Monthly Archives: December 2009

A Merry “Son of David” Christmas

It’s been quiet around these parts for some time.  Just wanted to pop back on here and wish everyone a Merry Christmas.  

Side note: have you thought much about how the Gospels of Matthew and Luke use “Son of David” language in reference to Christ?  I had not previous to this Christmas (like so many other biblical-theological themes sitting right under my nose).  Just had the opportunity to preach on this in my home church, and I found it very interesting to mull over.  Per Matthew 1 and Luke 1, Jesus is the “Son of David” both in a physical sense and in a spiritual one.  He is the shepherd-king who not only rules His people well as David did, but who secures their salvation and ultimate freedom from the wrath of God.

Much like scrawny David, the low-born Jesus son of Joseph was a mighty deliverer for His people.  The Lord so often uses the weak and lowly and small to accomplish His great purposes.  That’s an encouraging reminder for me, and I hope it is for you.

Merry Christmas, all.

Leave a comment

Filed under Jesus Christ

The Next Michael Jordan (!)

From the Chicago Tribune:

At 17, Harrison Barnes might not yet be a household name. But he’s determined to become one.

Here’s a funny story demonstrating his precocity:

Days earlier, when he announced where he would attend college, the nation’s top high school basketball player deftly fielded all manner of probing questions from a gymnasium full of reporters.

This one seemed like a layup. How tall are you? “I’m 6-8 with shoes on,” Harrison Barnes said.  Across the living room his mother, Shirley Barnes, squirmed.  “What? You’re going to list your real height this year?” she asked.  “Of course,” Barnes said.  “I thought you were still playing the 6-6 game.”

I’m not sure I follow you …

“It’s because Michael did it,” Barnes explained.

As in Michael Jordan.

Read the whole thing.

Leave a comment

Filed under basketball

Carl Trueman on Monkeys, Fools, and Web Morality

Historical theologian Carl Trueman has a great post up on Reformation21 entitled, hilariously, “Fools Rush In Where Monkeys Fear to Tread” on the way in which Christians puff themselves up on the web and transgress traditional codes of humility and morality. (HT: Naselli) The whole thing is worth reading; here’s a snatch:

Now, it is one thing to have others write commendations of you for a book cover or conference brochure – perhaps necessary evils in the cut-throat world of publishing and conferences; and nobody should believe them, least of all the objects of such patent flannel; but to say it about yourself implies that you might actually believe the propaganda, that maybe you yourself are just a wee bit arrogant and smug. And, remember, this chap wasn’t even Reformed.  I shudder to think how much worse he might be if he endorsed the Westminster Standards or the Three Forms of Unity. One can only assume that the kind of man who describes himself on his own website as “witty” is likely to be the same kind of man who laughs at his own jokes and, quite probably, claps himself at the end of his own speeches – behaviour that was previously the exclusive preserve of politicians, Hollywood stars, and chimpanzees.

Read it all.

Leave a comment

Filed under blogging

The Resurrection as God’s Vindication of the Crucified Messiah

This is a helpful comment for understanding the significance of the resurrection, especially as it relates to the atonement:

[T]he Gospels…all agree that when the question was put to Jesus, “Are you the Messiah?” he did not deny it.  It is in the context of those last days in Jerusalem that the royal title emerges publicly as a potential estimate of Jesus.  On the basis of such a possibility, Jesus was executed as a messianic pretender.  And for that reason his resurrection can be understood as God’s vindication of the crucified Messiah.

This from Donald Juel,  Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 26.

See also 1 Corinthians 15 for more on the vindication theme.

1 Comment

Filed under Jesus Christ

The Link 12.11.09: Dockers on Manhood, Centered-Set Churches, and the New Scientocracy

1. A buddy of mine tipped me off to this crazy Docker’s “Man-ifesto”.  It’s actually really good.  Readers of this agitated little blog will recognize some familiar themes. Clearly, folks in the culture beyond our Christian circles are seeing a major lack of testosterone in our society, and many problems related to this.

Why you were surfing the Dockers website is another matter, Drew.  Regardless, good looking out.  Here’s the whole text.

2. Jonathan Leeman just wrote a “boring” post on centered-set churches and problems they might face.  Not boring, and very helpful.  I don’t care if you agree with 9Marks or not, when Jonathan writes something about the church, read it.

