Evangelical Bait and Switch

A friend sent me a document recently entitled An Evangelical Manifesto. It was composed by some well-known Evangelicals leaders like author Os Guinness and Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Seminary.

The manifesto is addressed both to fellow believers and to the wider world. It's purpose is to clarify what it means to be an Evangelical and to clear up misconceptions about the role of Evangelicals in public life.

Early on, the authors of the manifesto outline seven traits that should characterize the Evangelical community. The fifth trait really caught my eye.

The fifth trait is that "... the Evangelical message ... is overwhelmingly positive ..." While acknowledging that Evangelicals must sometimes make strong judgments about things that are false or unjust or evil, the authors believe that "... first and foremost we Evangelicals are for Someone and for something rather than against anyone or anything.

They continue, "The Gospel of Jesus is the Good News of welcome, forgiveness, grace, and liberation from law and legalism. It is a colossal Yes to life and human aspirations and an emphatic No only to what contradicts our true destiny as human beings made in the image of God."

Sign me up! That sounds really good. After all, the authors are trying, in part, to address the public perceptions of Evangelicals and that perception, rightly or wrongly, is that we are grumpy, self-righteous killjoys. Anything that calls Evangelicalism to proclaim a positive message is welcome.

But my warm feelings toward the manifesto did not last. Just three pages later, the authors begin an all out assault on their fellow Evangelicals. In twelve lengthy paragraphs that begin with the phrase, "All too often we have ________ ", they outline a seemingly endless list of moral failures and misguided agendas that have characterized the Evangelical community in the Western world. According to the authors, Evangelicals have:

• Replaced Biblical truths with therapeutic techniques.


• Turned worship into entertainment.


• Substituted growth in human potential for Christian discipleship.


• Measured success by growth in numbers instead of growth in character.


• Practiced a "vapid" (dull, insipid) spirituality.


• Catered to felt needs instead of real needs.


• Preached a feel-good gospel of health and wealth and human potential instead of a gospel of sacrifice and suffering.


• Claimed to govern our lives by Biblical standards but we live lives that are shaped more by our sinful preferences.


• Used worldly techniques and methods to grow our churches.


• Failed to demonstrate the unity of the Body of Christ by ever increasing splits into denominations and factions that end up at war with each other.


• Denied the supernatural in our everyday lives and lived more like secularists and atheists and rarely claim to have encountered or experienced God.


• Attacked the evils and injustices committed by others (like abortion) but condoned our own sins like materialism and consumerism.


• Failed to see how the doctrine of creation requires us to be good stewards of the environment and the earth.


• Valued individualism rather than a sense of community.


• Become anti-intellectual and given the world the impression that there is a conflict between faith and science [this seems to be directed against those Evangelicals who are anti-evolution and/or 6-Day Creationists or Intelligent Design advocates].


• Practiced defacto racism by having churches that are largely segregated.


• Catered to the rich and powerful and failed to take care of the poor and marginalized.


• Been more concerned with being relevant than in proclaiming the truth.

Believe it or not, I've actually left a few items out of the list above just because I could not think of a brief way of expressing some of the complaints!

Now, is it just me, or do these two aspects of the manifesto seem completely at odds with one another?

On the one hand, the authors want people, especially those outside of the Evangelical community, to know that we Evangelicals are a positive bunch who proclaim the good news of grace and forgiveness and liberation. On the other hand, if you are part of our community, they want you to know that you are guilty of a long list of failures and shortcomings and they will be only too happy to point them out to you both loudly and frequently.

It seems like a sort of bait and switch. "Come join us. We believe in grace and forgiveness and the fulfillment of human aspirations", they say. But, "Now that you have joined up, may we speak frankly with you about what a total screw up you are?"

Some might say these two thoughts are NOT incompatible at all. Forgiveness, it can be argued, presupposes recognition of our wrong doing along with confession and repentance.

But the attitude betrayed by the laundry list of sins approach employed by the authors of the manifesto seems so contrary to the Jesus I see in the gospels. It seems unlike the way Jesus deals with the woman at the well and the woman caught in adultery and the man with a legion of demons. A man born blind, a sure sign of some serious sin in Jesus' day, is not castigated but healed.

In fact, the only time Jesus seems to react as harshly to moral failures as the authors of the manifesto do is when he is dealing with people who are like the authors -- with the Pharisees and Sadducees and Scribes who were the authors and professional clergy and seminary presidents of his day. Their pious attitudes are really a cover for self-righteousness. Jesus sees through it and nails them.

And this brings me to the aspect of this whole issue that bugs me. I find it hard to believe that the authors of the manifesto feel that they themselves are guilty of any of the long list of sins which they identify. They are not remorseful over their own sins; they are upset with the sins of others.

C. S. Lewis observed this phenomenon in his day in a slightly different context and wrote about it in an essay entitle The Dangers of National Repentance. He points out that many Christians in the post-WWII era were calling on England to repent of her sins related to the recently concluded war.

The idea of national repentance, Lewis says, seems like an edifying contrast to the national self-righteousness which England is said to have exercised in entering WWII. He notes that young Christians, especially recent college graduates and first year seminary students, were attracted to this idea in large numbers. They were willing to believe that England bore some guilt for the events that led to the war and were ready to admit their share in that guilt.

But Lewis finds it difficult to determine what their share of the guilt might be. Most of the young advocates of national repentance were children when England made decisions that led to the war. What exactly are they repenting of?

Lewis points out that England is not a natural agent but a civil society. To speak of England's actions is to speak of the actions of those who ran the British Government. To repent of England's actions is to repent of the actions of other individuals -- people like a Foreign Secretary or a Cabinet member.

Lewis concludes that "The first and fatal charm of national repentance is, therefore, the encouragement it gives us to turn form the bitter task of repenting our own sins to the congenial one of bewailing -- but, first, of denouncing -- the conduct of others."

If these young advocates of national repentance realized this and applied the law of charity (Jesus admonition about the speck in your neighbor's eye versus the log in your own eye), all would be well. But the young national penitent calls the government not "they" but "we". They will say, "Let us repent of our national sins." but what they really mean is "Let us attribute to our neighbor in the Cabinet, whenever we disagree with him, every abominable motive that Satan can suggest to our fancy."

This escape from personal repentance into the pleasure of condemning others is attractive to all of us. It is doubly attractive, Lewis says, to the young British intellectual of post-WWII Britain.

He points out that a typical working class Englishman over 40 was raised to love his country and repenting of England's sins for such a person would truly by costly and difficult. But the young British intellectual has been raised to distrust his country. All of the arts, literature and politics he has read have encouraged him to be angry and resentful of his own country.

