A Culturally Relevant Mission

I am becoming deeply concerned about the PCA. Last week, a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, who shall remain unnamed, sent me a YouTube video of a Redeemer Church (I’m guessing in New York) that fully ordained a female Deacon. The pastor read all six questions from the PCA Book of Church Order 24-6.1-6 and, the female candidate answered them in the affirmative. Some might be thinking, “So what’s the big deal?”

If you’re PCA, you’ve taken an oath to play by Scripture, the Westminster Standards, and the Book of Church Order. In 7-2 of the BCO, we read “The ordinary and perpetual classes of office in the Church are elders and deacons…. In accord with Scripture, these offices are open to men only.” (Emphasis added.) In addition, in BCO 9-3, the previous stipulation is reiterated: “To the office of deacon, which is spiritual in nature, shall be chosen men of spiritual character, honest repute, exemplary lives, brotherly spirit, warm sympathies, and sound judgment.” (Emphasis added.) This is crystal clear and it is equally clear that this is an egregious violation of what the pastor promised on oath; by giving his word. Does this neither count nor matter in the PCA anymore? Is the blatant and obvious moral problem here not a problem? With all the talk of “connectionalism” in the PCA, if this act goes unanswered—immediately—we are just talking and not acting when someone crosses the line.

What I have mentioned in previous installments needs to be re-emphasized: I hold Dr. Roy Taylor in high esteem as a colleague and a brother. I am also committed to the PCA, having come from the Reformed churches, making a conscious and deliberate decision to join the PCA. That does not mean, however, that I am willing to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to those things that are out of order. Please understand well: I am not expecting perfection. I believe the adage that there is no perfect congregation and, if there were, I further believe that I would ruin it by joining. By extension, I hold the same to be true of the PCA. I did not join and bring the congregation I serve into it because I entertained some notion that the PCA was perfect. I did, however, very much appreciate its stance on Scripture, the Westminster Standards, and its Book of Church Order. I did then and I still do now, but there are some things that are giving me pause for serious reflection and Dr. Taylor’s attempt to assuage our concerns about the National Association of Evangelical’s October 2009 Resolution on illegal immigration and aliens is one of those things.

Thus far, we have noted that both the Evangelical Free Church and World Relief have spoken out of one side of their collective mouths about maintaining the sovereign U.S. laws of the land concerning—the euphemism is theirs—“undocumented workers.” World Relief went so far as to state unequivocally that these people that enter our country illegally are a blessing and are then sent out to plant churches. Ethically, this is unconscionable. I’m willing to wager that both the EFC and WR are both opposed to abortion, but they’d be hard pressed to explain why in light of their views on illegal immigration. We noted that at least World Relief is opting for blanket amnesty, even though Dr. Taylor says the NAE is not. World Relief is cited in the footnotes of the NAE Resolution with approbation and without qualification.

No one particularly wants to be the one saying, “Hey, look! The Emperor’s not wearing any clothes!” but someone has to do it. I categorically refuse to sit around wringing my hands about the state of the PCA—a church affiliation that I dearly love and am committed to—while the fox is in the henhouse. I am not certain if Dr. Taylor has read the “Sources” portion of the NAE Resolution, but if he has not, it would behoove him to do so. If he has read them and has no problem with them, then we definitely have a separate set of difficulties.

There are two more documents cited in the Sources that we need to investigate. The first is a position paper from the Vineyard churches. Since it incorporates—at times verbatim—the Methodist Wesleyan Church’s position paper on the same topic, I intend to combine these two into one. The second is the April 7, 2006 article, “Blessed is the Law—Up to a Point” written by Mark Galli, managing editor of Christianity Today.

The Vineyard Church

While admitting that the Vineyard Community of Churches is quite diverse, the position paper of “Undocumented Immigrants” holds to certain core values. What might those be? In order, they are “Kingdom theology and practice, culturally relevant mission, compassionate ministry, reconciling community and experiencing God.” (p. 1.) Without the advantage of a clear-cut confessional statement, the statement could just as well come from the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses. If it’s any help—and it is not—the resolution continues, “We underscore the fact that we are committed to offering extravagant, unconditional compassion and mercy to all people.” (Ibid.)

While this all sounds nifty and spiffy, it does not pass “reality” muster. The only being that offers this type of grace to people is God, and I’m not certain that the citizens of Ai would have voted for Yahweh’s extravagant and unconditional compassion and mercy. If God did not show unconditional compassion and mercy to Sodom and Gomorrah, it makes little sense for a church affiliation to make such an extravagant statement, especially since it neither comports with reality nor experience. I’m just sayin’. Finally, God does not offer unconditional compassion and mercy to those in hell, and I’m one of those mean-spirited Christians who believes since Jesus spoke the most about hell we might want to listen up. If this kind of statement is what it means to be on a “culturally relevant mission,” then I’m going to stay home and watch Monday Night Football. Maybe even Oprah, because her theology and this statement are on par.

In any case, the VCC is convinced that their “core values” will serve them well as they consider “the complex question of undocumented immigrants” in their respective congregations. (Ibid.) After a few more preliminaries, the VCC informs us that it is estimated that there are 11.6 million “unauthorized immigrants” in the U.S., which works out to one in twenty in America being “undocumented.” How convenient not to mention the word “illegal” twice. But why not, since the Evangelical Free Church and World Relief have done the same thing. In fact, there are even those in the PCA who are so PC that they will not use the word “illegal.” It’s almost as if if they don’t use the word “illegal,” the illegal immigrants might somehow miraculously become “authorized” or “documented.” I have written to Atlanta about this, especially to our Mission to North America organization, but in case you’ve forgotten, I don’t really exist until they want money. In other words, I received no answer.