3. Salvo Magazine on the “Scientocracy” and how it sets the ground rules.  Very helpful for understanding the stuff you may have seen on this blog of late, namely the climate change material.

Good quotation: “In a Scientocracy, unless you’re a scientist, politician, journalist, or citizen who fully accedes to the consensus, then your opinion not only doesn’t matter, it might even be dangerous.”  Read the piece.

4. I blogged him last week, and yes, I will blog him again: Peter Bradley Adams.  His music is incredible.  You must check him out.  You must click.  Also, he just uploaded a live version of “Los Angeles”.  Louisville readers, he’s playing tonight at 9:30pm at a place called “Rudyard Kipling”. (Note: I do not assume that I agree with his worldview; however, he makes great music that thoughtfully tackles the realities of life.  That’s all.)

5. What causes early arthritis in knees? You should know this.  Not to be your mom or anything.

6. Here’s a terrific-looking church plant coming soon to Madison, Wisconsin: the Vine.  Zach Nielsen, a friend of this blog, will be one of three pastors.  We’re looking to get him to TEDS for a Friday morning basketball run.  Great church to pray for–Madison is a very dark place.

7. Also, check out Epic Church in San Francisco.  I first heard about it on Micah Fries’s very nice blog.  (Update: I have just become aware of the fact that the church will have a woman minister.  Sadly, this makes me unable to support this church as I thought I could.  I still hope it will be used to bring the gospel in San Francisco, but I believe the church to be in grave error on this point.)

–Have a great weekend, all.

(Image: smiteme)


Filed under Uncategorized

What Are the Promise Keepers Up To?

Salon took a look this week at the Promise Keepers.  It’s an interesting read.  Here are some key quotations on the organization that rose to huge prominence in the 1990s and then tanked.

Here’s the basic story:

In the 1990s, the evangelical men’s ministry the Promise Keepers packed 50,000-seat football stadiums and even stuffed the Mall in Washington, D.C., with close to 600,000 sweaty, Jesus-loving males. Marshaled by Bill McCartney, a former University of Colorado football coach, the group took the evangelical world by storm. But P.K.’s star fell as rapidly as it rose, particularly after McCartney departed the organization in 2003 to establish a group that brings Christians and Messianic Jews together. Now McCartney is back, and he’s trying very hard to resurrect the Promise Keepers.

Here’s what the article’s author believes account for the popularity of PKs:

McCartney aimed for P.K. to infiltrate every church in America— regardless of its specific denomination. After the stadium rallies swept through town, P.K. men were to take what they learned back to their local church and, in small groups, share the struggles they faced in their attempts to be godly men. In Bartkowski’s essay “Breaking Walls, Raising Fences,” an interviewee recalled that in one P.K. small-group moment, “otherwise ‘strong men’ ended up weeping profusely and rolling on the floor in anguish after learning that the vast majority of them had been sexually abused as children.” P.K. uniquely allowed men to be vulnerable and intimate with one another. The organization presented the perfect combination of religion and pop psychology, a mishmash that would appeal to men from diverse backgrounds: those who felt their worldview aligned with P.K. as well as those who may have had a less clear vision but who clung to the opportunity for self-improvement, as Stephen D. Johnson noted in “Who Supports the Promise Keepers?

These are the groups the organization is targeting now:

But as Bartkowski has noted, herein lies part of P.K.’s genius and one reason for the group’s success. By mixing authoritarianism with a dash of gentleness, P.K. offered men—indeed, entire families—a combination of patriarchy and egalitarianism that is likely to continue even now that P.K. has made a formal invitation to women. The ministry plans to include women by focusing on what men should do in relation to them—honor them, respect them, etc. But the question is: What incentive will women have to hover by the football benches? To stand by their men?

The other group the Promise Keepers want to bring into the fold is Messianic Jews, whom McCartney also tried to reach out to as part of his organization Road to Jerusalem. Messianic Jews—cultural Jews who believe Christ is the Messiah—and evangelicals have something other than just Jesus in common: an interest in the preservation of Israel. But P.K. also uses Romans 11:11 as inspiration, arguing that the passage indicates that salvation to Christians came as a way of making all nonbelievers jealous. Part of P.K.’s mission, then, is to fill all non-Christians with envy, causing them to yearn for the zeal they have for Jesus. But, again, the question is, what’s in it for the Messianic Jews? Messianic Jews already believe they have Jesus in their heart; they strive to be accepted by mainstream Jews and are likely to be wary of aligning themselves with an evangelical organization. Although they share a belief in Jesus, Messianic Jews want to be seen as authentic Jews, not evangelical Christians.

