We live in the maelstrom of battling factions: the climate change zealots on one side and the climate-change deniers on the other. What are we to think when we hear all this? What does the Bible say?
God has a plan and it is working out under the aegis of His divine sovereignty. God’s sovereignty is a natural consequence of His omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. From this, some ideas emerge. Man’s ability to destroy the earth is totally overrated. God’s divine traits set the boundary for what man can do to the environment. God’s sovereign control allows nothing in the universe to occur without His permission. God allows man free choice. But that freedom has limits. God has the power and the knowledge to prevent anything He chooses to prevent, so anything that does happen must, at the very least, be “allowed” by God.
Stewardship over our God-given environment is one thing, but thinking we have the power to save or destroy the earth is something God alone has ultimate control over. Man’s problem, in his usual arrogance, is to exaggerate what he can do. God, not man, will destroy the earth one day. That destruction will be in judgment that only God can do. God’s Word says…
The day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. (2 Pet.3:10)
It’s important for us to lay this foundation first. With that said, let’s consider what is true about global climate change, which is the current term for global warming. Global warming caused by an increase in CO2 as a result of the burning of fossil fuels is a central tenant of the modern left’s dogma.
Is the earth heating up? Probably… though temporarily! Is it going to lead to the end of the world? No, it will not. God has a far-less gradual plan to destroy the earth in judgment. That event is closer today than it was yesterday. Our response should be repentance and turning to the Savior who can deliver us from any such judgment. “Therefore, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Rom.8:1) The destruction of the earth is reserved for the One who was powerful enough to create the Universe out of nothing.
The Counter Argument from the Environment
We know the extent of the arctic ice cap has been decreasing over the last several years. Global warming believers point to this as evidence we are on an unstoppable collision course with an apocalyptic heat death of the planet, so we have to pass their “Green New Deal”. It is based on the “deep thoughts” of people like, you know, the Alexandria “we have 12 years left to live” Ocasio-Cortez.
Dr. Roy Spencer, a NASA scientist and professor at the University of Alabama, in a list of “basic climate change questions” that are commonly asked by those who suggest that we are facing global annihilation as a result of the SUVs we drive. The article is entitled “My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies”. The 3rd question listed by Dr. Spencer is…
Yes. In the longer term, say hundreds to thousands of years, there is considerable indirect, proxy evidence (not from thermometers) of both warming and cooling. Since humankind can’t be responsible for these early events is evidence that nature can cause warming and cooling. If that is the case, it then opens up the possibility that some (or most) of the warming in the last 50 years has been natural, too. While many geologists like to point to much larger temperature changes are believed to have occurred over millions of years, I am unconvinced that this tells us anything of use for understanding how humans might influence climate on time scales of 10 to 100 years. (1, Spencer)
Here is a chart that shows global temperatures for the last 2000 years.
As you can see from this chart of Summer Sea Surface Temperature, apparently there were two significant warming periods chronicled by research conducted on Sea Ice Algae Biomarkers in Iceland. This catalog of ice expansion/contraction dating back 2000 years, shows that the earth was almost certainly warmer than it is today in period that is known as the “Medieval Warm Period”.
For some time, climatologists have accepted the fact that from about the year 1000 to 1200 AD, the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere was unusually warm. In fact, most studies indicate that it was warmer than it is today. This “Medieval Warm Period” shows that it is normal for climate to change.
Dr. Spencer’s 5th Basic Climate Change Question is listed as…
Warming, yes…manmade warming, no! Arctic sea ice naturally melts back every summer, but that meltback was observed to reach a peak in 2007. But we have relatively accurate, satellite-based measurements of Arctic (and Antarctic) sea ice only since 1979. It is entirely possible that late summer Arctic Sea ice cover was just as low in the 1920s or 1930s, a period when Arctic thermometer data suggests it was just as warm. Unfortunately, there is no way to know, because we did not have satellites back then. Interestingly, Antarctic sea ice has been growing nearly as fast as Arctic ice has been melting over the last 30+ years. (1, Spencer)
Here is a satellite-sourced photograph on Antarctic Ice Cap Expansion from NASA.
Antarctica and the Arctic are two very different environments: the former is a continent surrounded by ocean, the latter is ocean enclosed by land. As a result, sea ice behaves very differently in the two regions. While the Antarctic sea ice yearly wintertime maximum extent hit record highs from 2012 to 2014 before returning to average levels in 2015… (2, NASA)
The truth is as Northern Hemisphere polar ice cap is receding. The Southern Hemisphere ice cap is probably expanding. Far from the cataclysmic catastrophe we hear about every day, the reasonable eye on global climate trends tell us two things: 1) global temperature rise and fall are a fact of world history and should not be alarming, and 2) if one cap recedes as the opposite one increases suggests a far more complex environmental trend than the one being presented by the “hair on fire” crowd who are heralding the end of the world. God is still in control and man has to accept that! For the one who is trusting in Christ, we are comforted to remember that He holds the whole world in His hands. His purpose will be accomplished!