But let’s follow the VCC closely because what they say next is pertinent and important. We are told that they are attempting to give us some guidelines of “undocumented Vineyard members” and how their current pastors should “respond when these members continue on to become leaders and eventually desire to plant a new church.” (Ibid.) These are precisely the kinds of “lead by example” leaders we need, right? Who is your leader? Oh, it’s Jorge. He’s in the country illegally, but he will lead you along the right path for making biblical ethical decisions—apart from the illegal alien thing, of course. What should any pastor say to an illegal alien about becoming a leader or planting a church? Why didn’t Dr. Taylor advise us that this was the position of the VCC in his article about the NAE 2009 Resolution on Immigration? Why didn’t he tell us up front that some of the member churches—and he sits on the Executive Board—advocate allowing illegal aliens to become leaders and possibly church planters?

Further to elucidate their position, the VCC offers eight “principles” lifted from the Wesleyan Methodist playbook. We’ll look at them in turn.

The Creation Principle

The VCC’s first principle focuses on man created in the image of God and the Arminian principle of “the vicarious death of Jesus Christ for all humanity.” (p. 2.) They cite the usual Genesis 1:26-28 and for their appeal to Jesus dying for everyone, head-for-head indiscriminately, they trot out Galatians 3:28. How odd and quaint that such an appeal is taken from a chapter where Paul deals almost exclusively with justification by faith.

The verse in question from Galatians 3:28 reads, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The VCC believes that this text clearly teaches the vicarious death of Jesus Christ for all humanity. But it really cannot mean that, can it? If we look at the immediate context—verse 27—there is a particular qualifier: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” The German New Testament scholar, Theodor Zahn, believes that who Paul is addressing in verse 27 are those who are in union by faith with Christ.[1] The Dutch New Testament scholar, the late S. Greijdanus, teaches the same.[2]

In the translation of Herman Ridderbos’ commentary on Galatians, he informs us of the following concerning verse 27: “…Paul wants to indicate by his objective-sacramental mode of expression, and by appealing especially to baptism for establishing the sonship of the believers, that the reality of becoming one with Christ is nowhere so clearly revealed or so firmly founded in the Christian consciousness of faith, as precisely in this baptism (cf. Rom. 6:3ff. and Col. 2:12ff.).[3] The main point of verse 28, therefore, is that “In Christ there is no descent, rank, or sex.”[4] In addition, “From the point of view of redemption in Christ, however, and of the gifts of the Spirit granted by Him, there is no preference of Jew to Greek, master to slave, man to woman.”[5] It is as ludicrous for the VCC to attempt to derive a notion the vicarious death of Jesus Christ for all humanity from this text as it was in the 1970s for the Christian Reformed Church to use the text to substantiate their unbiblical idea of the ordination of women as Elders.

At the end of the first principle, the VCC appends a “Therefore.” It reads this way: “Understanding that all are made in the image of God, we will seek to treat all people humanely and with dignity, regardless of race, class, nationality, gender, legal status or any other distinctive.” (Ibid.) It is, indeed, a kinder, gentler VCC. Well, what could possibly be wrong with this statement? By being non-specific it says far too much. If there is an escaped murderer in my house late at night trying to harm my family I rather doubt that I will treat him with dignity irrespective of his legal status. Rather, I will do everything within my power to protect myself, my family, and my property (cf. Westminster Larger Catechism 135-136).

In our next installment, we’ll move through the remaining principles with greater rapidity. I took my time with this one to demonstrate how shaky the exegesis of the VCC is in this very important matter dealing with illegal immigration. This document is cited in the “Sources” of the NAE October 2009 Resolution on Immigration that Dr. Taylor commends to us.

---

[1] Theodor Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, (Leipzig: Georg Böhme, 1907²), p. 186 where he states, “Dazu kommt, daß v. 27f. nicht von der Gottessohnschaft durch Glauben, sondern von Einverleibung in Christus die Rede ist.” (Emphasis added.)

[2] S. Greijdanus, De Brief van den Apostel Paulus aan de Gemeenten in Galatië, (Amsterdam: H.A. van Bottenburg, 1936), p. 250.

[3] Herman Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), p. 148.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid., 149. Also see the Lutheran exegete, R.C.H. Lenski’s, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961³), p. 188.

Airbrushed, Politically Correct Reality

The recent shootings at Ft. Hood, Texas should be a wake up call to the way in which Americans view reality. Few still are willing to admit that the politically correct nonsense that permeates our country is truly harmful. In the case of MAJ Nidal Malik Hasan, he was allowed to run through “stop signs” and his actions and words were “tolerated” (a loaded PC term) with the only negative result being that he was given a negative fitness report. The result of toleration regarding MAJ Hasan is that, at latest count, thirteen soldiers are dead, one of whom was pregnant and approximately thirty were wounded.

Even now, the media are walking (reporting) delicately on the murders and trying, at all costs, to avoid using the “M” word; you know, Muslim. We have been conditioned and bullyragged (I haven’t used that word for a while!) into what I’ll call an airbrushed, politically correct view of reality. Why, we hardly dare to speak plainly anymore, fearing that we might offend someone by our words. Of course, people are offended all the time, it’s just not a two way street. A handful of bent out of shape atheists can be offended by “In God We Trust” on our coinage or the words “one nation under God” in the pledge of allegiance. These are incredibly thin-skinned people who are offended by Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm, because she’s a white, non-feminist, who smokes cigars and owns an arsenal of weapons. Well, maybe I made the last part up, but substitute Sarah Palin for good old Becky and you’ve got the same scenario.

I use this as my introduction because I greatly fear that my esteemed colleague, Dr. Roy Taylor, might be guilty of airbrushing the National Association of Evangelicals’ stance on illegal immigration. In all honesty, Dr. Taylor is not the first to take this tack. In previous articles published by members of the PCA’s Mission to North America, at least two authors categorically refused to employ the term “illegal alien,” opting, rather for the more airbrushed, politically correct phrase “undocumented workers.” Personally, I have written MNA about this on at least two occasions and both times I received precisely the same response: I was totally ignored and received no response at all. Do you know the only time either I or my Session hear from MNA? If you said, “When they want money,” then go to the head of the class.