So, when they say that "we British people" should repent, they are not mortifying, but actually indulging, their ruling passion. And they are ignoring the communal sins that are rampant in their own community -- their contempt for the uneducated, their readiness to suspect evil in others, their self-righteousness, their breaches of the Fifth Commandment.

What Lewis points out about the dangers of national repentance applies equally to the corporate repentance that is being urged by the authors of the manifesto. I find it so hard to believe that they see themselves as guilty of this laundry list of sins. As I scan down the list of contributors, they mostly seem to be highly educated elites who have spent their careers writing and speaking about their vision of Evangelicalism -- a vision that sees Evangelicalism as consistently misguided and in need of the reforms that they urge upon us.

And yet, I find myself conflicted. I've read books by a lot of the authors of the manifesto and have found them helpful. Dallas Willard in particular has been very insightful at times. I don't want to castigate them and treat them in the same way that they seem to be treating others.

But I guess I'd like them to read the C. S. Lewis essay on the dangers of national/corporate repentance and see if they think it has any application to themselves. I'd like to urge them to read the New Testament and see if any of their own attitudes are similar the the Pharisees of Jesus day.

And, if the authors of the manifesto truly feel that they themselves have been guilty of the sins they identify, it would be more helpful if they would repent of them personally. It would be especially helpful if they would do this quietly and privately and only let us know about it by starting their own church or community that reflects the attitudes and actions that they feel should characterize a truly Evangelical group. Show us its goodness and holiness and invite us into this positive, affirming, welcoming message of grace and forgiveness. They would then be living up to their own "fifth trait" of Evangelicalism.

For others, I heartily recommend the C. S. Lewis essay discussed above. I tried to find it online so I could give you a link to it. I could not find the text of the essay online but you can find it in the book entitled God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics. Read The Dangers of National Repentance along with the 47 other Lewis essays in that volume. I think your spiritual life will be much more enriched than it ever would be by reading and following the advice of the manifesto.

As always, your comments, especially those in disagreement with my reflections on the manifesto, are welcomed and encouraged.

Greedy Government Interests

It’s an election year and we are being treated to the Democrats solutions to all problems – higher taxes.

Of course, raising taxes is never popular but the Democrats are trotting out their favorite ruse. We need to raise taxes, they claim, but we are only going to raise the taxes on the rich and on greedy corporations.

Let’s look at the idea of collecting more income tax revenue from wealthy individuals. We’ll deal with greedy corporations in a future post.

According to Democrats, rich people do not pay their fair share of the tax burden. The evil George W. Bush cut taxes for his wealthy friends. This, according to their view of the world, has caused a whole host of societal ills like higher budget deficits, fewer jobs, global warming, rising gasoline prices and Miley Cyrus going berserk and exposing her bare back to Vanity Fair photographers.

If we are going to raise taxes on the wealthy to a “fair” level, then it seems to me that we need to answer four questions: (1) What level of income makes one rich? (2) How much of the tax burden do these rich people currently pay? (3) What share of the taxes should the wealthy pay? (4) What system of values or ethics or morality is used to determine the “fair” tax burden to impose on these individuals?

Let’s assume that we define the wealthy as those who are in the top 10% of wage earners in the country. Let’s raise their taxes. These fortunate individuals can afford to pay more. We would only be raising taxes on 1 in every 10 Americans.

Regarding Question No. 1 then, exactly how much money do you have to earn each year to be in the top 10%? What is your guess? Is it $250,000 a year? Or, is it $500,000? Perhaps it takes a cool million to be in the top ten percent. Please stop reading right now and make your guess.

Thinking …

Thinking …

Guessing …

Okay, time’s up. Here is the answer: In 2005 (latest year for which we have data), anyone with a household income in excess $103,912 was in the top 10% of wage earners.

Please understand that this figure is HOUSEHOLD income! The majority of households in this top 10% are two income households. So, a school teacher married to civil engineer probably has income in excess of this level as does a policeman with a significant other who is a mid-level employee at a small business.

Are these people “rich”? If you are a college student, an income slightly over $100k per year probably sounds like a boat load of money. But if you are a married couple with two kids, you probably wonder how you’ll make ends meet on this amount. You probably do not think of yourself as rich and yet suddenly you find yourself being demonized as a rich American who is not paying enough in taxes.

Let’s take a look at Question No. 2. How much of the current income tax burden is paid by this “wealthy” minority?

In 2005, the IRS collected $935 billion in personal income taxes and the top 10% of household wage earners paid $657 billion of this amount. That’s right. The top ten percent paid 70.3% of all the personal income taxes collected by the federal government!

Just for the record, let’s look at some different income brackets and the amount of income tax paid by these brackets:

The top 1% ($365k or more household income) pay 39.4% of all income taxes
The top 5% ($145k or more household income) pay 59.7% of all income taxes
The top 10% ($104 or more household income) pay 70.3% of all income taxes
The top 25% ($62k or more household income) pay 86.0% of all income taxes

(Note: In case you are wondering, you are in the bottom 50% of wage earners if your household income is less that $31,000 per year. This group paid only 3.1% of all the personal incomes taxes collected in 2005.)

In essence, the United States federal government operates on the 80/20 rule. You’re familiar with the 80/20 rule, aren’t you? In churches, 80% of the giving is done by 20% of the people. In a business, 80% of the sales are made by 20% of the sales force.

It looks like the United States is pretty much run on the same principle. About 20% of the households in the country are paying 80% of the personal income taxes. Apparently, the left in this country does not think that this is enough.

This leads us directly to Questions No 3 and 4. If these rich American households are not paying enough, how much should they be paying? And what is the basis for deciding the “fair” amount? I’ve never heard a Democrat answer these questions.

The current Democrat candidates for president are quite vague on all these questions. Their web sites speak in generalities. Both candidates are in favor of lower taxes for low and middle income Americans and both agree that the wealthiest Americans need to pay more. Predictably, they do not define these income categories. They are intentionally vague.

There are so many more aspects of this issue to be explored but you don’t have unlimited reading time and I don’t have unlimited writing time. So let’s just look at one more facet to the tax question (but someone remind me someday to explain why Warren Buffet’s claim that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does is totally misleading and brazenly disingenuous).

More important than the question of how the tax burden is distributed, is the larger question of the overall tax burden itself and the danger imposed on society by the government that collects it.

Total tax revenue collected in 2005 by federal, state and local governments was $3.25 trillion. The GDP was only $12.4 trillion in 2005 and this means the tax burden was around 26% of GDP. This is alarming.

