• Government bureaucrats who discover a new problem and set about launching new plans, programs and regulations over a multi-year period to deal with the issue.
• Liberal politicians who aren’t satisfied with the glacial pace of the bureaucrats, label the issue a “crisis”,  and pontificate and demand that more things need to be done quicker!
• Reporters who jump onto the issue as a new alarming story to run with.
• Experts who make “findings” that the issue is real, that industry is incapable of dealing with the issue, that government is needed to solve the problem, and who start calling the problem “dangerous”.
• Studies that claim that solving this problem could save 100,000 lives a year!
• Government officials who must now undertake complicated analysis of a wide array of products.
• Public citizens who will be allowed to comment, but who’s support is not needed.
• Health officials who have grown alarmed.
• Government programs failing in their attempt to “educate” consumers of the risks and failing to change consumer behavior.
• Private industry under government pressure racing to deal with government edicts while trying to prevent consumer revolts.
• Industry scientists developing novel solutions to comply with the new edicts while maintaining the factors that compel the purchase of their products.
• Spokesmen for the industry looking to lose the most money, claiming that the science is actually on their side and that the new regulations will create a “disaster”.
• Public interest pioneers who weigh in with their opinions after fighting for such regulations for decades.
• Metropolitan officials who couldn’t wait and have pushed ahead of the leviathan federal regulatory system.
• University researchers who pushed out “recent” studies claiming that even small changes will prevent tens of thousands of health issues.
• Activist scientists, who serve on government advisory committees, who point their finger at one predominate industry as the culprit for all these problems, saying individuals cannot be relied upon to solve the problem, and stating point blank that industry manufactures “have” to change their ways.
• News reports leaving till the end of their reports that the proposed changes will be a “massive and technically challenging” undertaking.
• Psychologists who weigh in on why these changes will be difficult for the public to handle.
• Policymakers who must juggle competing interests and make micro-decisions regarding a multitude of products.
• The marketplace which will judge the results, make adjustments, and possibly make the whole massive undertaking pointless.
• Industry executives who attempt to put a good spin on the issue though clearly under pressure to be politically correct.

And lastly, we have my conservative friend, who because the conservative side of the issue was left out of this news report, was forced to weigh in with her own comments on how this all spells government control of “anything whatever” in our lives.

Incredible.

So what was this new issue that is a “crisis” and that we must undertake massive new government involvement and regulation for?

Why, didn’t you guess? It’s salt!

What a world we live in!

Here’s the link to the actual news story: here.

Gardner Peckham, the former national-security adviser to House Speaker Newt Gingrich, recalls having a long conversation late one night with one of the [CIA]  interrogators when he was conducting his review. This was “a very dedicated, capable guy who told me that he had been in with KSM one day, and KSM had basically said to him matter-of-factly, ‘If I ever get out of this hole, I’m going to kill you and your entire family.’ We were sitting there at nine o’clock at night or something, and he said to me, ‘You know, I work long days; this is hard. When I get down about it, I just think back to the film footage of the two people standing on the window of the World Trade Center on the 90-something floor, grasping each other by the hand and stepping out into space.’ He said, ‘I think of those two people, and I just go back to work.’”

I was taken “shooting” on Christmas with some [Christian] gun enthusiasts at their club, and all they could talk about was how Obama was regulating them and how the costs had gone up for their ammunition.  I doubt if Obama has spent one minute figuring out a way to regulate ammunition for gun enthusiasts, but that was their perception!  And they want the government to stay far away from health care, and global warming/climate control.  But they want the government right in the middle of gay marriage!  I have a hard time finding the common thread!  But perhaps there is someone who can help bring light!

This made me smile. I can just imagine this pastor shaking his head at these conservative gun enthusiasts and how they want the government to back off in the their own areas of self interest while at the same time urging the government to push restrictions on others. How indeed does one make sense of this?!

First, just because conservatives want limited government in no way means we want NO government. Even conservatives recognize that government is needed in certain areas, like establishing a military for our defense, or creating laws for a decent and civil society. We just want things kept to a reasonable minimum because we know that in general, the more laws and regulations government passes, the larger and more powerful the government becomes, the less liberty each of us will have and the less we will personally be able to be responsible or accountable for our lives and the lives of our families. In our view, for example, welfare is what contributed in large part to the destruction of the black family, which used to be quite strong.