The same can be said about the PCA Administration Committee, which is chaired by Dr. Taylor. As stated clerk of South Coast Presbytery, I was unable to attend the training session for clerks back in Atlanta, primarily because I would have to take a “red eye” from LAX and a number of other complicating factors. For four years running, I requested a DVD of the meetings so that I could learn, even if the DVD was not ideal; not interactive. For all four years, I received no reply from the Administration Committee. I was beginning to think I didn’t exist. The whole episode did untold damage to my self-esteem! However, even though our congregation pays the Administration Committee double what they ask for, one piece of correspondence we can count on is their letter asking us for more money. Of course, this makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? Like any bureaucracy, people get ignored and the machinery grinds on. On a more positive note, I stand in awe of the manner in which the Administration Committee conducts our yearly General Assembly.

To my mind, Atlanta has a huge problem with autonomy and non-accountability to anyone, except a few, who apparently are important enough to actually hear from the various committees when they don’t need money. Anyway, now that I’ve gotten that off my chest and feel much better, back to the matter at hand. In our last installment, we took a look at the NAE 2009 position paper on immigration.[1] After torturing a number of biblical texts to their advantage, the National Realities section reverted to airbrushed political correctness by criticizing U.S. immigration policies as unfair and draconian, if not downright bigoted, and employed the familiar “undocumented immigrants” phraseology. The resolution also expects us to believe that the glut of illegal aliens into our country is a revitalization of our churches.[2]

Observing two predominantly Hispanic church plants in my Presbytery for a number of years has not yet convinced me that this is true. While I am thankful to have ministry to Hispanic communities, we have yet to receive confirmation that these church plants will eventually assimilate into Anglo congregations already in existence. The resolution declares that the presence of illegal aliens in America is “a blessing from God.”[3] I guess that’s what we tell them after handing them the four spiritual laws in Spanish. Finally, the resolution attests that “an evaluation of recent immigration cannot be reduced to economics and national security issues.”[4] After presenting an extremely shaky—at best—apologetic for illegal aliens, the resolution then dismisses two of the key, essential elements of illegal immigration and Dr. Taylor wants to assuage our consciences that this is just hunky-dory. In their Call to Action, the NAE asserts that what is needed is that “the government legislate fair labor and civil laws for all residing within the United States that reflect the best of this country’s heritage.”[5]

Implicit within this assertion is the notion that our laws are not fair as well as a plea that those same laws be reformed with a view to everyone currently residing in America. This is a less than veiled plea for universal amnesty. Apparently, Dr. Taylor does not believe this is true, because he tells us that “The Immigration Resolution does not call for blanket amnesty; it calls for earned citizenship.” It is true that the Immigration Resolution does not call for blanket amnesty in so many words, but the thought is there. This is similar to President Obama getting all over Sarah Palin’s case about “death panels” in his socialistic health care plan. True, the words “death panels” cannot be found in the plan (have you read it yet?), but the notion is there. When the NAE hopes for and aspires to fair labor and civil laws for all residing within the United States, the meaning seems clear enough.

World Relief

Another entity listed in the “Sources” of the 2009 NAE Immigration Resolution is World Relief. When you go to their web site (http://worldrelief.org), you’ll find a plethora of information dealing with Disaster Response, Child Development, Maternal and Child Health, Agricultural Development, HIV/AIDS, Microfinance, and Immigrant Services. Under Immigrant Services you’ll find an article entitled, “Interfaith Statement in Support of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.”[6] In case you’re not familiar with World Relief, it is an interfaith organization that petitioned then-President Bush in 2005 to consider—as the title indicates—comprehensive immigration reform; this at a time when American citizens were screaming against the kind of comprehensive reform that ignored the immigration laws on our books.

The signatories of this resolution (mostly liberal Roman Catholics, Lutherans, one Christian Reformed Church celebrity, the United Methodist church, and two folks somehow involved in the Islamic community) espouse the notion that “Our diverse faith traditions teach us to welcome our brothers and sisters with love and compassion.”[7] Do they mean “diverse faith” initially now or at the founding of this country, because they cannot mean both and be correct. On the other hand, America has welcomed the huddled masses to its shores and then expected them to jump through the legal hoops to become American citizens. After that, the expectation was that they would assimilate into the country as full-on citizens.

In the subsequent paragraph of the resolution, the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Qu’ran are quoted. Of course, that’s what interfaith organizations do best. The quotations are selective, bolstering World Relief’s ideology and presuppositions. So why did World Relief and its hangers-on cobble this resolution together? Funny you should ask. Here’s their answer: “We call for immigration reform because each day in our congregations, service programs, health-care facilities, and schools we witness the human consequences of an outmoded system.”[8] America and its practices are badly outmoded.

A few simple questions are in order. What is outmoded in their congregations? Are they not diverse enough? How do you “fix” that? How does, say, a left-leaning Christian Reform Church crawl out of the Dutch ghetto and be an ethnically diverse congregation? Specifically, what kinds of immigration reforms do we need in our “service programs”? Does this mean “welfare programs”? Why should we reform our “health-care facilities” since illegal aliens already enjoy “free” medical care at U.S. taxpayer expense? But maybe, just maybe, what World Relief would like to see is universal health care in America. As P.J. O’Rourke once quipped, “If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it’s free!”