What can be said for a nation in search of a pronoun? A bizarre confusion has settled down on America like a thick cloud. This fog has been caused by a set of themes surrounding gender issues. The 2020 Presidential candidates open their debates with the set of pronouns they currently would like others to use in addressing them. This is blatantly done to elicit support from the powerful LBGT lobby. Bill DeBlazio declares “he/him”. Julian Castro says “he/him” and “el” in good old Espanol. Elizabeth Warren’s choice is “she/her”. Implicit with each pledge is the current idea that gender can be decided by each individual at their choosing.
Is it me or do you also pine for the day when personal pronouns were a matter of English grammar and not personal preference?
Senator Cory Booker laments, “We do not talk enough about Trans-Americans, especially African-American Trans-Americans and (their) incredibly high rates of murder now.”
The former HUD Secretary, Castro, expressed that his support for “reproductive justice,” will come about when trans-women can get abortions. “What that means is that just because a woman, or let’s also not forget someone in the trans-community, a trans-female, is poor, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the right to exercise (the) right to choose,” he claimed. A fact complicated by one detail for Mr. Castro, if my grasp of gender is still intact, it is only “trans-males” who could theoretically consider having abortions. I think? Isn’t a trans-female a person who was a man and is “transitioning” into a female? If I have that right, I don’t think trans-females could be pregnant. See what I mean? This probably best expresses the current confusion that is begging for sanity.
Wow… it is like pea soup out there! As we hear these comments, we understand politicians are liable to say anything to get better poll numbers. But to think shameless pandering to the LBGT population could actually help a national campaign is… frankly scary.
How can we see through the haze of what has descended on our land? For those who trust God’s Word, it has to be the Lord’s perspective that brings back the clarity on the gender debate.
Listen to this…
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Gen.1:27)
Now isn’t that refreshing? Like the crisp, clean air of a cool, sunny, November morning! “Male and female He created them.” Not 37 different genders… not one gender today and a different gender tomorrow. It seems for some, their whole identity changes when their feet hit the floor in the morning. The truth is refreshing… it is liberating… it clarifies!
This simple truth is repeated at least three times in the Bible. We find it in Genesis 5:2, in Matthew 19:4 and in Mark 10:6. We read…
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created. (Genesis 5:1-2)
And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)
But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” (Mark 10:6-9)
There seems to be no confusion from God’s perspective. And isn’t that the problem? When we had more of God’s perspective, we saw things this way too. The view was transparently honest and true to the facts and true to anatomy. The pea soup comes from us allowing ourselves to be bombarded by the homosexual re-education forces constantly pedaling what was formerly unimaginable with little or no push back from the larger society. That has to change.
God prohibited homosexual conduct specifically and gender confusion generally because gender is tied to anatomy. What a concept! It is not the culture that decides but the Creator. Marriage is not dictated by power groups in our society, it is given to us by our Maker, a loving Creator who designed and made us. God’s wisdom tells us specifically, the only kind of appropriate sexual partnership envisioned in Scripture is a heterosexual relationship between a man and a woman inside the borders of marriage. This is the only God-given context for the “one-flesh” experience. This is unswervingly taught in the Scriptures.
The Apostle Paul clearly points out that a society’s tolerance for homosexuality is not evidence of its open-mindedness, but its decline from a God-honoring position. He writes…
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools… (Romans 1:20-22)
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. (Romans 1:26-27)
What is the “faith position” in a society perplexed by this issue? As Christians, we trust God and His Word. Our position has to be “rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar.” (Romans 3:4) We will hold the truth and share with our fellow Americans that this reality is not relative, but absolute and given to us by a loving God who knows us better than we know ourselves.
Pronouns belong to a language used by rational members of a society. It should be propelled by common-sense, not an agenda driven by a powerful, well-funded, over-lawyered group of zealots trying to overthrow the culture’s view of morality.
How is this for pronoun usage? America has to draw a line and say not our will, but His!
For any reasonable student of history, socialism inevitably leads to poverty. That is the end of promising the masses everything and in time people coming to trade their freedom for the allure of the government’s promise to take care of every need. In time, people only find themselves trapped in a system that demands slavish obedience with diminishing returns.
