CLIMATE CHANGE: FACT OR FICTION?

 If you are like me, you are desirous of getting to the bottom of the “truth” regarding the issue of “climate change.” Pardon my skepticism when it comes to various proclamations of doom from the same entities that have lied to us on occasions too numerous to count. From those for whom massive fortunes have been made by stoking the flames of climate alarmism.

As a child, I recall reading forecasts of catastrophic changes due to a coming ice age. Growing up in the Midwest and experiencing harsh winters firsthand, I truly hoped that these forecasts were wrong.

I vividly recall the summer of 1980, when temperatures in the particular region of Kansas in which I resided at the time exceeded 112 degrees for weeks at a time. I recall seeing scorched lawns and swarms of grasshoppers along my route as I walked to the courthouse at which I was working at the time. I also recall driving to-and-from a college that was 20 plus miles away in a vehicle with no air conditioning to purse some prerequisites for a graduate degree during that same summer.

It is safe to say that when it comes to climate alarmism, I am skeptical. I confess that I quickly lose respect for those who foster a cause by corrupting applicable language, such as those who equivocally assert that climate change (formerly referred to as “global warming”) equals climate catastrophism. I know of no adult who denies climate change. However, I know many individuals who have serious doubts about climate catastrophism. 

Myron Ebell (director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute) and Steven J. Milloy, unwilling to accept claims of climate catastrophism, published a post on the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blog titled “Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions:”

They state that doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They also assert that the predictions continue. In that post, they state, “[N]one of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true.” They offer, as proof, a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and science. Forty-one of which are as follows:

1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975

2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989

3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000

4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980

5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030

6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070

7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast

8. 1974: Another Ice Age?

9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life’

10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent

11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes

12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend

13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s

14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs 

15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)

16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000

17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)

18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is

19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy

20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024

21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018

22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013

23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles says we Have 96 Months to Save World

24. 2009: UK Prime Minister says 50 Days to “Save The Planet From Catastrophe”

25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014

26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 

27. 2014: Only 500 Days before “Climate Chaos”

28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide

29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources

30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years

31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years

32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s

33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000

34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020

35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010

36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!

37. 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015

38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985

39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable

40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish

41. 1970s: Killer Bees!

 Nine additional failed predictions (via Real Climate Science) are included below to make it an even 50 for the number of failed eco-pocalyptic doomsday predictions over the last 50 years:

42. 1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production

43. 1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century

44. 1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum

45. 1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980

46. 1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018

47. 2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020

48. 2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past

49.1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming

50. 2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter

Once again, forgive my skepticism. So-called “Liberals” fear the free exchange of ideas. The once respectable Liberalism has been hi-jacked by an ideology that is certainly not liberal when it comes to contrary views. Those holding views contrary to mainstream orthodoxy are demonized, doxed and, if possible, destroyed for simply disagreeing with that which is asserted.

There are those who say that if we don’t immediately convert to socialism and allow Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez et al. to control and organize our lives, the planet will become uninhabitable. Why would any sane person listen to someone with a 0-50 record?

John Locke, deemed the “Father of Liberalism,” is among the most influential political philosophers of the modern period. In the “Two Treatises of Government”, he defended the claim that men are by nature free and equal against claims that God made all people naturally subject to a monarch.  He denied that coercion should be used to force people to believe what those in authority believe. His “Social Contract” intended to provide for life, liberty, and freedom to possess property. Some of these freedoms were to be attenuated in exchange for governmental protections (e.g., provide for the common defense and to ensure domestic tranquility).

John Gresham Machen opined: “Freedom of thought in the middle ages was combated by the Inquisition, but the modern method is far more effective. Place the lives of children in their formative years, despite the convictions of their parents, under the intimate control of ‘experts’ appointed by the state, force them then to attend schools where the higher aspirations of humanity are crushed out, and where the mind is filled with the materialism of the day, and it is difficult to see how even the remnants of liberty can subsist. Such a tyranny, supported as it is by a perverse technique used as the instrument in destroying human souls, is certainly far more dangerous than the crude tyrannies of the past, which despite their weapons of fire and sword permitted thought at least to be free.”

Those sounding the alarm for climate catastrophism must frame their arguments around a fear of a future doomed by extreme weather. It has been surmised that these views are rooted in human nature. Ironically, an ideology that is virtually devoid of a belief in God’s providence serves as the predicate for those beliefs in ancient accounts of giant floods, famines and plagues – all of which they attribute to man’s sins. In reality, climate alarmists are tapping into that primal fear, concluding that extreme weather and floods are a result of mankind’s carbon sins.

