So I don’t see what a big fat ball of hot gas way up in the sky has to do with anything.

But enough about Al Gore in his private jet.

Romans 1 in action

Many thanks to ChannelAte.

Looks like Al Gore is campaigning again

Milgram Study Still Shocks!

Chuck Colson reports on a recent rehash of the Milgram experiment.

The results: apparently 40 years of slamming authority structures, transcendental meditation, and not really educating our children has produced the same result as the last 5,960 years of recorded history. DEPRAVED HUMANS.

In fact, this is just one in a long line of scientific proofs for the one indisputable starting point of soteriology - Total Depravity. There is no place in our humanity (will, body, intellect, etc.) that exists as an island of righteousness or wholeness. We are corrupt in even our best intentions - and the more honest one is, the more they recognize that to be the case.

(BTW, I challenge any skeptic to sincerely examine the claims of any other religion and find one as consistent with reality - scientifically defined or otherwise - as Christianity has proven to be.)

So what do we do? If all the vast techno-prowess we have still leaves us with wicked humans with itchy fingers on bigger and badder weapons, what's to be done.

The answer is simple: Tell'em about Jesus.

Blind Man Walking

A man with brain damage that makes him clinically blind can navigate an obstacle course, seemingly by using a part of his brain other than the visual cortex to perceive the objects in his path. This remarkable ability, discovered through a chance observation, is shedding light on a curious phenomenon known as blindsight.

The man, known as patient TN, was studied by a multinational team led by Beatrice de Gelder at Tilburg University in The Netherlands and Alan Pegna of the Geneva University Hospitals in Switzerland.

The researchers tested TN extensively to confirm that he was completely blind. They used brain imaging to show that there was no activity in his visual cortex, the part of the brain that processes most of the information coming from the retina. They then persuaded TN to set his stick aside and walk down a corridor strewn with lab equipment.

"It's quite a distance to walk," says de Gelder. "He walked much faster than we had expected, without hesitation or any kind of exploration." She adds that he did it completely subconsciously, with no idea that he had been avoiding obstacles in his path.

The team think the visual signals from the retina were processed by neural pathways below the damaged cortex. "It's a major lesson that brain damage can release minor neurological pathways that had previously been suppressed, allowing them to play a more significant role," she says.

This discovery is fascinating for neurobiologists, evolutionary theorists, and medical practitioners for the ways it can advance their fields in treatment of pathology. It's fascinating to me, a practical theologian, because of the way it confirms the Scriptures and explains spiritual encounters in the world.

Humankind is blind because of the Fall. Our sin separates us from God, and that separation extends to all parts of human experience. Nowhere is it more evident than our ability to recognize God for who He is and ourselves for who we are. This affect of the mind is dubbed by theologians the noetic effects of sin. The Apostle Paul writes about it in Romans 1:18-23:

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Echoing the sentiment of Job, Paul is describing the condition of non-Jewish peoples. But don't think that he excludes the Jewish people (to whom the Law was given and through whom came the promised Messiah) - just look at the next chapter (and ch. 11). For even Moses pointed out that God's redeemed people can be quite blind in their own right.

Deuteronomy 29:2 And Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: "You have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, 3the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders. 4But to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear. (See also Ezekiel 12:1ƒƒ and Jeremiah 5:20ƒƒ)

God's reconsitituted redeemed - the Church - can face the same problem of blindness (cf. 1 John 2:9ƒƒ). It troubled Jesus then, and it troubles his people now.

So where do we go from here? If the people on the outside of the covenant are hopelessly blind, and many within the covenant are blinded, too, what's to become of the world?

Hear what Paul said to the people of Athens when he noticed that they were groping about for a deity they intuited was out there, but didn't know.

Acts 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,

We stumble and grope. We get it partially right, but mostly wrong. And yet still, there is an abiding, deep, and stubborn perception of the divine. Even secular and atheistic antagonists recognize the persistence of religious belief.Calvin called this phenomenon the sensus divinitatis.* As Francis Bacon wrote in Novum Organum Scientiarum,

For man by the Fall fell at the same time from his state of innocency and from his dominion over Creation. Both of these losses however can even in this life be in some part repaired; the former by religion and faith, the latter by arts and sciences.

