Review of: Grant R. Jeffrey, “The Global-Warming Deception: How a Secret Elite Plans to Bankrupt America and Steal Your Freedom” (Colorado Springs, CO: WaterBrook Press, 2011).

Posted on by
6

Far too many writers of books dealing with the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) attempt to mask their bias’ and personal presuppositions under the proclaimed guise of neutrality and objectivity.  Such a perspective is a fool’s errand and indicates that the writer in question is either naïve or deliberately deceptive.  Jeffrey is neither.

The author announces his bias and presuppositional basis immediately in the first paragraph of the introduction.  While this might discourage some readers and could potentially cause some to not read this book, I nevertheless applaud the author for his candidness and encourage readers who may not share Jeffrey’s bias’ to press on.

Jeffrey’s alerting his readers to the fact that he is writing from an evangelical Christian perspective is important for a number of reasons.  It is important in the first instance because the political debate surrounding AGW has been framed recently by advocates of all persuasions as being one with an underlying moral nature.  This naturally invites and encourages people of religious faith to participate in the process of debate.  Second, there has been a concerted effort by proponents of global legislation aimed at combating AGW to co-opt evangelical Christianity.  The desired implication being that THE evangelical Christian position on AGW is consistent, homogenous and supportive.  The fact is that among evangelical Christians there exist varied and heterogeneous viewpoints.  Third, in order to respond in a consistent and compassionate manner evangelical Christians must look beyond the sometimes heated rhetoric that occupies too much of the current AGW debate.

While it is necessary to understand the myriad rules, regulations, and legislation being proposed as a means to combat AGW the real questions for the evangelical Christian are (1) what are the consequences of adopting the proposed rules, regulations, and legislation on the poor?  This is the most reasonable and compassionate starting point for the evangelical Christian.  Advocating for AGW legislation without understanding what effects the implementation of said legislation will have on the poor globally is nothing short of shallow and superficial religious faith.  Can denying the poorest people of Africa the basic necessity of electricity for fear of raising the levels of CO2 really be called moral and compassionate from a Christian viewpoint?  It appears to be more than inconsistent with the Christian faith to deny the poor in other nations what is considered to be a basic necessity of life in America.  From this specific concern for the ramifications of AGW legislation Jeffrey asks a much broader question, namely, (2) what are the implications for all human beings if AGW legislation is passed?  It is the author’s contention that “those who lead the effort to combat AGW are not primarily motivated to reduce future global temperature increases.  Instead, they are bent on forcing the capitalist, free enterprise economies of the West to submit to a global socialist-Marxist government” (Introduction, p.5).

On this basis then, Jeffrey lays out his argument in twelve chapters. His theses appear to be three-fold.  One, AGW is a Trojan Horse of sorts, meant to undermine sovereign governments and to establish a global government in their place (chapter 1).  Two, that the vehicle to perpetrate the AGW hoax is the plethora of rules, regulations, and proposed legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions.  These rules, regulations, and legislation are based on myths (chapter 2), propaganda (chapter 3), false claims (chapter 4), flawed data (chapter 5), outright lies (chapter 6), the recent “Climategate” revelations that demonstrated the ideology over fact perspective of AGW enthusiasts (chapter 7), the truth that modeling not empirical data is behind the AGW temperature change “proof” (chapter 8), the fact that international treaties are more about surrendering national and sovereign rights to international unelected bodies instead of establishing environmentally beneficial and economically feasible action plans (chapter 9), and that AGW enthusiasts are partnering with population control advocates to not only reduce carbon emissions but to also reduce the world’s population through abortion, sterilization, and birth control (chapter 10).  Jeffrey argues that AGW proponents have turned their activism into a religion that rivals even Christianity in terms of dedication to their “faith” (chapter 11).  The author concludes this book by explaining what must be done to escape the AGW exaggerations, deceptions, and manipulations of governments and people (chapter 12).

Together these chapters argue that there is more to the AGW legislation than the public is hearing and understands.  There is in fact a very cynical, sinister, and evil effort underway to turn the world into one global government under the control of “enlightened” elites.  Jeffrey suggests that this turn of events was foretold long ago in the Bible.  In this the author sees biblical prophecy being fulfilled.  He therefore bookends his evaluation of the AGW movement within the context of the Daniel and Revelation passages describing a one world government that will rise in the days immediately preceding the return of Jesus Christ to earth.  While this identification of a clear biblical parallel is important the author does not get sidetracked into a deep investigation of the Christian Scriptures, relying instead on a concise and cogent analysis of what drives the AGW agenda and the implications of its propositions.  This makes the book an enjoyable read for people of any religious faith or none. Let’s turn now to a brief chapter by chapter review.

Chapter 1

Deception and manipulation have proven over time to be the devices of choice for those intent on bending mankind to their desires when democratic processes fail.  The author believes that unless AGW advocates and their manipulators are stopped free citizens of the world and especially those in the West “will lose their standard of living and the economic, political, and religious freedoms they value” (p.13).

Governments, scientists, and their mouthpiece, the media, have all conspired to present a false picture of the earth’s environmental state.  The tool of choice presently is CO2 emissions.  The utilization of fossil fuels is responsible for global warming and therefore the solution is to dramatically curtail their usage according to the AGW script.

In an attempt to construct a legitimate basis for reducing carbon emissions the Obama administration and many Senators of both parties recently introduced the American Power Act.  This was a blatant attempt on the part of the US government to create obedience to upcoming AGW legislation through subversion.

It is a historical fact that AGW was an invention of the Club of Rome.  This group saw in the promotion of a global environmental crisis the one vehicle for herding all of mankind together under an umbrella of control.  Their own internal documents tell the story:

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.  In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together . . . All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.  The real enemy then is humanity itself” (p.10).