Stanford economist, Thomas Sowell, wrote recently (“High cost of cheap care” The Orange County Register [Nov. 6, 2009], Local, Opinion, p. 17), “Costs are not reduced simply because you don’t pay them.” Given the overall considerations outlined in the World Relief resolution, it doesn’t take a genius (or even a czar) to decipher that what is desired is “free” health care. People still don’t seem to get it that in every country where universal health care has been tried, it has failed. For World Relief (and perhaps the NAE also) universal health care is what they believe Jesus wants us to do.

As far as our government schools are concerned, they are broken and are run, by and large, by union thugs. Our children are being brainwashed on all kinds of social issues, while core subjects are neglected. Grades are inflated so that our children can graduate from high school indoctrination in airbrushed political correctness and go on to the same bowl of swill at the college and university level. Yes, it’s all outmoded and all we need are more social engineers and left-leaning Christians to correct this outmoded system. I’m certain that they’ll be more than willing and able to show us the way.

Another link advocating “comprehensive immigration reform” is the Hispanic Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.[9] This organization wrote to President Bush and the U.S. Congress asking for redress on aspects of our immigration policies. Their opening salvo states that they wrote “as non-partisan Hispanic Evangelical leaders and churches who are concerned about the issue of immigration and the current polarization of our society.”[10] The NHCLC does not designate what this polarization of our society looks like, but, according to them, the polarization is there. Moreover, “immigrant families a long [sic] with the entire Hispanic community find ourselves facing racial profiling, discrimination and a hostile ethnically polarized environment not seen since the days prior to the successes of the Civil rights movement.”[11] Wow! One has to wonder if Dr. Taylor has addressed this statement, since he sits on the NAE Executive Board. This is not merely a far-reaching statement, but also a very outlandish one.

Is the intent of the NHCLC that all immigrants face these hostilities? The statement merely stipulates “immigrant families” and not illegal immigrant families. If the NHCLC means that U.S. taxpayers are growing weary of picking up the tab for illegal immigrants in this country, then perhaps we can understand. But not all racial profiling is wrong, is it? For example, law enforcement along the I-95 corridor from Florida to our northern states tend to “profile” a certain type of individual, primarily because they have not arrested that many eighty-year-old Jewish women driving Edsels for drug running. Besides, most eighty-year-old Jewish women don’t wear “‘do-rags” and listen to hip-hop. But to assert that the entire Hispanic American community suffers much like pre-Civil Rights days is simply tendentious, self-serving, and false.

The NHCLC’s resolution goes so far as to avow that “Cities across America are beginning to pass ordinances that in essence legalize racial profiling and place the Latino community in an unnecessary defensive posture.”[12] Right. I’m sure that, like me, you couldn’t wait to get out to vote when your city held this referendum. Surely you remember it, don’t you? No. Me either, actually, but the NHCLC said it, so it must be true. Americans are just a bunch of bigoted rednecks, who have nothing better to do with their time than to pass ordinances that essentially racially profile innocent people. I hope that clarifies the problem for you.

“But, wait!” someone objects. “This is not the NAE, but the NHCLC.” That’s correct, but according to their resolution, they are “the sister organization of the National Association of Evangelicals.”[13] In addition, they serve approximately 14.5 million Hispanic Americans. Thus, it’s a powerful organization that espouses being called Hispanic Americans rather than simply Americans. Pass the PC airbrush, please. There is more PC claptrap though. The NHCLC is wholeheartedly committed “to assist in the threading of the Hispanic American narrative.”[14] I beg your pardon. Translation please. Threading the Hispanic American narrative? I must have missed something. Their desire, further, “is for every Latino in America to become a productive citizen, master both the English and Spanish languages, embrace the core values of the American idea and realize the American Dream.”[15] How does the NHCLC expect to effectuate such noble goals and ideals? They called upon Bush and Congress to “put an end to all illegal immigration.”[16]

Lest you foolishly believe that the NHCLC wants to stop the glut of illegal immigrants into the U.S., let me make clear to you that the NHCLC means no such thing. Putting an end to illegal immigration is tantamount to blanket amnesty, the very thing that Dr. Taylor would have us believe the NAE does not desire. If the NAE doesn’t want blanket amnesty along the lines of the NHCLC, then please let them step up to the plate and tell us all that this is not their position. They listed the NHCLC approvingly in their “Sources” and are in a sister relationship with them. Am I making these accusations up? No, not at all. In addition to the “guest worker” program, the Hispanic Church in America wanted Bush and Congress to “facilitate avenues by which the millions of families already in America that lack the legal status can earn such status in a manner that reflects the Judeo Christian Value system this nation was founded upon.”[17]

This statement encapsulates the essence of what the NHCLC is aiming at: a fast track for illegal aliens to become U.S. citizens. Those who lack legal status (suddenly they’ve gone from undocumented workers to those that lack legal status. Airbrush. Airbrush.) will come under the spell of the Judeo Christian Value system, which, apparently, has no problem with people being in the country illegally. This is the path that Dr. Taylor wants us to follow. I suppose there are some in the PCA who find it acceptable for people to enter this country illegally, take more money from the beleaguered U.S. taxpayer, and to use our schools and medical facilities for “free.” (Hint: the costs get passed on to the U.S. taxpayer.) The resolutions of the NAE and the NHCLC are clear. To use the words of Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, “This is why I’m shouting now!”

---

[1] You can find this at http://www.nae.net/resolutions/347-immigration-2009.

[2] “These brothers and sisters in Christ are revitalizing churches across the country and are planting churches and evangelizing.” (p. 3.)

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid. Emphasis added.

[6] http://worldrelief.org/Page.aspx?pid=1524, (October 14, 2005).

[7] Ibid., 1.

[8] Ibid., 1-2.

[9] http://www.nhclc.org/about/immigration_reform.html.

[10] Ibid., 3.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

Just What Does the National Association of Evangelicals Believe?