The whole thing is an interesting read.  It’s interesting to note how rapidly groups like Promise Keepers can rise to major prominence–and it’s also interesting to see how quickly they can fade.  We’re reminded of the unsexy but steady presence of the local church.  This isn’t to bash PKs; it has done some good things.  But it is to note that God’s plan A is the local church.

By the way, here’s a powerful recounting from Sports Illustrated of the change that took place some years ago in Bill McCartney’s life.

Leave a comment

Filed under evangelicalism

The Ten Best Films of 2009, the Year That Wasn’t

David Denby, film critic at The New Yorker, just released his list of the top-ten films of 2009.  Because I am an American, and thus am genetically predisposed to find top-ten lists interesting, I noticed it.

Actually, it’s well worth looking at.  Denby is a skilled critic.  I like that he, with all TNY commentators, is stingy with his praise.  I like stinginess.  There’s not enough of it these days.  With stingy people, you know when you’ve done well.  With non-stingy people, you never know whether you’ve done well or poorly, because you can’t tell from their response.  It’s been fun to have the legendary Don Carson for (an amazing) class this semester, because when your argument is strong, you know it; correspondingly, when it is weak–well, let’s just say you have no trouble figuring out where you stand.  I love that.

Anyway, here’s the list.  A couple of selections from it, none of which I necessarily endorse or encourage you to watch:

  • “The Hurt Locker”: Kathryn Bigelow understands that an action movie has to be coherent in space—you have to know where the American soldiers are in relation to the bombs that they’re trying to defuse. Hair-raising. With a great performance by Jeremy Renner.
  • “The White Ribbon”: The dread-master Michael Haneke’s portrait of a guilty Northern German town just before the First World War. The long takes and crisp black-and-white cinematography produce an aura of vague but sinister stillness. You come out of it feeling bruised and contented at the same time.

The whole list is worth perusing.

Can I close with a comment of my own?  I haven’t seen many of the films Denby cites, but I thought that this was a terrible year for the cinema.  My wife and I have a desperately hard time finding good films to watch (I can’t recall any good ones I saw that were made this year, honestly).  The whole year stunk, in my opinion.  Is it just me, or has filmmaking slid down the tube really fast in a really short period of time?

The long-form tv series actually far outperforms movies in many cases, in my opinion.  Two hours is already a tough amount of time in which to establish a plausible narrative, engrossing, well-rounded characters, and meaningful tension.  Much better to have five or six seasons in which to develop characters, plot lines, action, irony, and the like.

Anyway, that’s all from me.  I am pessimistic about the cinema, but optimistic about long-form series.


Filed under film

Low Impact Man: A Funny Take on the Unsustainability of the “Sustainable” Life

Matt Labash of The Weekly Standard has a very funny piece up called “The Adventures of Low Impact Man”.  Some of you have heard of Colin Beavan and his efforts to live what he calls a “low impact”, non-wasteful life.  Labash takes him up on his challenge and writes an often hilarious and quite lengthy diary of his experience with the eco-friendly lifestyle (I’m on a kick here–what can one say?).

While it is certainly a good thing to seek to live wisely and to eliminate unnecessary waste from one’s life (I attempt to do this), the piece will make you wonder if Beavan’s lifestyle is truly attainable for the average Joe.  If you like Carl Trueman’s biting irony, and you enjoy cultural criticism, evangelical reader, you will love you some Matt Labash.

Here’s a snippet:

Giving up my car, my eco-sensei says, would help me “think fewer emissions and more fun, free time, and money.” But biking 70 miles round trip would take all day. There’d be no point in going, it would be no fun, and even if it gave me more free time with my kids–which it wouldn’t–I’d be too tired to play with them. So my best option is to bike to the Park’n’Ride lot and catch a semi-environmentally friendly commuter bus.