Chapter 2

The author points out that the only scientifically verifiable variance in global temperature since 1900 indicates a 1 degree F rise.  Is a 1 degree rise in temperature reason for panic?  Jeffrey dedicates parts of nine pages to exploring temperature changes and concludes rightly that the earth has experienced temperature change normally and cyclically.

Why then are governments and organizations expending such energy and resources to create alarm over cyclical temperature change?  The answer is not to save mankind from a coming environmental apocalypse as advocates of AGW suggest but is instead a naked attack on the freedom of mankind around the world.  If allowed to continue unchallenged AGW elitists will “take control of the political, economic, financial, and military institutions of every nation on earth” (p.29).

Myths and obfuscation have and are being used to paint the “green” movement as rational, compassionate, and worthy of the best efforts of humanity to join in the cause of saving the planet.  The truth is that the “green” movement is really “Red” or socialist at its core.  President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus wrote in his book “Blue Planet, Green Shackles,” that “Green is the new red,” meaning that the AGW movement has been hi-jacked by socialist-Communists displaced when the Soviet Empire imploded.

Jeffrey’s cites H.L. Mencken who explained why otherwise rational and intelligent citizens are willing to be lead into political, economic, and social bondage: “civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary” (p.32).

Chapter 3

Propaganda is the art of selling something, be it an idea or product that appears beneficial while simultaneously hiding the negative consequences inherent within the idea or product.  Propaganda relies for its success on slight of hand and gradual acceptance by an unsuspecting populace.  The AGW movement has masterfully applied these principles and is seeing much fruit for its labor.

Jeffrey argues here that AGW legislation is promoted as beneficial to all humanity.  That façade is enough to enlist countless uninformed people to the cause.  While everyone is focused on the right hand that holds the baton and leads the choreographed orchestra of now familiar “green” choruses, the left hand is busy developing iron-fisted mandates that pave the way for socialism, enrichment of international financial leaders and private bankers, and the intentional degradation of the economies of industrialized nations most especially in the West.

Chapter 4

This is one of the better chapters in the book.  Advocates of AGW demand social, economic, and individual lifestyle changes on the basis of perceived harmful climate change.  The truth is that in the past 150 years there has been a 1 degree F increase in the earth’s temperature.  This is easily accounted for as a cyclical change.

Research shows that climate disaster alarmists have attempted to create hysteria many times in the past.  For example in 1895 the New York Times newspaper trumpeted the coming of a new ice age.  In 1912 the London Times announced that this same ice age would soon cripple the civilized world.  After the new ice age failed to materialize the media fell silent.  That changed on the inaugural Earth Day in 1970 when environmental alarmist Kenneth Watt sang the same tired song of an impending ice age because of human mismanagement of the environment:

If present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder in 2000.  This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age (p. 66).

At about the same time Professor Paul Ehrlich said with a straight face, “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.  Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish (p. 66).  This same man of great vision and understanding also opined in 1970 that, “Five years is all we have left if we are going to preserve any kind of quality in the world” (p. 66).  Perhaps Ehrlich was attempting to repair his damaged reputation, for in 1968 he had assured the world that if the global population was not slowed dramatically the available food supply would dwindle until people would starve to death in global famines.  Not to be outdone Time magazine announced with foreboding the coming ice age and Newsweek jumped on the global-cooling bandwagon with headlines of its own.

The problem for AGW advocates that cannot be overcome is they have no real scientific data on which to base their claims of a coming environmental disaster.  The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) offered chilling statistics indicating that immediate action needed to be taken to avert the impending crisis.  Investigation has revealed that the IPCC scenario is based on computer modeling and not climate research.  In other words scientists created computer models based on the data they input not on actual empirical climate data.  Accountants go to jail for “cooking the books” but thus far AGW scientists in the IPCC have avoided the same well deserved jail time.

Chapter 5

In 1989 the previously mentioned United Nations IPCC was born.  Its charter was to create a theory that could be proven related to AGW.  Specifically the scientists were looking for data to prove that (1) an increase in global temperature that threatened life on earth is occurring; (2) that this increase in temperature is not mere cyclical variation; and, (3) that the environment, animals and humans are being threatened.  The IPCC settled upon carbon dioxide as the reason for AGW and targeted Western industrialized nations as the major contributors to its creation.

The evidence AGW advocates use is varied but is condensed every few years into a United Nations IPCC report that utilizes projections from 23 computer models.  In order to advance their green agenda the IPCC must ignore the empirical data that suggests zero warming has occurred.  In spite of the continued insistence among environmentalists that the “science of AGW is settled,” data continues to arise that clearly indicates the opposite.

The truth is that the IPCC is not conducting scientific research but is instead a propaganda mouthpiece of statists, leftists and globalists who have elevated care for the earth above every other consideration including tragically human life.  Dr. Vincent Gray echoes the growing fact-based resistance to the AGW alarmists: “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” (p. 83).  Dr. John Brignall is even more scathing in his evaluation of the United Nations IPCC and AGW alarmists:

Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution.  Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes.  Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship . . . New circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other.  Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion.  “Peer review” developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies.  It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list (p. 83).

It is not just those opposed to the AGW agenda that are challenging the green orthodoxy.  Scientists involved in the analysis of computer modeling data are blowing the whistle on the IPCC as well.  Dr. Phillip Lloyd, an IPCC AGW report contributor revealed “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said” (p. 84).

Christopher Landsea of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was both an author and reviewer of the IPCC reports to the United Nations in 1995 and 2001.  He resigned from the most recent IPCC report committee after accusing the United Nations and the IPCC of playing politics with hurricane science stating that, “I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized . . . I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound” (p. 85).