Even more alarming is the comparison of taxes paid by individuals verses the income available for the payment of those taxes. From the $3.25 trillion in taxes collected in 2005, subtract about $0.25 trillion that was collected from corporations. A small portion of the remaining $3.0 trillion was property tax paid by corporations. I can’t tell you the exact amount, but the total property tax burden nationwide in 2005 for all properties was only $0.3 trillion – let’s guess that half of this amount was derived from residential property owned by individuals. This means that $2.85 trillion in taxes were paid by individuals in 2005.

Total personal income in 2005 was only $7.5 trillion. A whopping 38% of every dollar earned by individuals in this country goes to pay some kind of tax.

And – governments want more! This is the truly instructive and frightening reality in the whole tax debate.

Think about this with me for a minute. Can you think of any individual or family or business or church or non-profit organization or school that does not need more money? All of these entities have things that they are not doing because of their limited supply of money. They cannot print money and they cannot demand that their employers and patrons pay them more. As a result, they budget and prioritize.

But the government is unique. It alone can legally take money by force. And one of its tactics for doing so is to make you afraid of all the other entities mentioned above who cannot force you to give them money.

Politicians, especially those on the left side of the political spectrum, frequently demonize the rich. They have spoken so frequently about “greedy corporate interests” that the phrase now seems redundant to many people. But Oprah and Exxon cannot take away my money at the point of a gun the way the government can.

Do not let populist politicians entice you with their invitations to envy and fear and hatred. Rather, be on guard against greedy government interests run by manipulative politicians that suck up $4 out of every $10 earned by hard working Americans and then tell you that they need more money so that they can solve every problem – providing you with a utopian world of universal health care, cheap gas and a fully clothed Miley Cyrus.

Nuremberg-Style Tribunals for Global Warming Deniers

In a recent post, I speculated that the global warming advocates would not mind me calling them "kool-aid drinkers" since they use the emotionally charged term of "global warming deniers" to castigate their opponents.

Well it turns out that some of the global warming alarmists are a lot more serious about their association of global warming denial with the Holocaust than I am in my association of global warming advocacy with the kool-aid drinking fanaticism of a Jim Jones follower.

Margo Kingston writes, "Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence -- it is a crime against humanity of sorts."

Mark Lynas is more adamant when he writes, "I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those [climate change deniers] who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead. I put this in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial ..."

David Roberts is pretty worked up about this too when he says, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards [the climate change deniers] -- some sort of climate Nuremberg."

Whoa! These people are more fanatical than I thought. Let's back away from the gallows in the Nuremberg courtyard for a moment and think about this. When we do, I think we'll find their comments illogical, ironic and instructive.

First of all, has anyone noticed that the comparison of global warming denial with Holocaust denial is logically flawed? As I recall, we did NOT have Nuremberg trials for Holocaust deniers -- we had them for Holocaust perpetrators! It was Nazis, not Holocaust deniers, who killed six million Jews. To be accurate, shouldn't Lynas say that he puts climate change denial in the same moral category as the Holocaust itself instead of in the same moral category as Holocaust denial?

Perhaps I am taking him and his friends too literally. In their debauch of emotions, the global warming crowd has probably just gotten a little carried away with their rhetoric. After all, I do understand that they actually believe that global warming denial is going to lead to millions of deaths.

But even at this level, I'm a little perplexed by their analogy. Do they really think that global warming deniers intend to kill millions of people in the same way that Nazis intended to kill their victims? For the comparison to have any logical validity, they would have to believe this.

In addition to this logical fallacy, I find the comments of Margo, Mark and David to be more than a tad ironic. If the subject of witch burning came up, I'm sure all three of them would condemn religious institutions for this barbaric practice.

They may have forgotten that many "witches" were executed for their alleged role in bringing about climate change. Europe and North America suffered through a period known as "The Little Ice Age" from 1650 to 1850 and the resulting crop failures and increased deaths from starvation and cold were blamed on witches in many cases.

Now, however, the shoe is on the other foot (or the torch is in the other hand). The climate change crime du jour is not murderous cold brought on by humans cooperating with evil spiritual forces but life-destroying heat brought about by humans cooperating with evil business interests. The witch-hunting is carried out, not by religious zealots, but by scientific fanatics. The Global Warming Inquisition must hunt down those who deviate from orthodoxy and Margo, Mark and David seem quite eager to serve as Torquemada.

I'm not suggesting that the belief that certain immoral women were cooperating with demonic powers to cool the planet is on the same factual level as the belief that carbon dioxide is acting to warm it. However, neither is on the same factual level as the belief that people will die if you herd them into an unventilated room and pump it full of cyanide gas. Only the latter act has enough certainty between cause and effect to raise it to the level of a crime against humanity that demands a Nuremberg-style tribunal.

The sentiments of Margo, Mark and David are not only illogical and ironic; they are also instructive. They reinforce a point I made in my previous post where I asserted that intolerance and unquestioning faith are not limited to religious viewpoints but that these traits are common failings that infect all human endeavors -- even science.

So I'm rethinking my global warming "kool-aid drinker" label. When I first used it, I thought it was hyperbole. Now, however, I'm thinking it is a pretty accurate description of the fanaticism of some of the true believers in the global warming theory.

Global Warming and the Gay, Vegetarian College Professor from Denmark

Global warming “denier” – this is the emotionally laden term that the global warming kool-aid drinkers have decided to use in their propaganda war against dissenters from global warming orthodoxy (I’m sure they will not mind me calling them “kool-aid drinkers” since they have chosen to engage in inflammatory rhetoric themselves in characterizing their opponents).

The stereotypical global warming denier might be a K Street lobbyist who knows darn well that the planet is suffering from a man-induced warming crisis but who is not going to let a little thing like the facts get in the way of his lucrative contracts to represent big oil and other powerful and corrupt business interests.

Bjørn Lomborg does not fit that stereotype. He is Danish. He has a PhD in Political Science from the University of Copenhagen. He is a college professor. He is openly gay. He’s a vegetarian. I wouldn’t be surprised if all the light fixtures in his house were filled with those funny, curly-shaped bulbs that hum and give off a dim, yellowish light.

As an urbane, educated, European working in academia and unafraid to adopt a non-traditional lifestyle, you would think that Lomborg is the kind of person who would be on board with the global warming agenda.

He is not.

He has had the temerity to question environmental alarmism in general and global warming orthodoxy in particular and this has landed him in a big vat of hot water.