Climate catastrophism is reminiscent of the story of the “Emperor’s New Clothes.” Irrespective of no evidence of either climate catastrophism or a rise in sea level, they dismiss their observations because a putative 97% of scientists believe we are doomed due to global catastrophism. Only a select few individuals are quoted by the press and politicians over and over again. These oft-stated propositions are claimed to represent the opinion of 97% of the world’s millions of scientists. (Cf. CO2Coaltion.Org)

Would you change your view of this topic if you learned that there has never been a survey done remotely resembling such a consensus. This claim was made in 2013. However, a survey of professional members of the American Meteorological Society (2013), revealed that only 52% of their members believed that global warming is primarily man-made. Those same 52% also concluded that the change was less dangerous. 

A serious question may be raised regarding the existence of any broad survey of scientists in which they were asked to opine on the danger of a one part per ten thousand increase in CO2 over the past century. Among professionals knowledgeable in meteorology, less than half believed global warming is primarily man-made.

We don’t realize that climate alarmism impacts virtually every aspect of our society. Trillions of dollars either have or are intended to be drained from Americans’ coffers in an effort to address claims that have been clearly shown to be, at best, dubious. The health and safety of millions of people around the world are jeopardized by the diminution of energy resources. 

The madness of climate catastrophism is difficult to fathom. Will we correct this careless course of action before irreparable harm is done? I suspect that we are too far gone. However, God is still on His throne. Hebrews 4:16 tells us, “Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”

Chad Bird (Upside-Down Christianity/Spirituality)

 In response to a recent sermon, I offered the following:

Pastor:

I was taken aback by your reference to Chad Bird’s position, as articulated in “Upside-Down Christianity,” asserting “Christianity is not about a personal relationship with Jesus.” Had the assertion been that it is not “just” about a personal relationship, that would have been tenable.

Your efforts to grant bona fides to his statement were, in my opinion, anemic and unwarranted. I hesitate to critique pastors’ comments and am fully aware that congregants are frequently critical of virtually all pastors. However, in this instance, I feel as though you committed an error that potentially misled many in the pews.

I commend you for referencing Jeremiah 1:5. However, this was couched in such a way as to lend credibility to both Chad’s comments and patent intent.

Chad states, “Christianity is not about a personal relationship with Jesus. The phrase is never found in the Bible. And the whole biblical witness runs contrary to it.” The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, but the concept is certainly evident. Chad errs in stating the Biblical witness does “runs contrary to it.” 2 Corinthians 5:10, Galatians 4:9,Matthew 6:6, Daniel 6:10-28, among many other passages militate against this view. Illustrative thereof are the following:

######

Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of God.

Romans 10:9 If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

Romans 8:29-30 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

John 6:37 All the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

John 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose none of all that he has given me, but raise him up on the last day.

John 6:44  No man can come to me, unless the Father who hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 15:16 you did not choose me

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice . . ..

John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

John 10:29 No one can pluck you out of the Father's hand

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

#######

Chad also states that “Me and Jesus prayers are impossible.” Was Jesus mistaken in Matthew 6:6 when He instructed us, as individuals, “to go into your inner room, close your door and pray . . ..”? (NASB)

Chad goes on to say, “Heaven forbid that I should have a personal relationship with Jesus. For I know what would happen: I would end up, in my mind, reshaping my personal Jesus into a strikingly familiar image: the image of me.” The Bible makes it very clear that if we do not have a personal relationship with Jesus, we are none of His. ( See discussion supra)

This teaching is dangerous and reminds me of Jesus’ warning to those who cry out “Lord, Lord, . . ..” It is not, as I am confident you know, joining a local congregation, that to which we refer as a church, that is salvific. 

I am concerned that your message today comports more with Catholicism than the Bible’s clear teaching on what it takes to enter God’s kingdom. If your intention was to impress upon the hearers that we are saved through administrations of the local church rather than the Spirit’s influence upon us as individuals, replacing our stony hearts with hearts of flesh, I believe that you did a disservice to your congregation.

MANHOOD

 In response to recent comments by a talk-show host who described manhood as “drinking, fighting and chasing women,” I opined as follows:

I recently listened to a podcast of your July 20th program, during which you discuss what it takes to be a real man in today’s society. You may not find this directly applicable and I certainly realize that in today’s “Truth is Relative” culture, it may mean little to any of your listeners.