Chapter 6

The reader of the literature on AGW will be very familiar with Al Gore’s pronouncements.  That he has become the punch line of every standup comic and late night talk show host in America is enough commentary.  I leave it to readers of Jeffrey’s book to be reminded of Gore’s many outright lies, exaggerations, and gaffes.

Chapter 7

In this chapter Jeffrey analyzes the fallout from Climategate, the November 2009 revelation that scientists working at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglica in the United Kingdom deliberately distorted the truth of AGW and intentionally did not include climate data that would refute their pro-AGW ideology.  The most prominent example of this intentional deception is the now infamous “Hockey Stick” graph created by then University of Virginia professor Michael Mann.  Mann claimed that his graph proved that continual use of fossil fuel by humans was producing an environmental crisis.  One of the many things that Climategate exposed was Mann’s deliberate manipulation of his graph’s outcome by the exclusion of pertinent data from both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age.  Scientists who peer reviewed Mann’s calculations and conclusions determined that Mann “had manipulated the data in order to support a predetermined conclusion” (p. 107).

The deliberate obfuscation of the truth by AGW advocates is a fact of public record thanks to the individual(s) who published thousands of internal documents including damaging emails.  Take for example this email from CRU scientist Phil Jones to Michael Mann in which Jones was giving advice on how to not reveal their treachery:  “If they (investigators and scientists not supportive of AGW) ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind . . . Tom Wigley . . . has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that” (pp. 111-12).

Jeffrey addresses three critical areas of concern as a result.  (1) The deliberate hiding of data; (2) Altering historical temperature data; (3) Silencing critics of AGW.  Clearly, the so-called consensus on AGW is a deliberate and manufactured illusion meant to siphon off financial resources from the West as well as erode jobs, raise taxes, and curtail economic growth.  Of course this is seen as a positive development among AGW proponents as they believe that would necessarily curtail the growth of the earth’s enemy – carbon dioxide.

Chapter 8

Jeffrey argues here that instead of using computer modeling that is clearly self-serving and easily manipulated (Climategate, Phil Jones, and Michael Mann), real climate and temperature data that is available should be used.

The author discusses the relationship between solar activity and the earth’s temperature, the human contribution of CO2 and the actual temperature data concluding that climate change is a natural occurrence and that the minimal increased levels of carbon dioxide is not harmful as AGW alarmists maintain but is instead good for the environment and especially agricultural products.

Chapter 9

The author details in this chapter the disastrous effects of implementing climate treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Copenhagen Accord.  This is a must read chapter for those interested in keeping American jobs in America as well as keeping trillions of dollars here instead of sending them to Third World countries to prop up despots and dictators.  AGW advocates Amory Lovins and Paul Ehrlich see poverty as a means of protecting the planet and insist that Third World nations not be given the necessary energy to lift them out of poverty.  The real goal of AGW advocates is exposed in this chapter as a transfer of wealth that would render a majority of Americans impoverished.

In spite of Climategate and the now recognized fabrication of data and manipulation of people (chapter 7) and scientific/empirical data that demonstrates AGW is nothing but hot air (pun intended), the United Nations and many governments around the world are marching forward to the Pied Piper of AGW alarmists thinking that the world is still blind to their charade.

Climate summits such as Kyoto in 1997 and the largely entertaining spectacle of diplomats flying into Copenhagen in 2009 (burning millions of gallons of fossil fuels in the process) for the Climate Change Accord demonstrate the obtuseness or worse the evil intentions of world leaders who continue to press for global serfdom for the world’s people.

While some may scoff at that analysis Jeffrey rightly points out that the end game of all international climate-control agreements is “to legitimize and legalize a future global government (p. 138).  In a moment of candidness the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, said that the Copenhagen summit was specifically “Another step towards the global management of our planet” (p. 138).

Chapter 10

Researching the AGW reveals that in addition to fabricating information and data to support their ideology, the AGW movement has integrated various misanthropist organizations.  It is difficult for rational, emotionally balanced individuals to understand the self-loathing and human species-hating that characterizes population control advocates.  What started out as a radical idea (Margaret Sanger and her eugenics theology of only the fittest are worth preserving) has morphed into a main stream (among the AGW crowd) group-think.  Consider for example the following “rational” statements from human species-hating human beings:

Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First (perhaps the most radical human hating organization): My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full compliment of species, returning throughout the world.”

Sir James Lovelock: The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil . . . Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.

Prince Philip (husband of Queen Elizabeth II):  If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.

John Davis: I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong.  It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.  (All quotes pp. 150-151).

Clearly the goals of AGW advocates include far more than the cleaner air and purer water our school children are being taught.

Chapter 11

The worship of Gaia or Mother Earth is a well documented fact and is on the rise.  Many once Christian churches having rejected historical biblical faith have embraced eco-religion. They are joining with earth worshippers and pagans of all stripes forming what adherents believe to be a sustainable moral basis for loving the earth while simultaneously hating human beings.

Author Michael Barone fleshes out the theology of the green eco-religionists:

The secular religion of global warming has all the elements of a religious faith: original sin (we are polluting the planet), ritual (separate your waste for recycling), redemption (renounce economic growth), and the sale of indulgences (carbon offsets).  We are told that we must have faith (all argument must end, as Al Gore likes to say) and must persecute heretics (global warming skeptics are like Holocaust deniers, we are told).  [p.159]

Of course all religions seek converts and the AGW crowd suffers no shortage of evangelists.  While Al Gore might be the most prominent in the minds of many people, the most persuasive and successful AGW evangelists are undoubtedly the hundreds of thousands of elementary, high school, and college teachers and professors in America who preach the green gospel and teach its theology to unsuspecting students.