But conservatives are not libertarians.

Libertarians want as much liberty as possible, so long as your liberties don’t cross the line and infringe on me. Conservatives, on the other hand, add to the desire for liberty, a desire for wisdom that has been taught us over the generations (and especially through the Bible). Wisdom shows us what things can lead to the fall of our society, and what things we need to nurture and protect. American conservatives have especially been endeared to the wisdom of our founding fathers and the amazing documents they created for us over two centuries ago.

Truly, conservatives want to conserve the wisdom and principles of our founding fathers. I for one, honestly believe that Providence guided them. I think God did so because He knew what would be required to protect liberty in the twentieth century from Nazism and communism. And I don’t want to lose what God has bequeathed us.

So yes, there is a moral component to conservatism. We do want the government to set certain moral restraints. An unborn baby is a person no matter how small it is and deserving of respect and value. Marriage is principally meant to care and provide for children which deserve both a mother and father. But such standards don’t expand the size of the government. Health care does. Drastically so. And in a manner that moves towards a socialistic solution which history shows us simply doesn’t work.

As I wrote previously on this email list:

What do conservatives hope their game plan will achieve for the world?  They hope it will facilitate Godly wisdom and thereby increase accountability, responsibility and individual decency while also restraining destructive behaviors and protecting our civil society.

I meant exactly that. Conservatives don’t want to just allow anything. We do want to restrain destructive behaviors that we believe will hurt our society. At the same time we want to encourage personal accountability and responsibility. And to do that we need a limited government that grants us lots of liberty.

How about you? Does that make sense?

I came across Lord Monckton because I was interested in what was being learned in the release of documents and emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Very little is being reported currently but it is actually quite sensational. If you don’t believe me, try reading Lord Monckton’s summary on it here.

For example, here he lists the steps these major global warming scientists took to thwart scientific verification of their results:

Dear Seantor McCain,

I’m a conservative Arizonan, but I haven’t been too happy with the Republican proposals I’ve seen for health-care reform, especially when it comes to pre-existing conditions. So how about a real compromise?

Why not give Democrats single-payer universal coverage – but only for catastrophic care, while basic care would be covered exclusively by health savings accounts that could be rolled over?

Pay for the catastrophic care with a new payroll tax, that employers pay half of, and require the dollars employers currently spend on health insurance to be transferred to people’s salaries (minus the part for the new tax).

The health savings accounts could work just as they do now, except allowing the money to be rolled over. The same companies that currently manage such accounts could also manage when the catastrophic deductible has been reached and bill the government when it is exceeded.

The deductible itself could be means tested, lower for people with lower incomes and higher for those that are richer. The lowest income people could even be given a tax credit to help pay part of their deductible.

The point is to let people spend their own money and allow the market to truly function. But the catastrophic insurance guarantees that no one need ever be checked for pre-existing conditions, and very few people would ever face bankruptcy due to medical costs. Health insurance companies would largely not be needed, as people would use their own money, and the market would truly function, without the need for much regulation.

The catastrophic insurance would still need regulations and cost controls, but since that insurance would be used by fewer people, hopefully such controls would not distort the market substantially.

And while tort and MediCare reform would be nice, those reforms are of course politically infeasible, so leave them as is.

The more I considered the problem of pre-existing conditions, and the inadequate conservative proposals to solve the problem, the more I realized the Democrats may partially be correct. And what better way to broker a bipartisan solution, then by giving the Democrats a large part of what they want?

Thus, there are four possibilities: 

1) We take action but GW doesn’t happen. The risk here is that the economic hardship of fighting GW could lead to a global depression.

2) We take action and GW DOES happen. In this case we will be glad we DID take action.

3) We don’t take action and GW doesn’t happen. In which case, life goes on as normal.

4) We don’t take action and GW DOES happen. And here is the worst case, where mankind devolves into famine, war and economic hardship.

This teacher’s videos have been seen approximately ten million times and now he has a book coming out in June. I liked his logical approach, so here is my logical response.

Ten logical problems with the chart: 

1) Even if GW is true and we do nothing, there is no way to know HOW BAD things will get. Hurricanes may NOT actually get worse. Who can say for sure? Yes, water may rise, but at such a slow rate that we have time to deal with it. The same can be said for forced relocations, droughts, water shortages, etc. How bad things get largely depends on how QUICKLY GW changes the climate. GW may not be near as bad — if it simply takes decades to happen. 