The search for that latter dominion goes on, and I've related a small step in that direction above. The Church is largely responsible for making this search so successful (maybe even possible) in the West. But we've failed in our first calling, which was to help people who seek after God find him in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

When we preach or explain our faith and someone rebuffs us, we get offended instead of praying for Satan to be hampered. We argue, fuss and fight. But sometimes what blind people need the most is for someone to patiently be there, walking beside them to steady them when they wobble or stumble...someone who knows the way around those obstacles.

May the King Who opens our eyes grant you grace to do just that!

* I learned about this in Paul Helm's class taught in conjunction with the release of his book John Calvin's Ideas. Read his blog and you'll quickly see why I can't read Calvin without hearing it in a British accent. You don't have to spend $60 to get at his work on reformed epistemology. The outlines of the argument are present in an earlier article. Paul Helm, "John Calvin, the Sensus Divinitatis, and the noetic effects of sin" International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Springer, ISSN 0020-7047 Volume 43, Number 2, pg 82, April 1998

Global Warming or SeaLab

It seems that TIME is trying to get back into journalism. They've recently reported on a study that suggests a reason for storms causing more and more damage.

No...it's not climate change.

No...it's not governmental incompetence.

It's our mastery of land capture.

We are seeing more damage from natural disasters because we are able to successfully live in more dangerous places.

"There has been no trend in the number or intensity of storms at landfall since 1900," says Pielke, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado. "The storms themselves haven't changed."

Wait...didn't the Goracle predict worse and worse storms because of American SUVs?

Look, if someone were to build Sealab 2020 and then there were a sudden uptick in people dying from compression sickness or shark attacks, you wouldn't blame deep zone water pressure. Or if SkyLab started experiencing routine lung decompressions, you wouldn't blame atmospheric loss. So why are so many ideologues ready to say "global warming" for every disaster?

There are some elements of human culpability that needs to be addressed: land use and unfair insurance practices.

Before we become hopelessly lost in despair, however, there is good news: we can do something about this problem. We can enact meaningful building codes and stop keeping insurance premiums artificially low in flood zones.

But first we need to understand that disasters aren't just caused by FEMA and greenhouse gases. Says Tierney: "I don't think that people have an understanding of questions they should be asking — about where they live, about design and construction, about building inspection, fire protection. These just aren't things that are on people's minds."

In real estate, the old mantra is Location, location, location. It should be. Some plots are naturally good for building. Others have to have a lot of preparation, then maintenance. It is a poor use of our resources to continually try to fight against natural consequences. It ties up capital and man-power in maintenance rather than expansion.

More Noble than Nobel

People sometimes ask me why I'm so against the whole global warming topic.

"Even if it's not man-made, doesn't it make sense to get off fossil fuels?" (Yes, it does.)

"Aren't you a corporate shill?" (Not according to my bank account.)

The problem with focusing on global warming is that it draws our attention away from concerns which we can actually address. We end up giving Nobel Prizes to imposter / hypocrites like Al Gore and leave real humanitarians - like Irena Sandler on the left, who was tortured by the Nazis for her aid to the Polish Jews in WWII - behind.
True story.

Bjorn Lomborg eloquently shows that the impact we can have by addressing other human problems (extreme poverty, malaria, food infrastructure) with the BILLIONS being pumped into "green tech" is FAR GREATER than the impact expected by even the most generous global warblers.

We lose the opportunity to deal with injustices which we can actually redress by focusing on that which we cannot effect. This is ethical escapism, in my view. At election time, sloganeering rules the day. FEED THE POOR!!! (But I'm going to ignore my neighbor who is facing foreclosure.) STOP ABORTION!!! (But I have no intention of donating to abortion alternatives or changing my scornful glances at unwed mothers.)