We see the latest example in Nicolas Maduro’s Venezuela. Over three million people, 10% of the nation’s population, have fled the peoples’ republic of Venezuela. The red shirts at the rallies, the speeches full of government propaganda are prime evidence of the regime’s use of the communist’s play book. The sad truth is Nicolas Maduro, who is the revolutionary protégé of the late, mad-man, Hugo Chavez, is victimizing his nation as socialism always does.
The inflation rate in Venezuela has topped 1,000,000 percent which makes its currency virtually worthless. Gangs in the street pick through garbage piles for food. Cats, dogs and pigeons are routinely hunted down for sustenance. Civil rights, predictably, have been suspended in an authoritarian push by Maduro to hold power. It is the Bolshevik Revolution all over again.
Socialism’s results are seen in Venezuelan hospitals. They are filthy… no gloves, no soap, grimy operating tables and limited power. Commodities are rationed, as is typical in totalitarian dictatorships. Any fair-minded student of history is not shocked by all this; in fact this situation is sadly, all-too-predictable! (Rand Paul, The Case Against Socialism, Harper Collins, New York, 2019, p.5-7)
What is stunning is to hear is that American youth seem sympathetic to the empty Marxist promises of political leaders like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. A recent Gallop poll found that 45 percent of young Americans (age 18-29) have a positive view of capitalism, while 51 percent of this same group see socialism positively. (Geoff Dembicki, “Socialism Is Incredibly Popular but Does Anyone Know What Socialism Is?”, Vice, October 4, 2018) Several other surveys report similar results. The alarming truth is the typical American twenty-something has a more favorable view of socialism than capitalism.
The question that comes to mind… “How many of these young people are even aware that Maduro’s famine, economic disaster and suspension of civil rights follow a pattern set by the totalitarian socialist regimes of their 20th century counterparts of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot?” In each of the last century’s cases, millions die and the propaganda machine just rolls over the resistance of those crying for freedom. Venezuela is reliving their foolishness in the 21st century. Currently, 87% of the Venezuelan population lives in poverty where 10 years ago only 48% lived below the poverty line. This country once had the strongest economy in South America. The sad truth is socialism poisons everything it touches.
The reality is when we allow the government to take over the industries and enterprises of a society; we eliminate the incentive for ordinary people to work for anything other than the euphemistic “public good”. That is true in the big picture, but the sinister activity below the surface is the control that is transferred to the political elites in this system. They promise economic fairness, but with their control inevitably comes ever-increasing government control of every facet of life. As inevitable resistance to this loss of freedom grows, coercion and corruption increases proportionally. The people of the revolution become the tyrants enforcing their ideology. Resistance becomes more and more difficult and the only conclusion to these regimes is found generations later when their economies and productivities become so weak they can’t keep up the façade and the whole system collapses. Meanwhile, millions have suffered, many have died for long decades of misery under their sad regimes.
The percentage of people worldwide, living in poverty is the lowest in history. The reason is free-markets, not socialism, which makes the current trend in young people so shocking.
Who do we have to blame for this large increase in socialistic thinking? We have to go no further than the American classroom. The lack of an accurate portrayal of economic history is directly tied to trends in public education. Teachers trained in liberal colleges and universities are imposing their leftist ideology in classrooms across the country. It borders on child-abuse to induce rage against the free-market that has provided so much prosperity for the world.
There is an important lesson that comes from our early American history. The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community to be entitled to one common share. William Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter which took so many lives.
He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace and private ownership. The Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn’t work! Surprise, surprise! What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of private ownership! But while many in the world had started to experiment with socialistic ideas – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. Thank God! What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every American schoolchild’s curriculum.
“The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years…that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,” Bradford wrote. “For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense…that was thought injustice.” (William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, 1620-1647, Modern Library, New York, 1967, p.120)
Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. It was the biblical principle of personal stewardship and reward. (Dt.8:18, Mt.25:21, Ps.33:12) Let alone understanding to obey the command of “thou shalt not steal” presupposes the right to private property. (Ex.20:15)
Walter Lippman diagnosed the problem of collectivism as “the sickness of an over-governed society… the exercise of unlimited power by men of limited minds.” (Milton Freidman, Free to Choose, Avon Books, New York, 1980, p.141)
In microcosm, this is the story of American economic history. Steering away from socialism and tacking back towards the fair winds of free markets, America keeps coming back to this important lesson and having to reteach it and then to relearn it. It is the job of free people to continue to be vigilant against those influences that can rob us of our freedom. This is no truer than in the area of economics. Simply, socialism leads inescapably to poverty!