One of the most dangerous aspects of the AGW religion is the venom spewed toward unbelievers.  Consider the comments of one of the key climatologists employed by the Weather Channel.  Dr. Heidi Cullen suggested that anyone questioning global warming should lose their meteorological license.  Dave Roberts thinks that: “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full world wide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war-crimes trials for these [expletive deleted] – some sort of climate Nuremburg” (p. 166).

Brandishing the same Nazi-theme for Green Theology infidels CBS’s 60 Minutes commentator Scott Pulley “suggested that global warming skeptics were equivalent to people who deny that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews during World War II” (p. 166).

Jeffrey then proceeds to describe three dire consequences of allowing eco-fundamentalism to continue.  He lists (1) the threat to governments and economies; (2) its hostility to capitalism and free market economies; (3) the abandonment of Judeo-Christian principles that built Western civilization.

Chapter 12

Despite previous pronouncements that the science is settled in relation to global warming, institutions such as the Royal Society in the UK now admit that “any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect – there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements” (p. 180).

The once claimed unanimous consensus by the United Nations IPCC of 2500 climate scientists is quickly unraveling.  One member of the alleged 2500, Professor Mike Hulme said recently that the 2500 number was really “only a few dozen experts” and that “claims such as 2500 of the worlds’ leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate are disingenuous” (p. 182).

The tearing down of the curtain to expose the fraud and lies of the AGW has not stopped their propaganda machines from continuing to churn out lies.  The new weapon of choice is concern for the so-called biodiversity of species throughout the earth because of human population growth and the alleged loss of the natural habitat of the earth species.  The vehicle to promote the latest deception is a new international organization formed in 2010 and initially named The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).  It is being modeled after the disgraced United Nations IPCC.  Americans especially need to wake up.  Jeffrey states the problem concisely from a civic perspective first:

The eco-fundamentalists, radical environmentalists, AGW movement leaders, and now the biodiversity camp care nothing for rights and freedoms that are guaranteed in the US Constitution.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of citizens are unaware of the global-warming deception and the hidden political agenda to radically transform our economy and our way of life (p.184).

And then from an evangelical Christian perspective:

As we awaken to the grim results of this struggle – the lies and deception, the confusion, the guilt and fear-mongering – Christians need to be reminded that we are not alone. We have access to God’s truth and His Holy Spirit to give us spiritual discernment.  While the AGW movement continues to resort to manufactured environmental “crises” to gain political support, the Bible reassures us that the earth’s climate is under God’s benevolent control (p. 186).

Being citizens of the United States carries with it the responsibility to be civically engaged.  We must hold our elected representatives responsible to vote their constituents’ conscience not their own.  It is imperative that we be energized and well-read on the subject of AGW.  In this way only will we correct error and educate our families and friends to the true agenda behind AGW alarmism.  For Christians it is most imperative that we pray.  We must pray for our nation and for our leaders that God will grant wisdom and will guide the activities of such that lead to freedom and liberty from the dangers of the AGW agenda.

* I received this book free for review from Waterbrook Multnomah Publishing Group.

Spiritual Formation as Spiritual Deception: Beware the Peddlers of Grace (Part 1)

Posted on by
9

sanctification

This article will investigate the biblical teaching of the sanctification of the believer in light of current spiritual formation teaching.  Research will be presented showing that the historic Christian theistic understanding and teaching concerning sanctification has been obfuscated today by the so-called spirituality of spiritual formation teaching.  Part one will offer an analysis of the importance of the biblical teaching on sanctification.  Part two will present the ways that sanctification has been understood in the church historically.  Part three will detail the recent re-interpretations of sanctification from within the spiritual formation perspective.  Part four will suggest a corrective to the current path of teaching on spirituality and suggest a return to biblical sanctification.  Part five will present a summation of what is at stake for the church if it does not heed this call.

This effort will rely primarily on an article written by Steven L. Porter that appeared in the September 2002 issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.  In his article Porter suggests that what is needed today is a more robust systematic theology related to the doctrine of sanctification.  It is the position of this writer that what is needed today is much more than a systematic treatment of spiritual formation.  Instead of seeking a bigger tent to encompass all the expressions of evangelical spiritual formation and disciplines today, an evaluation of the practices themselves will reveal a need to return to the biblical teaching on sanctification.

The Importance of Teaching Biblical Sanctification

The Apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians to exhort readers to continue their Christian life and thereby their sanctification by faith.  His question to the Galatians then and to readers of this article today is equally appropriate: “Did you receive the Spirit by works of the Law, or by hearing with faith.”[1]  In other words did you gain life in Christ by your efforts or by the Holy Spirit?  Clearly, we are saved by grace[2] and the Scriptures teach that we are sanctified in the same manner.

Addressing an age-old issue is at the heart of this question by the apostle to the Galatians.  Mankind has a demonstrated tendency to stray from the path of divine instruction and end up on a path of its own making and choosing.  Paul’s letter to the Colossians provides a ready example of this truth.  The apostle asked the Colossians a question similar to the one he asked of the Galatians: “If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, ‘do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!’”  The point the apostle makes here is that the types of activities the Colossians were submitting themselves to could not secure the grace of sanctification being touted by the false teachers of the day and was in fact without warrant based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.

It is important to understand the biblical teaching on sanctification precisely because there has developed a plethora of methods suggesting that sanctification is predominantly the responsibility of the individual believer to achieve by whatever means the individual deems experientially satisfying.[3]  While it is true that sanctification has an experiential aspect, i.e., we are called to “work out our salvation,” it cannot be maintained that individuals are free to subscribe to any method of their choosing.  That does not stop many professing Christians from attempting self-sanctification through extra-biblical means though.  Witness for instance the variety of Purpose Driven emphases, the myriad spiritual, marriage, and youth retreats, self-help study groups, recovery groups, care groups, healing and dealing with specific issues of life groups, and the thousands of books on the so-called spiritual formation techniques of contemplative prayer, mystical silence and solitude of the soul, labyrinth walking, chanting, and visualization.  The sincerity of the creators and authors of these techniques and the eagerness of practitioners to indulge themselves in these techniques is not being questioned in this paper.  The validity of what they are practicing and urging others to engage in under the guise of spiritual growth, formation, and discipline is being questioned however.  This concern underscores the urgent need to speak directly to the evangelical Church of its need to understand and teach as a core doctrine the subject of the biblical method for the sanctification of the believer.