2) Even if GW is true and we do nothing, not everything will be bad. Plants thrive on CO2. GW may actually help us to grow MORE food than ever — just not in the places we have been used to. The point is that you have to balance the GOOD with the BAD that will happen. Some of this is simply a question of how much it will cost us to ADAPT to climate changes – not how much the on-going costs will be – which may be minor when all things are considered. 

3) Even if GW is true and it’s true that GW will trigger a climatic tipping point, it is quite possible that we’ve already gone TOO FAR and such a tipping point is now inevitable. In such a case, why waste precious resources trying to stop the inevitable? Better to use our resources to deal with whatever bad events happen due to GW. In other words, the box that shows us taking action and thankful that we did may well be an illusion. 

4) Even if GW pushes us to a tipping point, if that tipping point takes decades to play out, then we still have far more time to deal with those consequences than an economic tipping point that could realistically be tipped in a matter of HOURS — if the global economy is stressed too greatly by the actions taken to prevent GW. Economic collapses can happen overnight. A GW tipping point provides MUCH more time to deal with by comparison. 

5) We’re asked to choose a column, but how do we assess the risk of those two columns? The risk of chaos and war are very real with an economic depression. Moreover, global depression could easily HALT all attempts at stopping GW allowing it happen anyway. Why in the world would we want to pick the column that could cause BOTH column’s disasters to happen? Think about that! 

6) The chart simplifies between “significant” action and “insignificant”. But what if there were actions we could do that would reduce GW significantly AND cost us relatively little? Nuclear energy is a clear alternative that would be cheap enough to employ AND would drastically cut down on our CO2 emissions. Nuclear is a “significant” action that WON’T create a disaster — making a perfect “middle” column. 

7) Why not WAIT to take action? The longer we wait, the more advanced our technologies will get — in many fields. Drought may become meaningless if we can desalinize sea water cheaply enough. So why not wait and apply our best technologies as problems come up? The sooner we take action, the more COSTLY it will be — given our more primitive technologies. In the mean time, create X-prizes to spur real innovation and breakthroughs. 

8 ) Some actions have benefit regardless of GW. Reducing dependence on Middle-East oil could fundamentally alter the global political landscape, changing our future in ways we cannot imagine. There are not just TWO rows (GW true or false). There are also rows of war (or not) over oil. Economic hardship (or not) depending on the price of oil. Some actions are beneficial regardless of GW, and they should be taken REGARDLESS of the column one picks. 

9) What if GW is false and we take very costly action to stop a LIE? We not only risk economic hardships, but we risk losing political and scientific integrity as well. That may sound insignificant, but it could lead people to choose alternatives like fascist governments, or not listening to scientists when they announce the NEXT big scare. The point is that there is HUGE risk either way we go. Don’t pretend there isn’t. 

10) The choice is NOT between taking action or not. The choice is between taking REASONABLE actions or unreasonable ones. Some actions, no matter how much they may help, are simply intolerable (killing half the world’s population for example). Taxing the world into poverty is also a clear non-starter. The solution is to find actions that are reasonable, and START with the actions that are clear “no-brainers”. 

What’s the point? Well, the chart shows us that we ONLY control which column we are in. But it doesn’t really help us decide WHICH column is best to pick. Worse, it pushes for an all or nothing approach, but there is simply NO REASON for an all or nothing approach. Far better to take a REASONABLE approach and find a MIDDLE column. Yes? 

What do you think?

But perhaps we should reconsider.

We all know the chapter on love in the Bible (1 Corinthians 13). It talks about being long-suffering and bearing all things. While such love is certainly good, long-suffering doesn’t sound exactly like the peaceful, restful or restoring type of relationship we seek with close friends. Being loving like this may need to be our behavior towards those who are difficult. But surely we don’t need to be taught how to love our dearest friends. 

Or do we? 

Consider verse seven, where it says that love “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things”. 

The Greek word for “bear” in that verse means to “cover”, that is, to provide a cover of protection from something which threatens (and to endure in so doing). Interestingly, one type of cover that the Greek word can refer to is to “cover with silence”, as in to “hide or conceal the errors and faults of others”. 