Bjørn Lomborg’s story is both interesting and instructive.

After earning his PhD in 1994, Lomborg went to work teaching statistics in the Political Science Department of the University of Aarhus in Denmark. He was aware of what he now calls “The Litany” – that long list of looming environmental disasters that gives us an all pervasive sense that the planet is in bad shape. Lomborg writes:

“We are all familiar with the Litany: the environment is in poor shape here on Earth. Our resources are running out. The population is ever growing, leaving less and less to eat. The air and water are becoming ever more polluted. The planet’s species are becoming extinct … The forests are disappearing, fish stocks are collapsing and coral reefs are dying. We are defiling our Earth, the fertile topsoil is disappearing, we are paving over nature, destroying the wilderness, decimating the biosphere, and will end up killing ourselves in the process. The world’s ecosystem is breaking down …”

In short, he was familiar with the secular environmentalist version of Armageddon – all of the death and destruction but lacking the last minute happy ending of a rescue from the supernatural world.

So Dr Lomborg got his students working on a project to document the extent of these impending environmental catastrophes. He wanted to use statistics to back up the anecdotal stories that were used to illustrate the dire conditions that mankind was creating on our precious planet. And this is where his problems began.

It turned out that the statistical look at these issues did not back up the gloomy outlook of the Litany. Whenever he consulted the statistics, Lomborg discovered that things were getting better instead of worse. This led him to write a book entitled The Skeptical Environmentalist – Measuring the Real State of the World.

The book is a tome. If any mafia hit men are reading this and have run out of cement blocks to weigh down their victims in a nearby river, they can stop by the local Borders and pick up this book as a substitute. It is over 500 pages of very small type although, in fairness, I should note that this includes the 2,930 footnotes and a bibliography that runs to 71 pages.

What was the response to the book? It didn’t take long for the feces to hit the rotating air circulation device.

Several environmental scientists filed a complaint with the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD). This Orwellian sounding organization formally investigated charges that Lomborg deliberately used flawed data, cherry picked his studies and came to completely false conclusions.

After it investigations, the DCSC concurred with the complaints and noted that Lomborg’s book was “deemed to fall within the category of scientific dishonesty” and noted that it was “clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.”

Lomborg fought back. He appealed the decision to the MSTI – the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation – an agency with oversight over the DCSD.

The MSTI reversed the decision of the DCSD. It did so partly on the narrow procedural grounds that the DCSD had not shown that The Skeptical Environmentalist was a scientific work that fell within the DCSD’s regulatory authority. However, most of the MSTI’s decision was based on substance. It noted that the DCSC’s ruling “was completely void of argumentation” as to why Lomborg’s book was scientifically deficient.

As a result of this incident, a group of about 300 Danish scientists signed a petition requesting that the DCSD be disbanded. According to this group, the obviously biased treatment of Lomborg was evidence that the DCSD served no useful function. But a competing group of anti-Lomborg activists got almost 600 Danish scientists to sign a petition in support of the DCSD and its action in the Lomborg case.

Scientific American joined the fray with a lengthy and scathing review of The Skeptical Environmentalist. Lomborg published a rejoinder. So as to not misrepresent the journal’s position, he quoted each of their allegations at length and then explained why each criticism was unfounded or misguided.

The response? Initially, Scientific American threatened Lomborg with a lawsuit for copyright infringement if he did not retract his paper – they were upset because he quoted the Scientific American article without permission! Ah – how nice to see an organization which is ostensibly dedicated to the free, open and dispassionate pursuit of scientific inquiry respond with such substance and grace.

I asserted earlier that Lomborg’s story is instructive and this is where it begins to be so.

We have all been told the story of poor Galileo. The scientific community has told the story (actually, they have largely mis-told the story) with great relish. This, they say, show what happens when sincere and honest truth-seeking scientists run afoul of people who let faith rather than reason dictate their view of the world.

But the Lomborg incident gives us a different and a better perspective. The Galileo case is not one of science against religion or faith against reason. It shows us what happens frequently when someone challenges the cherished beliefs of those in authority in any community be it religious, philosophical, scientific, political, cultural or national.

In this case, we have a reigning scientific paradigm about the environment that is being challenged and the ruling authorities in that scientific community do not like it one bit. The Lomborg story shows us that bias and an unreasonably strong commitment to certain points of view and the desire to punish those who deviate from orthodoxy are not particularly religious phenomena but are common human failings that infect all types of human endeavors.

And there is another and even more important lesson to be learned from the Lomborg incident.

Strictly speaking, Lomborg is not a global warming “denier”. He believes that global warming is occurring and that it is caused, at least in part, by the activities of man. However, he believes that the results of global warming will not be catastrophic, that some of the effects will be positive and that most of the proposed cures will be worse than the disease.

Lomborg has started a project called The Copenhagen Consensus. He brought economists together in 2004 to perform a cost/benefit analysis on a variety of proposals to mitigate human suffering and improve the environment. An expanded group met again in 2006 and it will meet yet again in 2008. Their mission is to determine which projects can do the most good for the greatest number of people at a given cost. Global warming projects tend to rate very poorly in this kind of evaluation – requiring a lot of dollars for marginal benefits.

Lomborg points out that the only resource that is always in short supply is money and that we need to focus on spending money wisely. If we choose our projects poorly, we end up doing less good than we could otherwise have achieved and we may even make matters worse.

Lomborg argues that we live in a world that is full of “inconvenient truths”. Over 15 million people die each year from preventable diseases like malaria and cholera and HIV. Half of the people in the world are malnourished. A billion people do not have clean drinking water and almost as many lack basic education. The UN, according to Lomborg, claims that $75 billion a year over the next century would largely solve these problems.

In contrast, he claims that the Kyoto Protocol will cost $150 billion annually if fully implemented and it will only delay, not eliminate, our warming trend. According to Lomborg, the temperature we will reach in the year 2100 without any action on climate change is the same temperature we will reach in the year 2106 with a fully implemented Kyoto agreement! Lomborg’s rhetoric is forceful:

“… Gore argues that future generations will chastise us for not having committed ourselves to the Kyoto Protocol. More likely, they will wonder why, in a world overflowing with ‘inconvenient truths’, Gore focused on the one where we could achieve the least good for the highest cost.”

Again, this is one of those aspects of his story that makes it even more instructive. Lomborg agrees that global warming is occurring. He is only dissenting from the public policy prescriptions that grow out of the global warming phenomenon and this causes the wrath of the kool-aid drinkers to descend on him.