We like to focus on issues that are important, but over which we can do so little. It insulates us from focusing on those issues where we can do something to advance others, defend (and propagate) our values, and make an impact.

I invite you to use whatever energy has been put into the election cycle or whatever your pet issue is and do something locally. You'll feel empowered. Who knows...you may actually start changing things from the bottom up.

Preaching Hell in a Tolerant Age

Brimstone for the broad-minded.
by Tim Keller

The young man in my office was impeccably dressed and articulate. He was an Ivy League MBA, successful in the financial world, and had lived in three countries before age 30. Raised in a family with only the loosest connections to a mainline church, he had little understanding of Christianity.

I was therefore gratified to learn of his intense spiritual interest, recently piqued as he attended our church. He said he was ready to embrace the gospel. But there was a final obstacle.

"You've said that if we do not believe in Christ," he said, "we are lost and condemned. I'm sorry, I just cannot buy that. I work with some fine people who are Muslim, Jewish, or agnostic. I cannot believe they are going to hell just because they don't believe in Jesus. In fact, I cannot reconcile the very idea of hell with a loving God—even if he is holy too."

This young man expressed what may be the main objection contemporary secular people make to the Christian message. (A close second, in my experience, is the problem of suffering and evil.) Moderns reject the idea of final judgment and hell.

Thus, it's tempting to avoid such topics in our preaching. But neglecting the unpleasant doctrines of the historic faith will bring about counter-intuitive consequences. There is an ecological balance to scriptural truth that must not be disturbed.

If an area is rid of its predatory or undesirable animals, the balance of that environment may be so upset that the desirable plants and animals are lost—through overbreeding with a limited food supply. The nasty predator that was eliminated actually kept in balance the number of other animals and plants necessary to that particular ecosystem. In the same way, if we play down "bad" or harsh doctrines within the historic Christian faith, we will find, to our shock, that we have gutted all our pleasant and comfortable beliefs, too.

The loss of the doctrine of hell and judgment and the holiness of God does irreparable damage to our deepest comforts—our understanding of God's grace and love and of our human dignity and value to him. To preach the good news, we must preach the bad.

But in this age of tolerance, how?

How to preach hell to traditionalists

Before preaching on the subject of hell, I must recognize that today, a congregation is made up of two groups: traditionalists and postmoderns. The two hear the message of hell completely differently.

People from traditional cultures and mindsets tend to have (a) a belief in God, and (b) a strong sense of moral absolutes and the obligation to be good. These people tend to be older, from strong Catholic or religious Jewish backgrounds, from conservative evangelical/Pentecostal Protestant backgrounds, from the southern U.S., and first-generation immigrants from non-European countries.

The way to show traditional persons their need for the gospel is by saying, "Your sin separates you from God! You can't be righteous enough for him." Imperfection is the duty-worshiper's horror. Traditionalists are motivated toward God by the idea of punishment in hell. They sense the seriousness of sin.

But traditionalists may respond to the gospel only out of fear of hell, unless I show them Jesus experienced not only pain in general on the cross but hell in particular. This must be held up until they are attracted to Christ for the beauty of the costly love of what he did. To the traditional person, hell must be preached as the only way to know how much Christ loved you.

Here is one way I have preached this:

"Unless we come to grips with this terrible doctrine, we will never even begin to understand the depths of what Jesus did for us on the cross. His body was being destroyed in the worst possible way, but that was a flea bite compared to what was happening to his soul. When he cried out that his God had forsaken him, he was experiencing hell itself.

"If a mild acquaintance denounces you and rejects you—that hurts. If a good friend does the same—the hurt's far worse. However, if your spouse walks out on you, saying, 'I never want to see you again,' that is far more devastating still. The longer, deeper, and more intimate the relationship, the more torturous is any separation.

"But the Son's relationship with the Father was beginning-less and infinitely greater than the most intimate and passionate human relationship. When Jesus was cut off from God, he went into the deepest pit and most powerful furnace, beyond all imagining. And he did it voluntarily, for us."