Last issue, we began an investigation as a kind of follow up to Dr. Roy Taylor’s assertions that many have misunderstood the October 8, 2009 National Association of Evangelicals resolution on immigration. Dr. Taylor believes that some who read that resolution read it through jaundiced eyes and have told others that “(1) the NAE advocates open borders, (2) the NAE advocates blanket amnesty, and (3) every denomination that is a member of the NAE endorses open borders and blanket amnesty.” Dr. Taylor asserts that this simply is not the case and that he is convinced of the following: “The NAE Immigration Resolution of 2009, in my view, is a biblically-based, theologically reflective, carefully balanced, concise document.”

Since I hold Dr. Taylor in such high esteem, we wish to investigate whether the accusations are bona fide or not. Dr. Taylor points us to the NAE web site (http://www.nae.net/resolutions/347-immigration-2009) and so I went to the sight, downloaded the document, and read it. What struck me was the nebulous language in that resolution, but more important are the sources listed in the footnotes. I am not certain that Dr. Taylor combed through the articles and authors listed in the footnotes, but if he didn’t, he should have. If he did and still holds that the NAE resolution is acceptable, then we have deeper differences than I first thought.

In this issue, I want to allow us to listen to one of those NAE churches (the Evangelical Free Church) that is cited in the “Sources” section of the NAE 2009 resolution. In subsequent issues, we’ll hear what the Vineyard churches teach and what the World Relief web site states, since WR is also cited in the “Sources” section. Finally, we’ll walk through an article by Mark Galli, managing editor of Christianity Today, posted on 4.7.2006 entitled “Blessed is the Law—Up to a Point.” What all these sources have in common is that they follow the politically correct notion of referring to illegal aliens as “undocumented workers.” The PCA is falling into lockstep with this PC practice more and more, which is not a good sign as far as I’m concerned. If we’re going to deal with an ethical issue, let’s not cloud the discussion with euphemisms.

A Stranger at Our Gates

The General Conference of the Evangelical Free Church of America adopted the position paper, “A Stranger at Our Gates,” in 1996. The paper contained five “themes,” among which was the proposition that all Christians are aliens on this earth. True. Second, “our material possessions do not really belong to us.” Third, the alien is to be protected. Fourth, “for Christians, no one is ever to really be considered an outsider.” Finally, “in serving the outsiders of society, we encounter Jesus.”

From there, the paper launches into a diatribe against the immigration policies of the U.S. “Historically, immigration policies of the United States appear to be directed more by racism and economic self-interest than compassion.” (Emphasis added.) I question the validity of such a claim, and I am not aware of the PCA ever taking such a stance vis-à-vis our immigration policies, especially the limitation on immigrants from Asia and Africa, like the EFC paper. One can only wonder why those two ethnicities were chosen. It is also declared that our current policies favor “those who bring technical expertise or financial resources with them.” Yes, that’s true, because any sovereign nation would opt for bringing in those who, humanly speaking, would help drive the economic engine of the country rather than those who are poorly educated and would be a drain on the country’s economy.

Understand well: this is an economic and political consideration made by each sovereign nation, and is not necessarily an ecclesiastical plea for evangelism. What is more disconcerting from the Evangelical Free Church 1996 resolution is the assertion that “Immigrants do not displace American workers.” The resolution continues and adds, “They usually fill a shortage of skilled labor or do the menial task that citizens refuse to do.” The first part of the statement is patently false and the second is the result of members of the EFC drinking some ideological Kool-Aid. Immigrants, legal or illegal, displace American workers in a free market setting. Illegal immigrants have, de facto, taken jobs in America performed by those who were either poorly educated, or young high school or college students looking for summer work.

What are the menial tasks that Americans refuse to do? Pick fruit? Make beds? Work as a day laborer? If your answer is Yes to all of those questions, let me ask you this: then who did all those jobs before the illegal aliens glutted this country? How did we survive? Moreover, to take such a stance is essentially to support illegality at a number of levels. Let me “esplain.” Illegal aliens come to this country illegally, which is why those who are sentient and reasonable insist on calling them illegal aliens. Then, American farmers, hotel owners, and contractors hire these illegal aliens, which is also against the law. Now the situation becomes more complex, involved. The illegal aliens are here illegally and now they are being hired illegally by Americans.

Since they are illegal aliens hired illegally, many, most of the employers pay them under the table, which is also illegal. They pay no taxes, except the sales tax they pay if they make purchases. The illegal aliens do not, for example, file federal income tax forms. In addition, if the unscrupulous employer wants to “shaft” them and pay them less than the agreed upon wage, the illegal alien has no recourse because he or she is, well, illegal. Are they going to go to the cops and report their employer for hiring them illegally since they are in the country illegally? It really gets very messy very quickly as antinomianism often does.

Yet, against all reason and fact, the EFC resolution insists that illegal immigrants “receive less general assistance than the general population, and they work longer hours.” What? Virtually every illegal immigrant uses our hospitals for “free” medical care. Try going into “emerg” in California, where I live, and you will quickly discover that the ERs are filled to overflowing with Hispanics. That is not a slur, but rather a realistic observation. Several hospitals in Southern California have closed their doors because they were bankrupted by illegal aliens receiving “free” medical care. Of course, just as there is no free lunch, there is also no free health care. Someone pays for it. If you guessed the American taxpayer gets hosed in this process, go to the head of the class. In addition, statistics show that a disproportionately high number of illegal aliens in the U.S. apply for and receive WIC assistance as well as a host of other welfare benefits, also paid for by someone else, namely the beleaguered American taxpayer. This is why the EFC statement that “Immigrants pay more in taxes than the social services they receive,” is simply untrue to a fault and it is deceptive to write such an untruth.

Some Key Questions

The 1996 resolution then proceeds to raise five issues by means of a question and a brief answer.