This suggests strongly to me that it is the public policy prescriptions that are more important to the global warming crowd than the issue of global warming itself. Global warming gives them an excuse to pursue public policies like higher taxes and more government regulation – policies that they have supported long before global warming was on anyone’s radar screen. In fact, I’m pretty sure that Al Gore’s political leanings are no different in 2006 than they were in 1976 when one of the nation’s popular news magazines warned us the earth was cooling and that we were threatened with a new ice age.

In other words, a warming world is no good to global warming advocates if it does not allow them to seize the kind of control and power that they desire. Why else would they react with such vitriol and vehemence against such a non-stereotypical global warming skeptic as Lomborg?

All of this becomes terribly important since we have an upcoming election. Global warming will be one issue. Many voters, especially younger ones, are increasingly concerned about social justice and want the United States to do more in this area. Their hearts are in the right place and I'm sure that their minds are capable of evaluating complex issues. Regretably, few have the time or take the time to become informed? On this particular issue, who has the time to read a 500-page book or to digest the recommendations of The Copenhagen Consensus?

As a result, decisions get made on the superficial coverage that floats around in the main-stream media and this may end up being disastrous. To slightly modify a well-known and oft quoted phrase: All that is needed for evil to triumph is for well-intentioned people to make misinformed decisions. Good intentions will not prevent the bad consequences that arise from poor choices.

And, as I said, I fear that decisions on this issue will get made based on the lopsided coverage of the issue by the main-stream media. They report only the message of the global warming advocates and this message is simple: Sit down. Shut up. The debate is over. Anyone who disagrees is stupid or dishonest or co-opted by a special interest.

Kool-aid, anyone?



Suggested Reading:

At a minimum, go here for a brief article by Lomborg that summarizes his critic of global warming orthodoxy. It is very short and succinct.

The Skeptical Environmentalist – Measuring the Real State of the World. Most people will not have time to read this lengthy book but go to your library or book store and read Chapter 1. That chapter alone will give you a different look at the environment than you are getting through popular media sources.

Lomborg’s newest book is entitled Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming. I haven’t had a chance to read it yet but I’m looking forward to it.

Worried to Death about Debt

George Barna, the pollster who specializes in comparing the attitudes of evangelical Christians in the U. S. to those of Americans in general, has released some new research.

What does it tell us? It tells us that Americans, both believers and unbelievers, are worried sick about debt.

The Barna survey asked respondents to rate the seriousness of ten problems facing the nation. Personal indebtedness was tied for first with 78% of all those surveyed ranking it as a “major problem”. Evangelical Christians share this perception with 79% of them ranking personal indebtedness as a major problem for the country.

No wonder. The fear-mongering media regularly run stories about the “debt crisis”. Consumer debt of all kinds is at an all time high, we are told. Americans owe almost a trillion dollars on their credit cards alone. And the federal government has put over $9 trillion on its VISA card! (Wouldn’t you like to have those frequent flyer miles?)

But stop and think about this for a minute. Debt, in and of itself, is a meaningless number.

Trying to ascertain the financial health of a family or company or nation by knowing its debt alone is like trying to tell if a man is obese by knowing only his weight.

My friend John is 187 pounds. Is he overweight? You don’t know. You don’t have enough information to make a judgment on this matter. You need to know his height.

Well set your mind at ease about John. At just over 6 feet tall, he is quite slim and trim and fit. However, if he was only 4’ 7”, you might think it was time to get a court order to put him on Weight Watchers (although even then there might be other factors such as genetics or medical history that would need to be known before labeling John as a lazy slob).

Just as you can’t assess physical health based on weight alone, you can’t assess financial health by looking at debt alone. You need to know something about the income or assets that offset that debt. If you stop and think about it for a moment, you know this intuitively.

Would you rather be Jane who owes $300,000 on her house or Mary who owes $100,000 on her house? If Jane’s house is worth $700,000 and Mary’s house is worth $80,000, you’d rather be Jane even though she has three times as much debt as Mary.

Would you rather be David with monthly debt payments of $2,500 or Sam with monthly payments of only $500? If David makes $15,000 per month while Sam only makes $1,000 per month, you’d rather be David even though his debt payments are five times higher than Sam’s.

So we need some information on the assets and income of Americans if we want to evaluate the seriousness of the debt that Americans owe. What do we know about this topic?

One resource we can turn to is the Federal Reserve. Those nice people keep track of the net worth of the American people. Net worth is simply the difference between the value of everything you own after subtracting the value of everything you owe. In the example above and based on her home alone, Mary has a net worth of $400,000 (the difference between her home’s $700,000 value and the $300,000 she owes on it). Jane’s net worth is -$20,000.

Here are the data on the net worth of Americans:


The net worth of Americans is at an all time high! Net worth went up by almost $20 trillion just since 2002.

And here is an even better way of looking at the same data. The graph below (also from Federal Reserve data) shows trends in the net worth of households in real (inflation adjusted) dollars:

Of course, we have a lot more households in the country in 2007 compared to 1947 and a dollar does not buy as much in 2007 as it did in 1947. Both of these factors have been accounted for in the chart above. In other words, households could actually purchase over five times as much "stuff" with their household wealth in 2007 as they could in 1947.

How can this be? We have a housing bubble. Home prices are going down. But keep in mind that the estimated value of all residential real estate in the U. S. is about $20 trillion (so I've been told but I need to verify this and find a source for it). The national median home value declined 1.4% in 2007 compared to 2006 and this would only lower net worth by about $0.3 trillion if everything else stayed the same.

Of course, everything else does not stay the same. Even though 2007 showed a slight decline in home values, the value of stock market investments rose in 2007 and this more than offset the small loss in home values.

In fact, here are data from the Investment Company Institute on retirement savings in the United States:

As you can see, the value of retirement accounts went up by $0.9 trillion in 2007 and this more than offset the loss in home values.

So Americans have plenty of assets to cover their indebtedness.

But what about income? Are Americans making enough money to pay their debts each month? Here are some data (again from the Federal Reserve) on debt service as a percentage of income over the last few years:


People are spending about the same percentage of their income on debt service in 2004 as they were in 1998. (By the way, this study is being updated by the Federal Reserve thru the year 2007 and it will show trends from 1989 to 2007 but the study will not be available until Feb. 2009).


Bottom line: Any way you look at this, personal debt does not seem to be a significant problem.

But what about that national debt? It is $9 trillion! Certainly, this is not good.