The concept of being a man, in my opinion, is universal, not situational. Throughout recorded history, although there are myriad exceptions, a man is seen as first and foremost as a protector.

Sadly, there are many who claim to be men who are only interested in protecting themselves, if anyone at all. They have no love of country and would rather support China’s than America’s interest. They have little interest in protecting their families. We need merely look at the escalation of fatherless homes. (No, I am not conflating being a man with the procreative-act. Rather, the emphasis is protecting that which is in your charge.)

Furthermore, character, from time immemorial, has represented manhood. I am reminded of Shakespeare’s Othello, in which Iago states: “Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls. Who steals my purse steals trash; ‘tis something, nothing; ‘Twas mine, ‘tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed.”

Our characters our established by meaning what we say (i.e., “man-of-my-word”). A statement attributed to Horace Greeley may be germane to our discussion: “Fame is a vapor, popularity an accident, riches take wings, only one thing endures and that is character.” 

Although there is much more to be said on this topic, allow me to conclude by stating that to be a man is to be a provider. A man must provide, if others are not reliant on him (Yes, “Him”! Not “they,” “zim,” “zir,” ad infinitum.), then for himself. A man must be removed from the state in which he becomes a blood-sucking leach, reliant on others for hearth and home.

There is so much more to be said on this topic, but this is already too lengthy.

Best wishes,

OFFICE OF THE KEYS

 Following a recent sermon, I submitted an inquiry to the pastor. The response was, “I’m unable to find the biblical warrant.” The inquiry follows:

Pastor:

As a preface to my confusion and request for the biblical warrant regarding your reference to the “Office of the Keys” serving as a prohibition against administering sacraments in your absence, I note, among other issues, the following:

In 2007, the LCMS convention adopted Res. 1–03, which reaffirmed the Synod’s commitment to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.

I realize that in Matthew 16:15–19. Jesus says to his disciples,

“Who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

I also realize that in sacerdotalism (e.g., Catholicism), priests, at least from my perspective, continue to ostensibly serve as intermediaries between God and man. One of the primary reasons this position is maintained is because of the foregoing exchange.

However, it is my understanding that Jesus was making a play on words, because Peter’s name, Petros, means rock or stone. Jesus said, “You are Petros, and on this rock [petra], this ‘bedrock’ I will build my church.” They are not the same words. It is a play on words. It was the “petra,” not “Petros,” on which the church was to be built and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. 

Furthermore, in Matthew 18:18, Jesus says to those believers present at that time, “Truly, I say to [those of you gathered in my name], not simply to Peter, “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This appears to refer to the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

In conclusion, petra has a different connotation than petros. Petros, per my understanding, suggests a loose stone. Contrariwise, petra implies bedrock stone. It is upon this bedrock stone (i.e., petra), not Peter (viz., petros), on which the church will be built.

Thus, it suggests to me that Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven (i.e., “Office of the Keys”) to all believers.

DIVORCE & LGBTQIA+

 Does the Church’s current laxness regarding divorce lend credence to those in the LGBTQIA+ community’s allegations of hypocrisy? The local church, in many cases (the number is dwindling), readily identifies the practice of homosexuality as a sin. However, little, if any, concern is raised when even church Elders are divorced.

I have heard at least one pastor state that he considers divorce to be no more of a problem than having a father of a child conceived out-of-wedlock serve as an Elder. Clearly, this pastor has given no serious consideration to the issue.

The pastor would suggest that there is no proscription against premarital sex that did not result in a child conceived out-of-wedlock. By extension, this pastor naively suggests that if either an abortion or D&C occurs, such relationships would be preferable to bringing the child to term.

Furthermore, such a position reveals an ignorance of biblical teachings with respect to these issues. Although proscriptions against premarital sex are clear, the Bible makes a clear distinction between those who engage in premarital sex and subsequently marry - irrespective of the birth of a child - and divorce.

I would draw your attention to Deuteronomy22:28,29: “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.”

The Bible provides a remedy, unavailable to divorcees, in addressing the issue of premarital sexual relations. Furthermore, most people do not realize that the ministers of the sacrament of marriage are the spouses themselves. While the Church strongly encourages members to marry in the presence of a minister, strictly speaking, an officiant is not needed. As long as each spouse intends to contract a true marriage, the union is formed. To argue against this point is to vitiate the union between Adam and Eve.