How to preach hell to postmoderns

In contrast to the traditionalist, the postmodern person is hostile to the very idea of hell. People with more secular and postmodern mindsets tend to have (a) only a vague belief in the divine, if at all, and (b) little sense of moral absolutes, but rather a sense they need to be true to their dreams. They tend to be younger, from nominal Catholic or non-religious Jewish backgrounds, from liberal mainline Protestant backgrounds, from the western and northeastern U. S., and Europeans.

When preaching hell to people of this mindset, I've found I must make four arguments.

1. Sin is slavery. I do not define sin as just breaking the rules, but also as "making something besides God our ultimate value and worth." These good things, which become gods, will drive us relentlessly, enslaving us mentally and spiritually, even to hell forever if we let them.

I say, "You are actually being religious, though you don't know it—you are trying to find salvation through worshiping things that end up controlling you in a destructive way." Slavery is the choice-worshiper's horror.

C. S. Lewis's depictions of hell are important for postmodern people. In The Great Divorce, Lewis describes a busload of people from hell who come to the outskirts of heaven. There they are urged to leave behind the sins that have trapped them in hell. The descriptions Lewis makes of people in hell are so striking because we recognize the denial and self-delusion of substance addictions. When addicted to alcohol, we are miserable, but we blame others and pity ourselves; we do not take responsibility for our behavior nor see the roots of our problem.

Lewis writes, "Hell … begins with a grumbling mood, and yourself still distinct from it: perhaps even criticizing it. … You can repent and come out of it again. But there may come a day when you can do that no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood or even enjoy it, but just the grumble itself going on forever like a machine."

Modern people struggle with the idea of God thinking up punishments to inflict on disobedient people. When sin is seen as slavery, and hell as the freely chosen, eternal skid row of the universe, hell becomes much more comprehensible.

Here is an example from a recent sermon of how I try to explain this:

"First, sin separates us from the presence of God (Isa. 59:2), which is the source of all joy (Ps. 16:11), love, wisdom, or good thing of any sort (James 1:17) . …

"Second, to understand hell we must understand sin as slavery. Romans 1:21-25 tells us that we were built to live for God supremely, but instead we live for love, work, achievement, or morality to give us meaning and worth. Thus every person, religious or not, is worshiping something—idols, pseudo-saviors—to get their worth. But these things enslave us with guilt (if we fail to attain them) or anger (if someone blocks them from us) or fear (if they are threatened) or drivenness (since we must have them). Guilt, anger, and fear are like fire that destroys us. Sin is worshiping anything but Jesus—and the wages of sin is slavery."

Perhaps the greatest paradox of all is that the people on Lewis's bus from hell are enslaved because they freely choose to be. They would rather have their freedom (as they define it) than salvation. Their relentless delusion is that if they glorified God, they would lose their human greatness (Gen. 3:4-5), but their choice has really ruined their human greatness. Hell is, as Lewis says, "the greatest monument to human freedom."

2. Hell is less exclusive than so-called tolerance. Nothing is more characteristic of the modern mindset than the statement: "I think Christ is fine, but I believe a devout Muslim or Buddhist or even a good atheist will certainly find God." A slightly different version is: "I don't think God would send a person who lives a good life to hell just for holding the wrong belief." This approach is seen as more inclusive.

In preaching about hell, then, I need to counter this argument:

"The universal religion of humankind is: We develop a good record and give it to God, and then he owes us. The gospel is: God develops a good record and gives it to us, then we owe him (Rom. 1:17). In short, to say a good person, not just Christians, can find God is to say good works are enough to find God.

"You can believe that faith in Christ is not necessary or you can believe that we are saved by grace, but you cannot believe in both at once.

"So the apparently inclusive approach is really quite exclusive. It says, 'The good people can find God, and the bad people do not.'

"But what about us moral failures? We are excluded.

"The gospel says, 'The people who know they aren't good can find God, and the people who think they are good do not.'

"Then what about non-Christians, all of whom must, by definition, believe their moral efforts help them reach God? They are excluded.