The best way to evaluate the federal debt is to compare it to the Gross National Product (GNP) which, roughly speaking, is a measure of the value of all the goods and services produced by the U. S. Here are those data:


As you can see, we've been in serious trouble before with the national debt. It was more than 120% of the GNP right after World War II. The percentage declined pretty steadily until the 1980s. It then increased until about 1995 and it has bumped around in the 58% to 66% range since then.

So the national debt does not look like an overwhelming problem from an historical perspective. I'm not suggesting that we should not be addressing this issue. We need to get that trend line going down again. I'm just pointing out that current debt levels do not represent a crisis in terms of the amount of the debt.
.
[By the way, I hear a lot about the issue of who holds the national debt -- that so much of our debt is being financed by China and that this could allow them to crater our economy. This is a separate issue from the amount of debt and I know nothing about it. I'll just point out that the fear over the China/debt issue is something I hear about repeatedly in the main stream media and, since those rascals are so often biased and slanted and wrong in their reporting of other matters, I would not be surprised to find that they have overblown the China issue also.]
.
So stop worrying about debt. The stories you hear about this issue in the main stream media are sloppy journalism at best and largely propaganda.
.
Okay. I feel better now. I've just solved a problem that 78% of the American people rate as a major concern. If only I could get the word out to all of them!
.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.

Sub-Prime Loans and Sub-Prime Journalism

I was driving along in my SUV the other day, happily emitting carbon (from the vehicle, that is) and doing my small part to warm the planet, when I heard yet another report on the radio about the sub-prime mortgage "meltdown".

"Meltdown" is the descriptor I hear most commonly associated with the sub-prime mortgage issue. It's a highly charged word, isn't it? It conjures up images of the catastrophic failure of a nuclear power plant or the complete mental and emotional collapse of a person -- think Britney Spears getting her head shaved and going commando to LA night clubs.

"Crisis" and "mess" are the other favorite words used by the media when reporting on sub-prime mortgages. Again, these are negative, anxiety-producing words.

If you are the typical, hard-working American, you are probably going about your busy life and you know little or nothing about sup-prime mortgages. But, from the evocative words used in the popular press to describe this financial phenomenon, you'd probably conclude that:

1. Sub-prime mortgages are the biggest threat to the American economic system since the stock market crash of 1929 and


2. Sub-prime lenders must be a scurrilous group of scoundrels who are just slightly less evil than Attila the Hun, Vlad the Impaler and George W. Bush.

I'm always suspicious when issues get reported in emotionally charged words. So I went looking for some facts. What is the magnitude of the sub-prime lending issue?

As an aside, I should note that "sub-prime" loans are loans that are made to borrowers who are worse credit risks than "prime" borrowers. I need to clarify this because of a conversation I had recently on this issue with some extended family members. After we had talked for a while, I realized that they believed that "sub-prime" loans were loans that were made to people with A+ credit.

To them, a sub-prime loan denoted a loan that had an interest rate that was below the prime rate! Obviously, only the very best borrowers get rates that are below the prime rate. Thus, if we are having a sub-prime mortgage meltdown, then we are in very deep trouble indeed since even super well-qualified buyers are not able to keep up with their home loan payments!

But "sub-prime" does not refer to the interest rate -- it refers to the quality of the borrower. Sub-prime loans are made to sub-prime borrowers who have had some credit problems in their recent past. This is why sub-prime loans are riskier loans.

At any rate, like I said, I went looking for some facts on this matter. I spent a couple hours curled up with Google but couldn't turn up any quantitative data. I found a Mortgage Bankers' Association (MBA) report that had the info I wanted but it cost $60 and it would have required a lot of number crunching to get the stats I wanted.

Then, a couple days later, I stumbled onto the gold mine I had been seeking. I found it here at the blog of Mark J. Perry, a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan. It turns out that he had purchased the MBA report and had done the number-crunching for me. The following chart gives the pertinent data.

Stunning! More than 4 out of 10 homeowners are prime borrowers who have fixed rate loans on their properties.

And, what is the 2nd most common mortgage for homeowners? Drum roll please ... it is NO MORTGAGE! That's right. Almost 35% of homeowners have no loan on their properties. They own their properties free and clear!

And what about the dreaded sub-prime loans? Only 8.5% of homeowners have these types of mortgages.

Which leads to an obvious question: How can this relatively small precentage be creating a massive crisis? Are these mortgages responsible for all the foreclosures?

Sub-prime loans did account for more than half of all foreclosures in a recent reporting period. However, the overall oreclosure rate is within historic norms at the moment. Of course, the actual number of foreclosures is at an all-time high. This is because the population of the nation is at an all-time high and because the rate of home ownership is at an all-time high. However, to get some feel for the magnitude of the problem, we have to look at the "rate" of foreclosure.

The current rate of foreclosure is about the same as it was during housing downturns that peaked in 1966, 1974 and 1989. I wish the rate was lower and we need to be appropriately concerned but, by any measure, it has not approached seismic or cataclysmic proportions.

Furthermore, many reports are suggesting that the reasons for foreclosure remain tied to personal factors such as job loss, illness, divorce or death and not strictly because of the type of loan selected.

And here is one more issue I'd like you to think about -- have you ever heard a single story about the benefits of sub-prime loans? I haven't.

The main stream media love the anecdotal story. They love to find someone who has lost her house and show you how this fine person was the victims of some predatory lender.

And, of course, those stories are out there. Some people have gotten very poor advice and have been tricked into taking on inappropriate loans. But this is true of everything in life. People have been talked into buying crappy cars or expensive health club memberships that go unused after the first twenty days of the new year. There are bad actors and sad stories in every industry.

The question is not whether some people have been harmed; the more appropriate question is whether sub-prime lending has been generally helpful or harmful. In this regard, we know that home ownership is the key component to wealth-building in the US. Just look at the stats above which show that 35% of homeowners own their houses free and clear.

And, more generous lending guidelines allowed more people to own a home. Lending guidelines began to loosen in the mid-1990s and sub-prime lending really got going in 2001 and 2002. Partly as a result of this change, home ownership rose from just over 65% of Americans owning their own homes in 1996 to just under 69% ownership in 2006.

More aggressive lending allowed almost 10 million more people to participate in home ownership. And 1996 to 2006 was a very good time to own real estate in most parts of the country. Home values went up substantially during that period.

So why don't we see any anecdotal stories about the people who have benefited from sub-prime lending?

I recently talked with a young couple in Arizona. Right out of school and with no real credit history and no down payment money, they were able to buy a house for $190,000. Two years later, it was worth $340,000. It has now dropped backed to about $275,000 but they are still better off financially than they would have been without the house.