First, “To what extent are our attitudes towards immigration shaped by racism?” This question is a bit of a cheap shot. It’s like someone saying to you, “You don’t like President Obama because he’s black.” No, I don’t like President Obama because of his policies. His skin color is totally irrelevant to me. Is it the case that every citizen—of any country—is a racist simply because he or she wants to abide by the laws of the land? If that’s your definition, then every law-abiding citizen is a racist and that is sheer nonsense. Our attitudes towards immigration are shaped by law. America has immigration laws on its books, and, I might add, they have one of the most lenient attitudes towards immigration of any country on the planet.

In the last issue, I gave you, in bullet points, the immigration policy of Mexico. If you want to sling the racial epithet at someone, try starting with our neighbor to the South. But the EFC is not finished yet. They also ask under the umbrella of their first question, “To what extent do we assume that American culture is identified with northern and western culture; and are we attempting to protect those cultural roots of American from corruption by ‘foreign’ cultures?” For anyone who has a modicum of historical sense, America was founded as an Anglo culture. Sam Huntington’s book Who Are We? makes that abundantly clear. It is an irrefutable fact. I cannot fathom why we are trying to be historical revisionists. Do we want to have, say, an Islamic jihadist culture glut our country so we can benefit from their lifestyle?

Then the resolution asks, “Are we denying that other cultures bring gifts that add to rather than detract from our society’s culture?” That really is not the question. The question has to do with immigrants being assimilated into American culture. Illegal immigrant from South of the border that live in California, send their money back to Mexico and Latin America. In fact—it’s a fact—American money earned by illegal aliens and sent back to Mexico, is the second largest import of that country. There is more I could say, but as a final remark under the first question regarding racism, I want to conclude with the last question asked in this section: “Does our cultural identity take precedence over our Christian identity so that we fail to recognize that we are fellow aliens with these immigrants?” That is a loaded, self-serving, and self-fulfilling question.

Those of the true faith are, first and foremost, Christians. Therefore, national identity does not take precedence over Christian identity. Nevertheless, the question, as put, is open ended and poorly formulated. The ethical question is: in what sense are we fellow aliens with these (i.e., illegal) immigrants? This is unclear to me. Truly, surely since all mankind will have an eternal destiny (either heaven or hell) we are all aliens upon the earth awaiting our eternal home. We may share being made in the image of God, but that does not excuse us from acting in a biblically unethical fashion. There are murderers, rapists, extortionists, child predators, adulterers, thieves, and sexual perverts in this country. Am I, are you a fellow alien with them? I’m just askin’. You know what I’m sayin’?

I’m going to rush ahead though. The second question asks to what extent our attitudes towards immigrants are shaped by materialism. The vagary is the word “immigrants.” Are we talking about legal or illegal immigrants? But what the EFC resolution is really getting at here is this: “As aliens and strangers in this world, what is the theological basis for acting as though America were our property and we can hence deny access to it?” This is essential because what Dr. Taylor, this resolution, and the NAE are aiming at is not “open borders” in the sense that we normally think of open borders. No, what the NAE is actually aiming at is blanket amnesty so that there are no more “undocumented workers.” That will become increasing clear as we move forward and cite more of the “Sources” cited in the NAE 2009 resolution. Everyone becomes “kosher” because there are no more illegal aliens, period. The follow-up question by the EFC is “Are we being overly possessive of our lifestyle or standard of living?” I don’t think so, but one thing is for certain, America simply cannot supply a certain standard of living for the entire global population. We can teach innovation, sanitation, how to raise crops, and a host of other things, but we cannot provide unlimited resources to the global community. To ask such a question is short-sighted and absurd.

Third, “Is the fear of running out of limited resources justifiable?” You’re kidding, right? No, I suppose not. Should we be concerned about running out of limited resources? Well, duh! Limited resources will eventually run out.

Fourth, “Does denying or reducing ‘safety net’ and other public benefits to illegal immigrants and their American-born children imply that in our society some groups of people are not regarded as being equally human as others even though they participate in the economic functioning of our society?” I just thought we established that illegal immigrants didn’t make use of the “safety net.” Which is it? The “anchor baby” debacle is unique to America. That’s why illegal aliens flock here. No other nation has such a ludicrous law. The EFC seems to forget that illegal aliens function in the economics of this country illegally.

Fifth, “What about immigration policy?” Here is the crux of the matter. The questions here make the U.S. the culprit in making it so hard for people to enter this country legally. As mentioned earlier, we are not only more generous than most, but our laws are fair and equitable—not to mention reasonable.

As we shall see in the NAE 2009 resolution as well as in other member churches, the aim is total amnesty and I firmly believe that it was and remains incumbent upon Dr. Taylor to let the PCA members know this. After all, by his own admission, he has been serving as the chair of the board and of the executive committee. It may very well be the case that no one has overtly mentioned total amnesty to Dr. Taylor. I think that’s both plausible and possible, but since he fulfills such an important position, I would think that he has closely read and scrutinized the resolutions of the member churches.

In the NAE’s “Call to Action,” we read, “We believe that national immigration policy should be considerate of immigrants who are already here and who may arrive in the future and that its measures should promote national security and the general welfare in appropriate ways.” Appropriate ways? Yes, this includes moving “undocumented immigrants” towards citizenship. Break in line; go to the front of the line; ignore the laws of the land; and then be embraced by Bible-believing churches. According to the NAE, illegal aliens “are revitalizing churches” and “Their presence is a blessing of God.” Really? Then the resolution adds that we must ignore “economics” and “national security issues.” Did you know this, Dr. Taylor? It’s there on the NAE web site for all to download and read. What the NAE is calling for is reform of national immigration policy that Americans definitively said they did not want when then-President Bush tried to push it through Congress. What makes anyone think that Americans want that now? Undaunted, the NAE wishes to have immigration reform that would teach the illegal aliens to embrace “the responsibilities and privileges that accompany citizenship.” Why should they? Beginning illegally, they now have the NAE and its member churches on their side. Beginning illegally, we are now going to speak to them about embracing responsibilities. What the NAE is aiming at is “That the government legislate fair labor and civil laws for all residing within the United States that reflect the best of this country’s heritage.” (Emphasis added.) You mean our laws are not fair and civil now? Where are they wrong? But note the emphasized words. Dr. Taylor knows about these words and yet there is nothing in his elaboration about them and informing PCA folks what we’re up against. I can hardly wait to hear what he might say about the NAE’s position on global warming.