"So both approaches are exclusive, but the gospel's is the more inclusive exclusivity. It says joyfully, 'It doesn't matter who you are or what you've done. It doesn't matter if you've been at the gates of hell. You can be welcomed and embraced fully and instantly through Christ.' "

3. Christianity's view of hell is more personal than the alternative view. Fairly often, I meet people who say, "I have a personal relationship with a loving God, and yet I don't believe in Jesus Christ at all."

"Why?" I ask.

They reply, "My God is too loving to pour out infinite suffering on anyone for sin."

But then a question remains: "What did it cost this kind of God to love us and embrace us? What did he endure in order to receive us? Where did this God agonize, cry out? Where were his nails and thorns?"

The only answer is: "I don't think that was necessary."

How ironic. In our effort to make God more loving, we have made God less loving. His love, in the end, needed to take no action. It was sentimentality, not love at all. The worship of a God like this will be impersonal, cognitive, ethical. There will be no joyful self-abandonment, no humble boldness, no constant sense of wonder. We would not sing to such a being, "Love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my life, my all."

The postmodern "sensitive" approach to the subject of hell is actually quite impersonal. It says, "It doesn't matter if you believe in the person of Christ, as long as you follow his example."

But to say that is to say the essence of religion is intellectual and ethical, not personal. If any good person can find God, then the essential core of religion is understanding and following the rules.

When preaching about hell, I try to show how impersonal this view is:

"To say that any good person can find God is to create a religion without tears, without experience, without contact.

"The gospel certainly is not less than the understanding of truths and principles, but it is infinitely more. The essence of salvation is knowing a Person (John 17:3). As with knowing any person, there is repenting and weeping and rejoicing and encountering. The gospel calls us to a wildly passionate, intimate love relationship with Jesus Christ, and calls that 'the core of true salvation.' "

4. There is no love without wrath. What rankles people is the idea of judgment and the wrath of God: "I can't believe in a God who sends people to suffer eternally. What kind of loving God is filled with wrath?"

So in preaching about hell, we must explain that a wrathless God cannot be a loving God. Here's how I tried to do that in one sermon:

"People ask, 'What kind of loving God is filled with wrath?' But any loving person is often filled with wrath. In Hope Has Its Reasons, Becky Pippert writes, 'Think how we feel when we see someone we love ravaged by unwise actions or relationships. Do we respond with benign tolerance as we might toward strangers? Far from it. … Anger isn't the opposite of love. Hate is, and the final form of hate is indifference.'

"Pippert then quotes E. H. Gifford, 'Human love here offers a true analogy: the more a father loves his son, the more he hates in him the drunkard, the liar, the traitor.'

"She concludes: 'If I, a flawed narcissistic sinful woman, can feel this much pain and anger over someone's condition, how much more a morally perfect God who made them? God's wrath is not a cranky explosion, but his settled opposition to the cancer of sin which is eating out the insides of the human race he loves with his whole being.' "

A God like this

Following a recent sermon on the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, the post-service question-and-answer session was packed with more than the usual number of attenders. The questions and comments focused on the subject of eternal judgment.

My heart sank when a young college student said, "I've gone to church all my life, but I don't think I can believe in a God like this." Her tone was more sad than defiant, but her willingness to stay and talk showed that her mind was open.

Usually all the questions are pitched to me, and I respond as best I can. But on this occasion people began answering one another.

An older businesswoman said, "Well, I'm not much of a churchgoer, and I'm in some shock now. I always disliked the very idea of hell, but I never thought about it as a measure of what God was willing to endure in order to love me."

Then a mature Christian made a connection with a sermon a month ago on Jesus at Lazarus' tomb in John 11. "The text tells us that Jesus wept," he said, "yet he was also extremely angry at evil. That's helped me. He is not just an angry God or a weeping, loving God—he's both. He doesn't only judge evil, but he also takes the hell and judgment himself for us on the cross."

The second woman nodded, "Yes. I always thought hell told me about how angry God was with us, but I didn't know it also told me about how much he was willing to suffer and weep for us. I never knew how much hell told me about Jesus' love. It's very moving."