We are instructed in Scripture to discipline ourselves as a means to godliness.[4]  Therefore being holy is a goal of every Christian.  Does it follow that whatever technique or process deemed useful by a Christian is acceptable to God?  Following that practice has surely led Christians outside the boundaries of how God has determined He will be approached and how His people will grow in sanctification.  Mystical experiences and pragmatic techniques are nowhere called for in the Scriptures as a means to godliness.  One of the reasons the Reformers advocated Sola Scriptura was to evaluate and eliminate those teachings outside the warrant of Scripture.  It appears the modern Protestant evangelical Church has forgotten this principle.

 IN THE NEXT POST I WILL EXAMINE SANCTIFICATION FROM AN HISTORICAL AND EVANGELICAL PERSPECTIVE

Read part Two here.

[1]Galatians 3:2. Unless otherwise stated all Scripture references are from The New American Standard Bible, Updated 1995, The Lockman Foundation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995).

[2]Ephesians 2:8.

[3]Dallas Willard for example states that spirituality/sanctification is achieved by emulating the lifestyle of Jesus.  He refers to this as the “easy yoke” of Christ and asserts that in “this truth lies the secret of the easy yoke: the secret involves living as He lived in the entirety of His life – adopting His overall lifestyle  . . . We have to discover how to enter into his disciplines from where we stand today – and no doubt, how to extend and amplify them to suit our needy cases.”  The Spirit of the Disciplines, (HarperCollins: New York, NY: 1991), 5, 9.

[4]1 Timothy 4:7.

Photo credit Young Nak Celebration Church

The Political Economy of Government Employee Unions


Posted on by
Reply

Excellent article that cuts through the out-of-the-mainstream-media’s lies about public sector unionism.  

The Political Economy of Government Employee Unions

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
 
The main reason why so many state and local governments are bankrupt, or on the verge of bankruptcy, is the combination of government-run monopolies and government-employee unions. Government-employee unions have vastly more power than do private-sector unions because the entities they work for are typically monopolies.
When the employees of a grocery store, for example, go on strike and shut down the store, consumers can simply shop elsewhere, and the grocery-store management is perfectly free to hire replacement workers. 

In contrast, when a city teachers’ or garbage-truck drivers’ union goes on strike, there is no school and no garbage collection as long as the strike goes on. In addition, teachers’ tenure (typically after two or three years in government schools) and civil-service regulations make it extremely costly if not virtually impossible to hire replacement workers.
Thus, when government bureaucrats go on strike they have the ability to completely shut down the entire “industry” they “work” in indefinitely. 

The taxpayers will complain bitterly about the absence of schools and garbage collection, forcing the mayor, governor, or city councillors to quickly cave in to the union’s demands to avoid risking the loss of their own jobs due to voter dissatisfaction.  

This process is the primary reason why, in general, the expenses of state and local governments have skyrocketed year in and year out, while the “production” of government employees declines.
For decades, researchers have noted that the more money that is spent per pupil in the government schools, the worse is the performance of the students.

Similar outcomes are prevalent in all other areas of government “service.” 

As Milton Friedman once wrote, government bureaucracies — especially unionized ones — are like economic black holes where increased “inputs” lead to declining “outputs.” 

The more that is spent on government schools, the less educated are the students. The more that is spent on welfare, the more poverty there is, and so on. This of course is the exact opposite of normal economic life in the private sector, where increased inputs lead to more products and services, not fewer.

Thirty years ago, the economist Sharon Smith was publishing research showing that government employees were paid as much as 40 percent more than comparable private-sector employees. If anything, that wage premium has likely increased.

The enormous power of government-employee unions effectively transfers the power to tax from voters to the unions. 

Because government-employee unions can so easily force elected officials to raise taxes to meet their “demands,” it is they, not the voters, who control the rate of taxation within a political jurisdiction. They are the beneficiaries of a particular form of taxation without representation (not that taxation with representation is much better). This is why some states have laws prohibiting strikes by government-employee unions. (The unions often strike anyway.)
 
Politicians are caught in a political bind by government-employee unions: if they cave in to their wage demands and raise taxes to finance them, then they increase the chances of being kicked out of office themselves in the next election. The “solution” to this dilemma has been to offer government-employee unions moderate wage increases but spectacular pension promises. This allows politicians to pander to the unions but defer the costs to the future, long after the panderers are retired from politics.

As taxpayers in California, Wisconsin, Indiana, and many other states are realizing, the future has arrived. The Wall Street Journal reports that state and local governments in the United States currently have $3.5 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities. They must either raise taxes dramatically to fund these liabilities, as some have already done, or drastically cut back or eliminate government-employee pensions.

Government-employee unions are primarily interested in maximizing the profits of the union. Consequently, they use civil-service regulations as a tool to protect the job of every last government bureaucrat, no matter how incompetent or irresponsible he or she is. Fewer employed bureaucrats means fewer union dues are being paid. Thus, it is almost guaranteed that government-employee unions will challenge in court the attempted dismissal of all bureaucrats save the occasional ones who are accused of actual criminal behavior. This means that firing an incompetent government school teacher, for example, can take months, or years, of legal wrangling.