Please Note Well: I contacted the office of Dr. Roy Taylor in Atlanta and attempted to speak with Dr. Taylor by phone. I was told that he was in a meeting and unable to speak to me. I left a detailed message with the woman who took my phone call about what I was doing and asked if she would pass the message along to Dr. Taylor and please to have him get back in touch with me. To date, more than a week later, there has been no return call. Therefore, I am moving ahead with the publication of this Ethos on my blog and electronically.

We Need Much Better Communication

Recently, I was made aware of a short article written by Dr. Roy Taylor, Stated Clerk of the PCA dealing with an immigration resolution from the National Association of Evangelicals. Let me state unequivocally that I have the utmost respect for Dr. Taylor and that he is an esteemed colleague and brother in the Lord. Therefore, what I will write is a sort of intramural debate, but it is a debate. A member of the OPC made me aware of the article, which appears on byFaithonline, which explains why I didn’t see it. One can go to that web site, however, and locate Dr. Taylor’s article entitled “Roy Taylor Elaborates on NAE Immigration Resolution.”

Dr. Taylor informs us that on October 8, 2009—thus, quite recently—the board of directors of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) adopted a resolution on immigration. It is Dr. Taylor’s intention to clear up misunderstandings about that resolution and he pinpoints three particular areas where he fears there might be misunderstandings. He writes, “Shortly after the release of the document, reports from several sources circulated via the Internet (which, like Al Gore, is suffering from global warming—RG) asserted that: (1) the NAE advocates open borders, (2) the NAE advocates blanket amnesty, and (3) every denomination that is a member of the NAE endorses open borders and blanket amnesty.” Dr. Taylor opines that these assertions are incorrect. Moreover, Dr. Taylor is convinced that “The NAE Immigration Resolution of 2009, in my view, is a biblically-based, theologically reflective, carefully balanced, concise document.” I agree that it is concise, but I need to explain why Dr. Taylor and I differ on the remainder of his statement.

Immigration 2009

I rejoice that the first section of this resolution begins with “Biblical Foundations.” Right off the bat, the paper begins with a truth we all can agree on: “Discussion of immigration and government immigration policy must begin with the truth that every human being is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28).”[1] They also maintain—correctly—that “Jesus exemplifies respect toward others who are different in his treatment of the Samaritans (Luke 10:30-37; John 4:1-42).”[2] Sandwiched between these two assertions, however, is an “agenda item”: “Immigrants are made in the image of God and have supreme value with the potential to contribute to society.”[3]

I’m not sure exactly what to make of that statement and why it is positioned where it is in the NAE resolution. What, for example, does it mean to have supreme value? I’m not asking this question with a view to immigrants, legal or illegal, or non-immigrants, but with a view to the definition of the word “supreme.” Personally, I am comfortable with saying that all mankind is created in the image of God and has great inherent value, but if we mean by “supreme” an inviolable or absolute right of existence, I disagree. Clearly, our Lord mandated crimes that require the death penalty or lex talionis thereby dismissing any notion of an absolute respect for human life. For the time being, I’ll simply leave this as something that is unclear to me from the NAE Immigration Resolution of 2009.

The NAE position paper then launches into a discourse on Old Testament migration. They state that the Word of God contains accounts of God’s people migrating because of hunger, war, or personal circumstances. They could have said, “hunger, war, or famine,” but personal circumstances is another more or less surreptitious agenda item. You see, illegal aliens come to the U.S. for personal reasons or because of personal circumstances, such as wanting to live the American Dream, which, by the way, under the current administration is turning rapidly into the American Nightmare. Names such as Joseph, Daniel and his friends, Ezekiel, Ezra, and Nehemiah are also presented as those who “lived in foreign lands.”[4] It is patently true that they lived in foreign lands, but for what reason? They were, of course, exiles; a point that is rather conveniently left out. We are simply told they moved and lived elsewhere than their native homeland. Do you see where this is heading? Can you begin to understanding why I disagree with Dr. Taylor in that the IR of 2009 is not biblically-based, theologically reflective, and carefully balanced?

In the New Testament, Peter is cited as one who in his first letter referred to his recipients as “aliens” and “strangers,” “perhaps suggesting that they were exiles within the Roman Empire.”[5] Once again, I must take exception to Dr. Taylor’s allegation that the NAE’s IR of 2009 is biblically-based, theologically reflective, and carefully balanced. Here’s why: In 1 Peter 1, Peter addresses his audience in the following fashion, “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia…” The NAE resolution groups all humanity together because their agenda item is to address immigration and want to paint us all with the “aliens” and “strangers” brush.