This turns out to be a difficult trick. The last bus leaves for D.C. at 7:20 A.M., a time at which I’m either usually still sleeping or just thinking about getting up. Consequently, I wake up at 5 A.M., to shove off by 5:30. Outside, there isn’t even a hint of sunrise, and it is a moonless night. I’m riding in pitch darkness, except for the headlights of cars whizzing by on a busy four-lane highway with erratic shoulders. The trek is seven miles of taxing hills. (I wear a heart monitor when I bike. On regular rides over flat terrain, I’m in the 120-135 beats per minute range. On this one, with a messenger bag on my back, I stay up around 160 most of the ride.)

It’s so dark I can’t see my gears and accidentally upshift on steep climbs. My mountain-bike chain pops off twice. (Since I hadn’t greased it in a while, I can fit it back on with minimal mess, though I still look like I’ve been fingerprinted.) I ride warily in the darkness, keeping my eyes trained on the faint glint of the guardrail, and the white highway line of the shoulder. But at one point, my bike hits something squishy and nearly kicks out from under me. I stop and wait for passing cars to illuminate what I hit. It’s a dead possum. At least I think it was dead. It might have just been playing possum, in which case, playtime is now certainly over.

This is hilarious stuff.  Read it all at TWS.  Also, note that Labash has a book coming out in February, and he’s written numerous noteworthy pieces before (here’s one, and here’s one more, and here’s a final freebie).  David Brooks has called him “one of the best magazine writers in the country”, and he seems to be, in my limited judgment.

(Image: Mediabistro)

Leave a comment

Filed under environmentalism

An Explosive Evaluation of the Global Warming Movement

Stephen Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC has just published a helpful overview of the documents related to the Climate Research Unit that hackers recently uncovered.  I blogged about this last week, but this analysis, entitled “Scientists Behaving Badly” and found in The Weekly Standard, is a must-read for anyone who has invested time in thinking about climate change and whether the role of humans in it in our modern era demands sweeping reform and massive investment that some have called for.

I do not submit because I dismiss climate change due to its advocates.  I know little about this sort of thing and am quite open to being led by scientists on this matter.  However, the findings released illegally by hackers present devastating evidence that suggests that there is a great deal of uncertainty in the climate change movement and that scientists within it are acting according to political, not scientific, concerns.

Many of us wondered whether this might be so in light of the weight attached to climate change.  Almost overnight, this issue became a moral matter, one demanding the full support of all.  This has leaked into the Christian community, and many people are confused by this subject.  Is global warming happening in abnormal ways today?  Should we support legislation, however costly, to attempt to push it back if so?  These and other questions confront thinking, moral Christians.

But the fact of the matter seems to be that climate change is far–increasingly far, actually–from the foregone conclusion that it might seem to be.  The CRU documents–many of them email exchanges from scientists seeking to prove that humans are causing damaging climate change–show a house in disarray.  Hayward’s lengthy piece reveals that there is explosively damaging evidence against climate change advocates in these documents.

The following presents snapshots from his article that are worth reading.  I’ll give you the key quotations first, and then give a number of other quotations that highly interested readers should consider.  See the bold sections for the essence of the quotation.


The global warming movement is rapidly losing altitude:

Slowly and mostly unnoticed by the major news media, the air has been going out of the global warming balloon. Global temperatures stopped rising a few years ago, much to the dismay of the climate campaigners. The U.N.’s upcoming Copenhagen conference–which was supposed to yield a binding greenhouse gas emissions reduction treaty as a successor to the failed Kyoto Protocol–collapsed weeks in advance and remains on life support pending Obama’s magical intervention. Cap and trade legislation is stalled on Capitol Hill. Recent opinion polls from Gallup, Pew, Rasmussen, ABC/Washington Post, and other pollsters all find a dramatic decline in public belief in human-caused global warming. The climate campaigners continue to insist this is because they have a “communications” problem, but after Al Gore’s Nobel Prize/Academy Award double play, millions of dollars in paid advertising, and the relentless doom-mongering from the media echo chamber and the political class, this excuse is preposterous. And now the climate campaign is having its Emperor’s New Clothes moment.

A prominent supporter of climate change reveals that he is “deeply shaken” by the CRU emails:

There are a few notable exceptions, such as Guardian columnist George Monbiot, who in the past has trafficked in the most extreme climate mongering: “It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow,” Monbiot wrote in a November 23 column. “The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. .  .  . I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them. .  .  . I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.” Monbiot has joined a number of prominent climate scientists in demanding that the CRU figures resign their posts and be excluded from future climate science work. The head of the CRU, Phil Jones, announced last week that he will temporarily step down pending an investigation.