Politicians discovered long ago that the most convenient response to this dilemma is to actually reward the incompetent bureaucrat with an administrative job that he or she will gladly accept, along with its higher pay and perks. That solves the problem of parents who complain that their children’s math teacher cannot do math, while eliminating the possibility of a lawsuit by the union. This is why government-school administrative offices are bloated bureaucratic monstrosities filled with teachers who can’t teach and are given the responsibilities of “administering” the entire school system instead. No private-sector school could survive with such a perverse policy.

Government-employee unions are also champions of “featherbedding” — the union practice of forcing employers to hire more than the number of people necessary to do the job. If this occurs in the private sector, the higher wage costs will make the firm less competitive and less profitable. It may even go bankrupt, as the heavily unionized American steel, automobile, and textile industries learned decades ago.

No such thing happens in government, where there are no profit-and-loss statements, in an accounting sense, and most agencies are monopolies anyway. Featherbedding in the government sector is viewed as a benefit to both politicians and unions — but certainly not to taxpayers. The unions collect more union dues with more government employees, while the politicians get to hand out more patronage jobs. 

 Each patronage job is usually worth two or more votes, since the government employee can always be counted on to get at least one family member or close friend to vote for the politician who gave him the job. This is why, in the vast literature showing the superior efficiency of private versus government enterprises, government almost always has higher labor costs for the same functions.

Every government-employee union is a political machine that lobbies relentlessly for higher taxes, increased government spending, more featherbedding, and more pension promises – while demonizing hesitant taxpayers as uncaring enemies of children, the elderly, and the poor (who are purportedly “served” by the government bureaucrats the unions represent).

It is the old socialist trick that Frédéric Bastiat wrote about in his famous essay, The Law: The unions view advocates of school privatization, not as legitimate critics of a failed system, but as haters of children. And the unions treat critics of the welfare state, not as persons concerned with the destruction of the work ethic and of the family that has been caused by the welfare state, but as enemies of the poor.

This charade is over. American taxpayers finally seem to be aware that they are the servants, not the masters, of government at all levels. 

Government-employee unions have played a key role in causing bankruptcy in most American states, and their pleas for more bailouts financed by endless tax increases are finally ringing hollow.
 
Thomas DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola University Maryland and a member of the senior faculty of the Mises Institute. He will be teaching Competition, Monopoly, and Antitrust: The Austrian Perspective at the Mises Academy this spring. He is the author of The Real Lincoln; Lincoln Unmasked; How Capitalism Saved America; and Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution — And What It Means for Americans Today. Send him mail. See Thomas J. DiLorenzo’s article archives.
February 24, 2011

Whose God?

Posted on by
Reply

During the Civil War Abraham Lincoln was asked whether he thought God was on the side of the North.  After a few moments of thought the grim-faced Lincoln replied, “The real question is not whether God is on our side, but whether we are on God’s side.”

Christians today must face the same question.  Are we calling on God to be on our side – whatever that may be – or are we joining God’s side?  Put another way, have we constructed gods of our own making to serve our needs or are we serving the God of the Bible?  God asks, “To whom then will you compare me, or who is my equal” (Isaiah 40:25).

Author Don McCollough suggests that many churches today have created either a “god-of-my-cause, a god-of-my-understanding, or a god-of-my-experience” that fills the void left by an abandonment of God and of true Christianity.

The “god-of-my-cause” manifests itself when churches begin with what they believe to be a good and worthy cause (liberation and feminist theologies come to mind immediately) and ends up using God to justify their participation.  This re-casting of God into the mold of the cause is tantamount to fashioning a new calf of social righteousness.

The “god-of-my-understanding” is a vile and demonic representation of Christianity through denominationalism.  Denominationalism is at its roots responsible for much of the strife and hostility seen in the church today.  Doctrinal lines are drawn in the sand, enemies named and challenged, and theological self-assuredness abounds.  Yet as McCollough points out, Christians forget that God is not contained in any theological system.  Indeed, theological endeavors demand humility as much as critical thinking.

Finally, the “god-of-my-experience” has intercepted the movement of the Holy Spirit in many congregations.  Churches are locked into my form of worship, my style of prayer, my focus in service.  This mentality squeezes the life out of the body.  The subjective rules over the objective and style wins over substance.  The result is that Christians become “ingrown” and narrow-minded.

What can be done to overcome such tendencies?  First, we must understand that a god we wish to fashion to fit our cause is ultimately no bigger than ourselves.  Secondly, we must accept that this god cannot save us from our sins.  Third, we must understand that any god that does not free us from the prison of our individual perspectives is nothing but a construct of our minds.

So whose god are you following?  My prayer is that you are following the one and only true God who has revealed Himself to us through the Bible.

Run well today brothers and sisters.

Becoming a Man of God: Lessons from the Life of David

Posted on by
3

GRACE GIVEN AND RECEIVED

The Bible presents a picture of David that is both inspiring and perplexing.  We know David as a magnificent warrior, a man of humility and integrity.  We also know David as an adulterer and in the least an accomplice to murder.

In 2 Samuel 3 we read that David had multiple wives.  2 Samuel 11 contains the story of Bathsheba and Uriah her husband.  In 2 Samuel 13 & 18 we see that David was a negligent father and this in turn caused much strife, heartache and even bloodshed.

Yet in speaking to Saul about David the Bible declares in 1 Samuel 13:14:

“But now your kingdom shall not endure. The LORD has sought out for Himself a man after His own heart, and the LORD has appointed him as ruler over His people, because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you.”

And in Acts 13:22 we read:

“After He had removed him, He raised up David to be their king, concerning whom He also testified and said, ‘I HAVE FOUND DAVID the son of Jesse, A MAN AFTER MY HEART, who will do all My will.’