However, when it comes to divorce, please note the following: Luke 16:18: “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and everyone who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

As we examine the issues further, we note that there are four words listed in The New Strong’s Expanded Concordance of the Bible that address the dissolution of marriage. The Gospel of Mark uses the Greek term “apostasion”. It is defined as “Separative. A defection. A standing off. Writing a bill of divorcement.”

Jesus, quoting the OT, states: “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; consequently, they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Mark 10:6-9 NASB).

In the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, we find the Hebrew term “garash” (i.e., to drive out from a possession; to cast out a woman; to put a woman away from her husband). We also find the use of the Hebrew term “kriythuwth” (i.e., to cut, destroy or consume; to sever something from something else by cutting with a blade). The latter term implies a cutting off of a person - not being killed, but rather driven out of the family and removed from the blessing of the covenant.

In the Old Testament era, a bill of divorcement was often written. During this era, a man could do this if the wife failed to either please him or if he found some “uncleanness” in her. However, there were grave warnings and severe consequences for any parties who lied.

“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes  and becomes another man’s wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance” (Deuteronomy 24:1-4 NASB).

“I hate divorce,” says the Lord. (Malachi 2:13 NASB). Jesus informed His audience, “Because of the hardness of your hearts, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery’” (Matthew 19:8-9 NASB).

Jesus elsewhere said, “I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery’” (Matthew 5:31-32 NASB). 

Do members of of the LGBTQIA+ community have a legitimate argument regarding divorcées? Perhaps. It is unclear whether local church communities explore the grounds upon which the myriad of divorces plaguing our local churches have been examined in light of the Bible’s clear requirements.

What, if any, examinations are undertaken when considering membership of divorcees to ensure that they are not in violation of clear biblical teaching with regard to the issue of marriage and divorce? Please compare and contrast the legitimacy of divorcees who do not satisfy biblical criteria vis-a-vis those engaged in homosexual relationships.

One of the pastors to whom I directed the inquiry responded as follows:

Good evening! Great to hear from you; I’ve been trying to be productive and I’m working on confirmation curriculum. But I have some thoughts on your text.

I agree that the church’s silence, laxness, and simply inconsistent response to divorce, heterosexual sin, etc. has absolutely played a huge role in the church’s failure to respond to LGBTQIA.

I would quickly say that I don’t agree with what you attribute to be my view of divorce, premarital sex, children out of wedlock, etc. Your characterization of my views are completely erroneous.

To your final question about membership of divorcees vis a vis LGBTQIA, I believe the church I serve, and I, teach what scripture has to say on these matters. I do this unequivocally and without apology. I’ve had plenty of people disagree with me, say many negative comments about me, and leave the church. 

So the Law is preached. Oftentimes, divorcees come to me with a burdened conscience and we go through confession and absolution. I’ve had LGBTQIA folks do the same. Depending on the response, the Gospel may follow. Or they may leave still clinging to their sin. 

Sadly the many churches that do make excuses and allow and support sexual sin have made it that much harder to speak clearly against.

An example: I was relieved by an ELCA Navy chaplain in Africa. He is a vocal advocate and supporter of all things LGBTQIA. June was Pride month and the Navy literally forced that garbage down every sailor’s throat. So when I teach in accord with scripture (which I believe is every time I teach) I have to contend with him and others and the charges of hypocrisy. 

Those are my initial thoughts. Very good questions and I hope the angles of worldview as well as scripture’s attributes (inerrant, authoritative, etc) also enter the discussion, as I believe that heavily influences people’s hermeneutical approach 

#########

In response to the pastor’s comments, I provided the following:

My views that you deem “erroneous” were derived from a discussion you and I had in the past regarding the issue of divorce. (Perhaps I misunderstood, but you do not identify that in which I was in error.) I appreciate your response. However, the issue of divorcees potentially engaging in ongoing adulterous relations upon remarriage remains unaddressed. I observed nothing that spoke to the issue of divorcees, sans careful examination, engaging in behavior that should be accepted and homosexual engaging in activity that should be rejected. I am simply seeking biblical warrant for the apparently diverse views. The Church in which we as Christians are called to serve is that established in Jesus Christ and the Bible is/should be our guide. I have also sought guidance from Pastor Fernandez this evening regarding the issue. (It will be interesting to read his thoughts. He doesn’t appear to have strong views with respect to these issues.)