Hayward notes that the emails do not disprove global warming, but rather show that the movement is politicized(and likely compromised):

The emails do not in and of themselves reveal that catastrophic climate change scenarios are a hoax or without any foundation. What they reveal is something problematic for the scientific community as a whole, namely, the tendency of scientists to cross the line from being disinterested investigators after the truth to advocates for a preconceived conclusion about the issues at hand. In the understatement of the year, CRU’s Phil Jones, one of the principal figures in the controversy, admitted the emails “do not read well.” Jones is the author of the most widely cited leaked e‑missive, telling colleagues in 1999 that he had used “Mike’s Nature [magazine] trick” to “hide the decline” that inconveniently shows up after 1960 in one set of temperature records. But he insists that the full context of CRU’s work shows this to have been just a misleading figure of speech. Reading through the entire archive of emails, however, provides no such reassurance; to the contrary, dozens of other messages, while less blatant than “hide the decline,” expose scandalously unprofessional behavior. There were ongoing efforts to rig and manipulate the peer-review process that is critical to vetting manuscripts submitted for publication in scientific journals. Data that should have been made available for inspection by other scientists and outside critics were released only grudgingly, if at all. Perhaps more significant, the email archive also reveals that even inside this small circle of climate scientists–otherwise allied in an effort to whip up a frenzy of international political action to combat global warming–there was considerable disagreement, confusion, doubt, and at times acrimony over the results of their work. In other words, there is far less unanimity or consensus among climate insiders than we have been led to believe.

The predominant paleoclimatological model of climate change is a hockey stick, a model unveiled some years ago:

In 1998 three scientists from American universities–Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes–unveiled in Nature magazine what was regarded as a signal breakthrough in paleoclimatology–the now notorious “hockey stick” temperature reconstruction (picture a flat “handle” extending from the year 1000 to roughly 1900, and a sharply upsloping “blade” from 1900 to 2000). Their paper purported to prove that current global temperatures are the highest in the last thousand years by a large margin–far outside the range of natural variability. The medieval warm period and the little ice age both disappeared. The hockey stick chart was used prominently in the 2001 IPCC report as “smoking gun” proof of human-caused global warming. Mann and his coauthors concluded that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.”

This model is now seriously questioned even by advocates of climate change:

Case closed? Hardly. The CRU emails reveal internal doubts about this entire enterprise both before and after the hockey stick made its debut. In a 1996 email to a large number of scientists in the CRU circle, Tom Wigley, a top climatologist working at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, cautioned: “I support the continued collection of such data, but I am disturbed by how some people in the paleo community try to oversell their product.” Mann and his colleagues made use of some of the CRU data, but some of the CRU scientists weren’t comfortable with the way Mann represented it and also seemed to find Mann more than a bit insufferable.

CRU scientist Keith Briffa, whose work on tree rings in Siberia has been subject to its own controversies, emailed Edward Cook of Columbia University: “I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative) tropical series,” adding that he was tired of “the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage [Mann] has produced over the last few years .  .  . and (better say no more).”

Cook replied: “I agree with you. We both know the probable flaws in Mike’s recon[struction], particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff. Your response is also why I chose not to read the published version of his letter. It would be too aggravating. .  .  . It is puzzling to me that a guy as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit more objectively.”

In yet another revealing email, Cook told Briffa: “Of course [Bradley] and other members of the MBH [Mann, Bradley, Hughes] camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective, i.e. the cup is not only ‘half-empty’; it is demonstrably ‘broken’. I come more from the ‘cup half-full’ camp when it comes to the MWP, maybe yes, maybe no, but it is too early to say what it is.”

Perhaps the most damning evidence of the CRU’s shoddy work comes from the files of the researcher attempting to collate the data on climate change:

The HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, over 100,000 words long, paints a picture of haphazard data handling that would get almost any private sector researcher fired. Among the many damning items included in Harris’s narrative are more instances of “hiding the decline” such as “Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid the decline)” and “Apply a VERY ARTIFICIAL correction for decline!” Worse are Harris’s notes of improperly coded data (or data without codes at all), computer subroutines that don’t work, and near complete chaos: “I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. .  .  . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. .  .  . Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!! .  .  . ” On and on goes Harris’s catalogue of software bugs and data horrors. Finally, this: “OH F– THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.”