What a statement from God!  But the question remains: How could God declare David “a man after His own heart?”  One of the keys to understanding this declaration is to understand that God is not looking for perfection.  That is only found in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Instead God is looking for men and women upon whom He can bestow His mercy and grace.  God looks for people whose hearts are pliable and seeking to serve Him.  God desires to pour out upon us His loving-kindness.

In 2 Samuel 9 we see this picture clearly.

This is a time in David’s life when God is very much blessing him.  Militarily, he has expanded Israel’s borders.  Chapter 8 tells us that he waged war with and conquered the Philistines, the Moabites, and the Arameans (Syrians).  He established military outposts in those and other nations to secure his borders and bring peace.

Although God has already told him he will not build the Temple, he is nevertheless collecting precious metal, jewels, and building materials for his son Solomon who would build it.

If we were to describe this time in the life of David and in the nation of Israel we would say that “life was good” or David was “living large.”

As David sat on his throne his mind began to recount God’s goodness toward him.  No doubt his thoughts drifted to Jonathan his best friend.  I believe even the words of their covenant came back to him.  1 Samuel 20:12-16 gives us the details.

Then Jonathan said to David, “The LORD, the God of Israel, be witness! When I have sounded out my father about this time tomorrow, or the third day, behold, if there is good feeling toward David, shall I not then send to you and make it known to you?

“If it please my father to do you harm, may the LORD do so to Jonathan and more also, if I do not make it known to you and send you away, that you may go in safety and may the LORD be with you as He has been with my father.

“If I am still alive, will you not show me the loving-kindness of the LORD that I may not die?

“You shall not cut off your loving-kindness from my house forever, not even when the LORD cuts off every one of the enemies of David from the face of the earth.”

So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “May the LORD require it at the hands of David’s enemies.”

V1 Notice that David makes his inquiry because his heart has been stirred by remembering the loving kindness he and Jonathan made a vow to uphold.

V2 Someone knew of a servant from the house of Saul whose name was Ziba.  They called Ziba to come before the king and answer some questions.

V3 This son of Jonathan became crippled in his feet when his father and his grandfather King Saul were killed in a battle against the Philistines described in 2 Samuel 4.  It was customary and expected that when a new king ascended the throne the former king’s family would be executed.  When the house of Saul heard of his death, the nurse maid for Jonathan’s son scooped him in haste and attempted to escape.  Unfortunately the child she held in her arms was dropped and he became crippled in both feet from the age of 5.

V4 David was overjoyed at this news and wanted to know where this son of Jonathan was.  I find this interesting that this descendant had been so well hidden as to be forgotten.  Remember that one of David’s wives was Michal, the daughter of Saul and thus the sister of Jonathan.  Even she did not know of this nephew.

V5 So David sent for this son of Jonathan to be brought to him.  Can you imagine what must have been going through this young man’s life when David’s servants came for him?  “The gigs up.  I made it a few years but it’s over now.”  No doubt this child’s servants told him that his life must remain secret or else David would kill him.  After all his grandfather chased David all over the desert trying to kill him so he could expect nothing less from David.

V6 We finally hear the name of Jonathan’s son.  Mephibosheth – “shameful one.”  His name was Merib-baal at birth but perhaps was changed to Mephibosheth after he was crippled.  Notice that Mephibosheth thought his life was over and so he fell on his face before David as if resigned to his fate.

V7 “Fear Not.” I imagine that took several long, tense moments to sink in.  Mephibosheth was there on his face before the king expecting at any moment to have his head cut off and instead he hears these beautiful words that brought indescribable joy.

V8 So Mephibosheth did the most reasonable thing – he spoke of himself as an unworthy recipient of this kindness.  I think he wanted to clarify what David had said and so he referred to himself as a “dead dog.”  This was a Jewish idiom of the time that represented the most worthless thing one could imagine.

V9 To make it official David calls in Ziba, the servant in Mephibosheth’s house to tell him that from that day forward Saul’s possessions including his ancestral lands would be Mephibosheth’s.

V10 Notice that along with Mephibosheth’s ancestral wealth being restored he would also eat at the king’s table.  Eating at the king’s table was an honor and represented the highest favor a king could bestow.  David was in effect saying “you’ll never have need of anything else again.  You are now under my protection and blessing.”

V11-13 David looked at Mephibosheth as one of his sons. What a great story of kindness fulfilled.  It demonstrates the heart of a man of honor and integrity.

But there is so much more here that God wants us to see.  Let’s look again at this same text again from God’s perspective if we can presume to know it.

The Bible tells us that God sent His Son into the world to save the world.  It is God’s desire to save the people of the house of Adam, to show kindness to them for Christ’s sake because of the covenant in Jesus’ blood.

In this story of David and Mephibosheth we see a picture of God the Father reaching out to us with salvation in His hands.  Can’t you hear God asking “Isn’t there one more of the line of Adam that I can show my mercy and grace to?”

Here is the first mark of the man of God – he has been born again, transformed by the Spirit of God to enter into that covenant relationship established by Jesus Christ.

In verse three Ziba the servant identifies Mephibosheth not by his name but by his condition – “There is a son of Jonathan who is crippled in both feet.”

Brothers, we should see in Mephibosheth ourselves first and then all of lost humanity.  Just as Mephibosheth could not walk because of a fall, so too we are unable to seek after God because we are fallen creatures.  We were all lame at one time.

It is interesting that Mephibosheth’s name means shameful one.  What did he do to deserve that?  He was rendered lame by the actions of someone else.  What a picture of the fall of Adam and the stain of sin upon all mankind.

King David, picturing God in this passage asks “where is he?”  Doesn’t that remind you of the Garden of Eden?  God asked Adam and Eve where they were not because he did not know where they were but because he wanted them to understand the fall they had suffered because of their sin.