In other words, we do not always need to “correct the heresies” or point out the faults of others. One essence of love is to protect the precious from the things that threaten it. And deep friendship is precious. 

But also consider what the Greek word for “believe” means in this verse. It means to think something is true. To be persuaded of it and to place your confidence in it. Love does not dwell on why something may fail. It does not despair of what may go wrong. Love holds out confidence. Even more, this word can mean to entrust something to someone. Confident belief enables entrusting what is precious. Even deep friendship. 

The Greek word for “hope” isn’t the English word that means we hope things will go well. The Greek word means we have full trust in something or someone. We have confidence because our hope (our trust) becomes the foundation we build on, a foundation we firmly rely on. Love like this doesn’t presume disappointment. It searches for what can be trusted in and builds on what it discovers. 

The Greek word for “endure” doesn’t just mean to endure ill treatments. Its primary meaning is to “remain”. That is, to not flee or run away, but to instead tarry with someone. Love sticks fast. It holds on. It stays. 

Love remains because there is something precious to remain for. Love trusts because there is something precious to put our hope in. Love is persuaded to believe because there is something precious that needs to be entrusted. Love protects because there is something very precious that needs covering from our faults that would otherwise ruin it. 

Love does not endure because it must. Love endures because of the joy it brings.

Think about it.

Dean

I appreciate Lee Grady’s heart to rebuke the sin in our midst, to grieve over the harm and confusion brought to the church, and his desire to see leaders truly embrace biblical standards of character and integrity. I hear the cry of his heart. And I think God does too. Or perhaps it would be better to say that Lee has felt the heart of God on the travesty of sin that has abounded in the church for far too long and shows pitifully little indication of ever abating. 

Indeed, where are the ones who mourn what has become the church? Where are the ones who rend their hearts in tears and wailing? Where are the leaders who will confront sin for what it is – a horrendous blemish on what is meant to be a pure and undefiled bride? 

And yet. 

And yet in this particular situation a process of restoration has only just begun. Why rush to make comment right now? Why not wait to see what happens? Why not talk to the people directly involved? 

If we truly ever want to root sin out of the church, is Lee’s approach of a column written early on, with few facts and done from afar the way to do it? 

Thankfully, the leaders involved in Todd Bentley’s situation are NOT treating this issue lightly. Nor are they seeking to simply “nurse his wounds”, “ignore people he wounded”, or extend “greasy grace” to him. Or at least that’s what they say. Given that, it seems reasonable to give this process some time before groaning and venting one’s frustration in a national column. 

But alas there are deeper issues here. 

One is Lee’s discomfort with things that went on at Lakeland even before Todd’s fallout. Thus, when Lee says that “we charismatics still seem to have a habit of elevating gifting above character”, he’s not just referring to Todd’s character in regards to infidelity. He’s also referring to all the other controversial issues that happened at Lakeland and on which he has previously written. 

I agree with Lee that the attitude that roughly says the “end justifies the means” is a “perversion of biblical integrity”. But I do not agree with Lee’s point that since God can anoint “any man or woman with the Holy Spirit’s Power”, that means that God is only really looking for “vessels of honor that can carry that anointing with dignity, humility and purity”. 

Yes of course God is looking for purity and integrity. But he is also looking for who will go for Him. And that requires faith. 

Does that mean that Todd is indispensible? No. But it does mean that he is rare. 

Either he is a talented con-man, deceiver and liar. Or, he is an immature and perhaps tragic figure who has an incredible level of faith and willingness to put his faith on the line in a way that very, very few in the church do. That Lee appears to have been jaded by so many charlatans in the church that he doesn’t perceive the significance of faith, is to me a significant shortcoming on his part. 

Does God prefer to use someone who has abundant flaws but the faith few do? Or does He rather use someone who has impeccable character, and yet is unable to be used in many ways due to limited faith? 

My read of the Bible makes the answer pretty clear – at least to me. I see a God who is thrilled by faith when He sees it. A God who has filled scriptures with heroes of the faith. One who honors them greatly. And at the same time, He is a God who bluntly exposes their sin. 

Are we to tolerate sin? May it never be! 

But maybe. Just maybe. We should be thrilled by what thrills God. At the same time we are grieved by what grieves Him. 

Think about it.