Some have challenged the “hockey stick” model of climate change, causing major public damage to the model and leading the authoritative American body, the National Academy of Sciences, to conclude thusly:

[A] close reading shows that the NAS report devastated the hockey stick. While the NAS said the hockey stick reconstruction was a “plausible” depiction of 20th-century warming, the report went on to state clearly that “substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.” [Emphasis added.]

Hayward concludes with a couple final points worth reading:

First, we still don’t know whether the medieval warm period was comparable to or even much warmer than current temperatures, and we probably never will know with confidence. So the validating or refining of today’s climate models will have to go forward without this piece of the puzzle being filled in. Second, a close reading of the entire email archive allows some distinctions to be drawn among the CRU circle. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore seem indisputably to be the bad actors (it was Santer who said he was “very tempted” to “beat the crap out of” skeptic Pat Michaels). Others in their circle, such as Keith Briffa, Tom Wigley, and Mike Hulme, appear much more scrupulous and restrained about handling the data, uncertainties, and conclusions they put into print.

Finally, here is what Hayward concludes about the CRU fiasco in general:

Climate change is a genuine phenomenon, and there is a nontrivial risk of major consequences in the future. Yet the hysteria of the global warming campaigners and their monomaniacal advocacy of absurdly expensive curbs on fossil fuel use have led to a political dead end that will become more apparent with the imminent collapse of the Kyoto-Copenhagen process. I have long expected that 20 or so years from now we will look back on the turn-of-the-millennium climate hysteria in the same way we look back now on the population bomb hysteria of the late 1960s and early 1970s–as a phenomenon whose magnitude and effects were vastly overestimated, and whose proposed solutions were wrongheaded and often genuinely evil (such as the forced sterilizations of thousands of Indian men in the 1970s, much of it funded by the Ford Foundation). Today the climate campaigners want to forcibly sterilize the world’s energy supply, and until recently they looked to be within an ace of doing so. But even before Climategate, the campaign was beginning to resemble a Broadway musical that had run too long, with sagging box office and declining enthusiasm from a dwindling audience. Someone needs to break the bad news to the players that it’s closing time for the climate horror show.

Wow.  This is quite an article, as you can see.  Read the whole thing.  It is well worth your time, as climate change is one of the more important cultural issues we face today.  Even if you don’t like thinking or reading about it, lots of people in the culture are, and it behooves us as thinking Christians to ponder this stuff.

As you can see, the climate change movement is highly politicized.  The science is far from a sure thing; the movement itself is fractured; there is steadily increasing uncertainty even among supporters of this cause.  We do not need to write the climate change folks off at this point; we should hear them out and wait to see if they can produce hard data.  If they can, we may well need to modify the way we live in this world.  I’m prepared to do so.

But, if the CRU fiasco exposed above is as bad as it looks, I wonder whether we are a long way from reaching this point.  Climate change is notoriously hard to prove, especially when one looks back to eras for which no data exists.  Christians would do well, it seems to me, to care for the earth as best we can in our efforts to glorify our Lord, and to avoid falling prey to groupthink and cultural pressure.

1 Comment

Filed under environmentalism

The Link 12.5.09: Great Music, Scanwiches, and Climate Change

1. Here’s a link to some excellent music by Peter Bradley Adams, formerly of the duo eastmountainsouth.  Really–check this guy out.  You can even get a free EP of Adams’s music if you want to test-drive it.

2. Have you seen the site  Try looking at it without getting hungry.

3. Here’s a well-funded site, TCK (currently advertising in major media outlets) advocating for major investment in combating anthropogenic climate change.  For those who wonder why I would question this cause, the ethical, almost spiritual, significance attached to it fails my sniff test.  To make anthropogenic climate change–by no means proven to cause the kind of environmental effects some allege–a cause of “justice” is premature and potentially highly problematic.  Sites like this, with language like this, calling for expensive programs and postures like it does, require very careful thought.

4. Check out the latest 9Marks interview with Aussie Philip Jensen.  Knowing Jensen (and Dever’s interviewing style), this can only be provocative.

–Have a great Sunday, all.

Leave a comment

Filed under links