They thought they were hiding.  They tried to cover themselves with fig leaves.  But they could not hide the desolation of soul that exploded into their conscience.  Sooner than later sin betrays us and we are found for who we are.

Notice in verse 4 Ziba answers the King’s question of where Mephibosheth is by telling him that he is in Lo-debar.  Lo-debar means place of desolation, barrenness, and unfruitfulness.  That is the condition of all men apart from a saving faith in Jesus Christ.  Mephibosheth had been taken there to hide from the King.

That’s where I was when God called me.  I was in the desert hiding from Him.  Funny thing about the desert though – I didn’t see it as an utterly barren place.  It was only after His Holy Spirit began to work upon my soul to bring that sweet conviction to fruition that I saw the green pastures God was asking me to come lay down in.

Praise God that he did not leave us there in the desert.  Verse 5 says the King sent for Mephibosheth.  God calls out to men and women everywhere to come to Him.  He sends His Holy Spirit to bear witness and bring conviction.  He sends His servants, missionaries, pastors, Sunday School teachers, men and women of every walk of life to bear witness to His goodness.

The Bible says that Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost.  In this church age He likes to use His children.

So Mephibosheth, representative of you and I, is summoned to the King.  Do you recall when you were summoned to the King?  There is a conviction in our souls.  We might not understand it completely but we know that God is real and He is calling out to us.  What do we do?  The only thing we can do, we fall face to the ground in trembling fear not knowing what to expect.

Isn’t that a good picture of how most people see God?  Mephibosheth was thinking the worse.  He thought the King was about to whack him.  When God calls us He is seeking to bless us not whack us.

Verse 7 – “Fear not.”  God doesn’t call out to us to come to Him with fear.  God wants to show us kindness because of what Jesus has already done for us.  David says that his blessing to Mephibosheth will include restoring to him all that his grandfather Saul had.

In the same way God restores to us all that Adam had before his fall.  What would that be?

1) Intimate fellowship/communion with Him.  God desires that close personal relationship with His children.

2) The King invites you to dine at His table as one of His sons.  The King’s table is the place of abundance brothers.  The King’s table is a place of warmth, blessing, and joy.  The King’s table is a place of fellowship.

3) The King did all this for Mephibosheth not because he deserved it but solely for Jonathan’s sake, because of the covenant he had made with Jonathan.  We benefit by what Jesus has done for us.

This is a 2nd mark of the man of God – fear is replaced by an understanding of the overwhelming grace God has to bestow upon us in Christ Jesus.

David wrote long before this, “He prepares a table before me in the presence of my enemies.”  Do you see the picture?  Rest and comfort in the blessings of God replace fear even in the most dire circumstances.

This is an overwhelming picture to be sure.  Mephibosheth was flabbergasted.  He put his face to the ground a 2nd time and declared that he was not worthy of such grand treatment.  Isn’t that a picture of the ones God calls to Himself?

Jesus said in Matthew 5 “blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”  God’s invitation to us will not produce a sense of pride but will always stir within us a sense of unworthiness.  That’s the humility required of the man of God.

I’m reminded here of Jacob’s testimony before the Lord “I am unworthy of all the loving-kindness and of all the faithfulness which You have shown to Your servant” (Gen 32:10).

Notice verse 13 – Mephibosheth ate at the King’s table regularly.  I love that.  We may not understand why God would bless us but we can accept it and enjoy it forever! We’re not to camp out on our unworthiness.  That can create a false piety.  Instead we are to receive the Lord’s goodness toward us with joy.

What a wonderful picture for the man of God.  Let me pull all this together and give you some points to chew on.

First, God desires to spend time with you.  He has poured out His grace and mercy upon you in salvation but that’s not the end.  Consider how many times David sat alone with Mephibosheth telling him about his father, how Jonathon loved Mephibosheth, about his friendship with his father, about their covenant of trust.

God wants to sit with us and tell us “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God” (1 John 3:1).

The songwriter has well said:

How deep the Father’s love for us,
How vast beyond all measure
That He should give His only Son
To make a wretch His treasure

How great the pain of searing loss,
The Father turns His face away
As wounds which mar the chosen One,
Bring many sons to glory

Behold the Man upon a cross,
My sin upon His shoulders
Ashamed I hear my mocking voice,
Call out among the scoffers

It was my sin that held Him there
Until it was accomplished
His dying breath has brought me life
I know that it is finished

I will not boast in anything
No gifts, no power, no wisdom
But I will boast in Jesus Christ
His death and resurrection
Why should I gain from His reward?
I cannot give an answer
But this I know with all my heart
His wounds have paid my ransom

Second, notice that David says no less than four times in this passage that Mephibosheth will “eat at my table continually.”  What a wonderful picture of God’s abundant grace for all we need.

Alan Redpath in his book “The Making of a Man of God” said:

“In Christ we are more than conquerors! In Him there is a constant supply of life to the helpless and penitent sinner who has come to the foot of the cross.  At Calvary he discovers real satisfaction.  Instead of barrenness in his life, there is fruitfulness; instead of being far off, he is made near to God by the blood of Jesus.  From that moment on, he is the object of God’s outpouring of blessing.  All the resources of heaven are made available to meet his need and to take him safely through the journey of life until one day he will be presented faultless at the throne of God.”

Third, David’s grace to Mephibosheth is a pattern for us in serving and ministering to others.  In a sense David represents the man God wants us to become.

For example we can see from this passage that perhaps God is saying:

  • We should look for the poor, weak, lame, and hidden to bless them.
  • We should bless others even when they don’t deserve it, and bless them more than they deserve.
  • We should bless others for the sake of someone else.
  • We should show the kindness of God to others.