In the early 1990s, this story would not have been possible. This young couple would have been frozen out of the market and would have lost out on the possibility of wealth building at a young age.

In reality, my anecdotal Arizona couple is probably more representative of what sub-prime mortgage lending has produced than the stories of tragic loss I typically see and hear in the media. But we don't hear the positive stories.

With foreclosure rates at about 1% per year right now, we can expect about 100,000 of the ten million newly empowered home owners to go through this traumatic experience in the coming year. Our hearts should go out to them. But 9.9 million people will remain in homes they would not otherwise have owned and thus have a chance to build wealth they would not otherwise have realized.

I know some of these people myself. I’ve had two or three sub-prime borrowers that I’ve helped with real estate purchases and financing over the last couple years. They are all wonderful people and are enjoying the long-term advantages of home ownership. Sub-prime lending is not an abstract issue for me – it has a personal face.

Why do the main stream media ignore the positive aspects of sub-prime lending? There are many reasons: a preference for bad news, political bias, etc. I won't make the case for all these factors right now.

Rather, I'd just like to point out how the media's reporting on this issue is quite ironic. I've heard main stream media icons like Rather and Brokaw and Evan Thomas (Newsweek) bemoan the rise of new media like talk radio and the Internet and blogging. There are no editors or fact checkers, they allege. The new media over-simplify issues and don't give "texture" and "context". The new media are not "neutral" and "objective" like the main stream press.

These main stream media moguls are just blind to their own prejudices. They are the only ones who still believe this myth of main stream media objectivity. And their reporting on the sub-prime lending issues is a prime example of how they fail to give nuanced texture and context.

So stop listening to these dinosaurs. When ever they report on issues I know something about, they almost always have it wrong. Why waste your time paying attention to unreliable sources?

And add Mark J. Perry's blog to your favorites and read it often. It is a wealth of great info on the economy and gives a perspective you won't get from network TV or radio news.

I'm concerned about sub-prime lending and we need some appropriate, measured action on this issue. But I'm a lot more concerned about the sub-prime journalism of the main stream media. Their simplistic, biased and alarmist reporting is a much greater danger to this country.

________________

Note: You may know that I'm a real estate agent and a mortgage broker. Thus, this whole analysis could appear self-serving or self-justifying. My profession, however, has nothing to do with this issue. I'm continually noticing how the majority of the press misses the point on economic issues and there will be many more blog postings over the next few months on this issue that have nothing to do with real estate.

As always, feel free to give your honest reactions. And feel free to dissent. I love affirmation but dissenting views are always helpful.

Chuck Colson: Southeastern US drought is God's judgment on the American Church

In C. S Lewis’ allegorical tale entitled The Pilgrim’s Regress, John (the Pilgrim) gets a mixed message from the Steward (a priest) about the Landlord (God) and his attitude towards his tenants (people). The Steward wanted John to know that “… the Landlord was quite extraordinarily kind and good to his tenants, and would certainly torture most of them to death the moment he had the slightest pretext.”

What Christian has not felt this tension in reading the Bible? Is God fundamentally kind, gracious and compassionate or angry, judgmental and demanding?

Charles Colson has now weighed in on this centuries long debate on the nature of God’s dealings with mankind and it seems that God is pretty angry with the American church at the moment.

Colson has become convinced that the drought in the southeast part of the United States is the judgment of God on the church in America. To make sure that we understand that His displeasure is with believers and not with secular America, God has sent this drought to the most overtly religious section of the nation – the Bible Belt.

What is God saying in this drought? According to Colson, God is upset with us (his followers) because “… we have been disregarding His Word” and because “… we have been going to church to make ourselves feel good and have our ears tickled …” and also because we have allowed therapy to replace truth.

Colson believes that God is “… telling his people to repent, to get serious about what we believe, to hunger for the Word of God, to seek holy living, and to ask God’s forgiveness.”

We need repentance and forgiveness, in part, “… for looking for a political savior … for blaming the nation’s moral collapse on the gay-rights movement, or on the media, or on the politicians, …” Instead, we should “… look right at the people whom God expects to know better … you and I.”

His connection of the drought with God’s judgment grew out of a devotional Colson had with his wife over breakfast on December 9, 2007. After reading the story of Elisha providing food for the prophets of God in the midst of a famine (2 Kings 4), the devotional directed them to read Leviticus 26:3-5 which says “If you follow my decrees …, I will send you rain in its season ...”

A newspaper sat on the kitchen table that morning and a front-page article warned about new adverse consequences from the drought. Colson reports that he had been wondering for many months if the drought might be a judgment from God and the juxtaposition of the newspaper article with the reading of the passage in Leviticus convinced him that God wanted him to connect the two. He tells us that he said, “Okay, Lord, I get it.” What he “got” was that God is not sending rain because the American church is not obeying his decrees.

My initial reaction to all of this was to remember the famous words of one well-known church leader: “Well isn’t that special?”*

And, after further reflection, I have to confess that, unlike Colson, I don’t “get it.”

Let’s stipulate, for the sake of discussion, that Scripture seems to portray God as sometimes sending flood or drought or other phenomena as judgments. At the same time, the Bible also makes it clear that not all suffering and calamity are due to sin.

The story of the man born blind (see John 9) immediately comes to mind. The disciples apparently shared Colson’s tendency to connect suffering with moral failure. When they encountered a man who had been blind since birth, they asked Jesus whether his blindness was due to his own sin or the sin of his parents. They knew somebody had screwed up and they just want to know who it was!

Jesus did not accept their false dilemma. The correct answer to their multiple choice question turned out to be neither (a) or (b) but rather an option they did not consider – namely, none of the above. “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; …”, Jesus declared. In this story, Jesus clearly teaches that calamity is not always linked to wrongdoing by the individuals involved in the calamity.

Job is another example where suffering was not related to wrongdoing. He suffered as a righteous man and, interestingly, it was his misguided friends who chalked up Job’s suffering to some wrongdoing on his part. The friends were mistaken.

Furthermore, keep in mind that Satan was the immediate cause of Job’s misery and we see this same connection between misery and Satan being taught by Jesus. He cured a woman of a sickness that had kept her bent over for eighteen long years (Luke 13) and he told us that the Satan was the cause of that affliction.

In addition, Jesus discourages the natural human tendency to tie calamity to specific human sinfulness in a fascinating story told in Luke 13. In that story, some people told Jesus about the fate of certain Galileans. They were killed by Pilate and their blood was mingled with pagan sacrifices.