It is only because of the doctrine of judgment and hell that Jesus' proclamation of grace and love are so brilliant and astounding.

Tim Keller is pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City.

Originally published in Leadership journal, October 1, 1997.

Copyright © 1997 by the author or Christianity Today International/Leadership Journal.

For more on Hell from Tim Keller, go here.

Moving off of fossil fuels

If somebody says that their energy policy is to get us off of fossil fuels, make sure they elaborate step two.

More Bad News for the Climate Clamorers

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (headed by homeschool champion Dr. Robinson) has released an updated accounting of their research showing that CO2 is not the devil that the greenieweenies are telling us it is. It has already garnered over 31,000 signatures of American scientists - including nearly 4,000 climatologists.* (Wherefore art thou, consensus?) Draconian measures of carbon emission reduction in science, technology, and industry will do nothing to change whatever is happening in the climate - primarily because that is not the initiator, as ice core samples have shown. RealClimate is hard at work telling us that we should trust them when it comes to the recently announced decade cooling trend (based on their analysis of 50 years data). Ironically, they tell us that shortly after they published a warning not to trust short-term trends in the system. In the scientifically approved timescale for earth's climatic history, that's a pretty short stick. Dr. Robinson's work spans recorded history and delves even deeper.

To my readers in the ecotheology movement, (which takes up everyone from ECUSA to Quakers, religious anarchists and anabaptists, and reminds me mostly of the radical anabaptists of the 16th & early 17th c.) whom I've recently taken to affectionately calling the Collared Greens, I say this: why would you advocate for the destruction of the one thing that has shown itself capable of increasing the quality and quantity of human life (viz. energy affluence)? Even if you think we should lay off the fossil fuels (something I would advocate), why not put your energy into advancing nuclear power? If we hadn't had the environuts scaring us witless about it, we could have saved gigatons of carbon being spewed into the atmosphere - and provided electricity to some of the most remote places on the planet. Electricity means refrigerated food, non-dung-cooked food, medical equipment, and information availability for self-improvement. But no...we're too busy denying the real messiah and playing our own hand at taking his place... uggh!

It's a moral issue for "conservative" Christians, too. This falls squarely within our covenantal stewardship. We just tend to agree with the science over the long term than the stuff that comes from the past 20 years.

Come to think of it, we do that with our theology, too.

*The role of relevant scientific expertise is still a hot-topic when it comes to global warming. (Pun intended.)

Histrionic Historians Hate Herbert's Heir

The History News Network has reported the findings of an "unscientific poll" of "professional historians" to conclude that George W. Bush is the worst president ever. Now I know that W isn't troubled. Unlike some presidents (or candidates) he's never taken his marching orders from opinion polls (unscientific or otherwise). Word on the street is he gets his orders from either Ole' Scratch hisself or the military industrial cabal.

Anyway, there're plenty of good reasons not to even report this "fact finding mission" not the least of which are as follows:

1. Academia is glutted with post-hippie anti-war PhDs...people who kept re-upping their matriculation to avoid working and or war. It's not that I'm for war - especially not this war. However, it's important to keep in view that the most formative years of many of these folk's lives were spent in protesting Vietnam and Bush just gets their vinegar in a tussle in ways that other presidents have. (PS, it's not about deaths of American soldiers since nearly as many died under Clinton - during "peacetime"!)
   
2. Academia has long had a left-leaning bias, especially in the humanities and social sciences. One national survey of more than 1,000 profs shows that Democrats outnumber Republicans by at least 7 to 1 in the social sciences and humanities. (Aren't these the guys that whine incessantly about underrepresentation in important sectors of life? What - it's okay to look different, so long as we all think alike?)
   
3. Most importantly: this isn't the work of historians. Historians have to have the passage of time in order to see how certain policies worked themselves out in the political and economic and social ramifications. That takes time - something that they don't have yet. Give us twenty or thirty years and then ask the question.*

If I want a prognosticator, I'll talk to a political scientist or my stock broker. If I want history, I'll have to look backwards. Unfortunately, the judgment of history isn't likely to be available to us for at least 25 years.