Jesus responds, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? I tell you, no ... Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? I tell you, no, …"

I believe that Jesus is teaching many truths in this encounter but I’ve quoted the passage selectively to bring out the one truth that applies to our current discussion. If I had to paraphrase Jesus’ message here, it would go like this: “Look, if you want to find a reason for calamity and disaster in the actions of the people who suffer, you can always find it. Everyone is flawed and imperfect. There are no perfect people or institutions. When tragedy strikes, you can always relate it to some moral failure in the party affected by the tragedy.”

Thus, even this short examination shows that we have a number of concepts taught in Scripture: (1) Calamity is sometimes God’s judgment against wrongdoing. (2) Calamity sometimes has nothing to do with wrongdoing. (3) Calamity is sometimes the result of the activity of Satan rather than God’s activity. (4) Jesus seems to discourage us from asking the question of the cause of particular calamities.

Why then does Colson opt for the first principle in regards to the drought while ignoring other possibilities?

It is important to note that Colson stops just short of claiming that God has given him an authoritative message to give to the American church. While Colson himself is pretty certain that the drought is related to the church’s waywardness, he acknowledges that his reading of Leviticus immediately before seeing the newspaper article on the drought could have been coincidence.

Thus, Colson is not claiming to be an Old Testament style prophet. Old Testament prophets gave the definitive and authoritative Word of God on events. The Israelites could be sure that their defeat in a battle or a particular famine was a result of their idolatry or unfaithfulness or some other shortcomings. Colson can provide no such assurance.

Which brings me back to my question: Why does Colson take one principle taught in the Bible and apply it to the drought while ignoring other possibilities?

For the life of me, I can’t tell you why. I can only tell you that his analysis seems to be an example of the kind of overly-simplistic theological reflection that is endemic in the evangelical community. People have a tendency to grab onto one idea and run with it without considering other passages that shed additional light on the topic in question. We need more holistic synthesis of the Bible’s message and less of the “Bible roulette” that Colson exemplifies in his analysis.

Apart from these theological issues, I have a number of practical difficulties.

First of all, I’m very confused by Colson’s claim that “we” need to repent of looking for a “political savior”. Who has urged more political involvement than Colson? He lobbies for prison reform. He seeks legislation and diplomatic initiatives to stop the persecution of Christians in Africa and China and throughout the world. He wants the government to ban embryonic stem cell research. And I could expand the list to include many other issues where he urges incorporation of Christian values into the political life of the country.

Colson has champion William Wilberforce as an example for all believers to follow. And Wilberforce’s efforts to end slavery were largely political. If Colson believes we have been too focused on a “political savior”, then this is truly a stunning reversal of much of his life and ministry.

If Colson wants to say that “he” needs to repent of this, I’d understand him. I’d have no problem with Colson’s commentary if every “we” was changed to “I”. If Christians have been too focused on political involvement in the cause of Christ, then Colson is a primary cause of this misdirected effort. He can repent of it and make restitution by modeling the proper kind of balance between political action and devotion to God.

Secondly, I wonder if Colson thinks that we should look for divine reasons behind all calamities. Was the Indian Ocean tsunami God’s judgment on Muslims for the persecution of Christians? Is AIDS God’s judgment on sexual misconduct? What is God trying to say to us in Katrina? What is the message from God in the terrorist attacks of 9-11?

In regard to 9-11, you may have noticed that evangelical Christians on the political right have sometimes suggested that the those attacks were God’s judgment on America for everything from gay marriage to the ACLU while evangelicals on the political left imagine that the attacks resulted from God’s displeasure with America’s materialism and failure to care for the poor. This game has endless possibilities.

Finally, if we do identify a particular calamity as the judgment of God, how should we respond? Perhaps we should not work to alleviate the suffering caused by such events. After all, if my friend is punishing his daughter by grounding her and taking away her cell phone and music and computer, I probably should not be sneaking up to her bedroom window at night and handing her an IPOD.

If the drought in the southeastern US is God’s judgment on the American church, then perhaps we should just let those people suffer until they get the message and “get their poop in a group”. And, if the drought is God’s judgment, then water conservation and the construction of new reservoirs and the development of new water management practices will not alleviate the problem. We need repentance rather than civil engineering.

Here is the bottom line: For both theological and practical reasons, the whole tone and premise of Colson’s commentary is misguided. If Colson has a prophetic revelation from God and can tell us with certainty that God has sent the drought to punish the American church, then we have a different issue that we need to discuss.

Absent that, his speculations do no good. Do we really need tsunamis, epidemics, hurricanes and terrorist attacks to tell us that God is not in favor of religious persecution and sexual misconduct and materialism?

And, has there ever been a time when the church was fully living up to its calling? The Christian community has always been imperfect and always will be. As a result, we can always imagine that a particular man-made or natural disaster – global warming, the sub-prime mortgage meltdown, AIDS, a Category 5 hurricane, etc. – is God’s judgment on His imperfect church.

In fact, the unfaithfulness of the church has been a constant and favorite theme of Christian leaders since I became a Christian in 1972. Since day one, I’ve been told that we are not studying our Bibles enough; we are not praying enough; we are not giving enough; we are not dedicated enough. ENOUGH!

The message of judgment and condemnation has not worked. It has not brought transformation and it never will. As a Christian community, we have preached the mixed message that John got from the Steward and we have reaped mixed results as a consequence.

So let’s try something different and let me start with Colson. This is what I know for sure: God loves Chuck Colson. He loves all that he has done for prisoners and for those who are persecuted. Despite his many imperfections and failures, God is at work in Colson’s life and he will continue to work in his life in spite of his mistaken message about the drought. After all, God didn’t abandon Colson when he committed criminal acts in the Watergate era.

And, the same is true of everyone who is reading this right now. God loves you. He loves the good you have done down to the smallest kindness. Every evil thing you have done or that has been done to you is something that He is working to cure and heal and redeem.

“Blessed are the merciful,” Jesus said (Matthew 5) and James reminds us that “mercy triumphs over judgment.” (James 2). Let us hope that the Christian community soon becomes know for its mercy rather than its tendency to look for the judgment of God in every current event.

As always, your comments, both favorable and unfavorable, are welcomed, appreciated and desired.


*For those of you who might be challenged in the area of modern American pop culture, the phrase “Well isn’t that special?” is one of the catch phrases of Dana Carvey’s self-righteous Church Lady character from Saturday Night Live.

Look here to read Colson's article on the drought.

Author's Note on January 1, 2008: Wayne's deleted comment below was deleted because it was an accidental duplication of his original comments. Wayne's comments are always welcome.