* I take the same issue with those who laud Reagan as the greatest president of all time. While he was truly great and enjoyed enormous bi-partisan popularity, I still don't think enough time has passed for us to see him in comparison to other universally-acknowledged "greats".

BEAT TO THE PUNCH. H/T Aric

Raising a Glass to the Methuen Treaty

What in the world is the Methuen Treaty, you ask? Well, if you haven't googled it, let me tell you: It was a treaty between Great Britain and Portugal. Among its lasting effects were the political solvency of Portugal's colony, Brazil. However, I have precious little interest in that. Rather, I want to get to the meat of the matter...port wine.

You see, France and England were having a tiff and so Englishmen couldn't get French wines. (Remember that England hadn't grown many wine-grapes since the end of the Medieval Warming Period which our global warbling friends refuse to acknowledge.) The Portuguese started exporting their wine to Britain. Unfortunately, it would spoil while in transit. Thus, to reduce spoilage, they began "fortifying" it with brandy and other hard liquor. The result? Port, or course!

I admit that I'm an unrepentant Anglophile, and am particularly appreciative of the little rituals that have grown up around the enjoyment of port. So enjoy a glass and join me in toasting the second day of Christmas with a nice tawny port.

True Colors of the Season

The two colors most widely associated with Christmas (in the Western hemisphere, at least) are red and green. Well, as the guys at Acton keep reminding us, Green is the new RED.


Of course, there's plenty of green to be made by going Green. Al is raking it in since being run out of politics. Hey...jet fuel is expensive, gang. More than that, he needs capital for his start-up cap-n-trade system. And he has to have hush money available for when the scientists start finding serious holes in his Armageddon scenarios. (especially when it's contrary to his "established fact of man-made warming in the last century")


Look...Al is a creative guy. I'll bet that if he wasn't trying to save the world or invent the internet, he could have single-handedly scabbed the Screenwriter's Guild walk-out. But his creativity (er...divinity? PRAISE THE GORACLE!!!) needs to cool it. This global warming nonsense is going to cost developing nations their chance at making the earth a suitable habitat for mankind.

UPDATE: Just to be clear, I also hate it when corporations try to pander to Christians with crappy products. They hope that making some relationship to Christianity is going to fuel sales. Unfortunately - as is the case for the minute-ecocrusaders - Christians are in lines waiting to hand their green over for the pap as well. sigh....

Chilling News

It's been another bad week for the global warming alarmists. The Senate's committee on environment and public works has publicized two recent critiques of the anthropogenic global warming "consensus."

The first is a report on the increasing number of peer-reviewed scientific articles showing the misguided notions (or outright false claims) of the many alarmists. Among them:

• New peer-reviewed study finds global warming over last century linked to natural causes.
• Belgian weather institute’s (RMI) August 2007 study dismisses decisive role of CO2 in warming.
• Solar Cycle a better explanation for data on surface warming.
• Anthropogenic climate models fail test against real clouds, which would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent.
• Research into how the solar system regulates the earth’s climate...the variable output of the sun, the sun’s gravitational relationship between the earth (and the moon) and earth’s variable orbital relationship with the sun, regulate the earth’s climate.
• CO2’s impact on warming may be excessively exaggerated, so we're likely headed for a cooling.
• NASA temperature data error discovery has lead to 1934 -- not the previously hyped 1998 -- being declared the hottest in U.S. history since records began. (80% of man-made CO2 emissions occurred after 1940!)
• Further data corrections are needed to fix the urbanization of data.
• Greenland and the Arctic aren't behaving as global warming climate models predict!
• Former global warming scientists say the data has now made them global warming skeptics!
  

That leads into the second report about the lack of consensus amongst climate scientists.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

Don't be fooled by the guff of those who want to set us on a backwards trajectory. Otherwise, you'll find out all too soon the answer to a bad joke: What's green on the outside, but red to the core? Well...these guys. And don't forget these guys.