Peter is addressing elect exiles. Who are they? J.N.D. Kelly comments that “On a hasty reading one might be tempted to infer that they (the elect exiles—RG) are Jewish Christians: so did most of the Greek fathers, but not Jerome or Augustine. The Greek noun translated “scattered people” is diaspora (i.e. ‘Dispersion’), a technical term among Greek-speaking Jews…for members of their race dwelling outside Palestine in heathen countries.”[6] The word “elect,” according to Kelly “was the epithet regularly used by the Jews to express their conviction that God had singled them out from all nations to be His special people.”[7]

Wayne Grudem believes that “strangers” “wrongly suggests that they were not known well by their neighbours, something which was untrue of Abraham, for example, or other Old Testament saints. Better is the phrase ‘those who reside as aliens.’”[8] In this particular context, Grudem is convinced that “the term here has a new spiritual sense, referring to Christians ‘dispersed’ throughout the world and living away from their heavenly homeland (yet hope some day to reach it). The word thus reinforces the meaning of ‘sojourners’ and adds the idea that they are part of a ‘world-wide’ scattering of Christians.”[9]

I could continue to multiply examples like these, but you get the point. I wrote a lengthy article on August 19, 2006 that dealt with the Old Testament concept of the “sojourner” (gēr), which I will recount more in detail in our next installment. For the present, I simply want to point out that the NAE has taken quite a bit of liberty and license in their attempt to correlate Old and New Testament “aliens” and “strangers” with our current situation with illegal aliens. Unfortunately, Dr. Taylor appears to side with the NAE.

My Solution

At this stage, the solution I’m offering is somewhat tenuous, but Dr. Herman Bavinck (1854-1921), taught me that it is not enough simply to criticize. One should offer an alternative. Therefore, I want to spell out my alternative to the current immigration impasse and difficulty by offering my own thoughts on what a good immigration policy might look like. You are free to disagree, but here it is:

· Foreign visitors and immigrants must be in the country legally.

· They must have the means to sustain themselves economically before they arrive.

· They must not be a burden on society (i.e., they must not get on welfare. They must have their own health insurance that is up to date before they arrive so that they will not use health services as a freebie).

· They must have no criminal record and be of good character.

· They must be contributors to the general commonwealth of the nation.

· Immigration authorities must have a complete and accurate record of each foreign visitor.

· Foreign visitors may not violate their visa status, upon penalty of immediate deportation.

· Foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics (i.e., no marches, protests, organizations attempting to coerce or lobby politicians).

· Foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported.

· Foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported.

· Those who aid in illegal immigration in any way will be sent to prison.

As I look over this list, it is by no means complete, but I believe that it is a very good start. I wish I had had more time to work on it, but Ethos has to be done by Thursday afternoon, so I took the easy way out and simply listed Mexico’s policy. That’s right. What you just read in the bullet points is the immigration policy of Mexico.

John Lillpop, writing in the Canada Free Press (is there such a thing in Canada?) reminds us that Mexico deports more illegal aliens annually than the U.S. does. In addition, “it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.”[10] He continues, “At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve our illegal immigration problem.”[11] Yep.

We need to tread very carefully on this issue if, for no other reason, than New York Senator (D), Chuck Shumer enthusiastically embraced it.[12] It was also reported by Mark Tooley of “The Institute on Religion & Democracy” that NAE testimony before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security “advocated loosening immigration policies.”[13] Tooley warns that this was not the first time the NAE has supported liberal causes, citing environmentalism and global warming as current issues where the NAE is also left of center. And, Tooley adds, the NAE “plans to adopt a petition regarding nuclear disarmament.”[14] All of these are up for discussion and debate, of course, but evangelicals and I would hope especially the PCA would not want to align themselves with organizations that lean left. One member of the NAE—the Salvation Army—“has publicly disavowed the NAE immigration statement, say it could not endorse such a political agenda.”[15]

Thus far, we have observed shoddy, self-serving exegesis and a willingness to push for comprehensive immigration reform. “Wait!” you object. “We haven’t heard anything in the NAE report about comprehensive immigration reform!” You’re right, but you will next time, because there are NAE affiliates who are cited in the IR for 2009 resolution who speak out of both sides of their mouths. You don’t have to dig far before you discover that Dr. Taylor is not doing us a positive service by endorsing this resolution, but I still respect him very much.

---

[1] http://www.nae.net/resolutions/347-immigration-2009, p. 1.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid. Emphases added.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] J.N.D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and of Jude, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988), p. 40.

[7] Ibid. Comp. Deut 4:37; 7:6; 14:2; Ps. 105:6; Isa. 45:4.

[8] Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988), p. 48.

[9] Ibid.

[10] http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/lillpop022707.htm, p. 2.

[11] Ibid.

[12] http://www.onenewsnow.com, p. 1.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid., 1-2.

The New Evangelical Left (XIII)

Politicizing Science and Lying in the Process

People, generally, do not like being lied to, especially when that lying is coming from someone in authority over them, and most especially when that person or persons are elected officials. There is an element of trust placed in those in positions of power and authority and one of the best ways to destroy trust and confidence is to lie to those who put you there. And yet, now with regularity and impunity our politicians lie to Americans as a matter of course and think little or nothing of it.

Now don’t get me wrong: I am not trying to paint everyone with the same brush, but with the approval rating of the U.S. Congress barely in double digits, they and we ought to be aware that something is dreadfully wrong—and it is. Jim Wallis’ and Brian McLaren’s solutions are to be apolitical, at least that’s what they’d have you think. Both Wallis and McLaren are far to the left politically and theologically. I still have not quite figured out why they just don’t come out and say it, but I suppose it would mean the loss of some lucrative speaking engagements to college and seminary students across the country, not to mention flying all over the globe to speak on the ills of air pollution. The alarmists, the fanatics, the nay-sayers, and the doomsday prophets all tell us that we’ve only got a little time left before the end. Al Gore is leading the parade; but some of us find it a little odd, if not downright hypocritical, that while these “greenies” are leading the charge against abuses to the spotted owl and smelt fish, he unrepentantly continues to use air conditioning, a microwave, several TVs, DVDs, and flies all over the place—often in private jets—to rid the world of the use of fossil fuels.

Gore and his minions have politicized biotech foods to the poor in developing countries. These suffering nations have plenty of food sitting in storehouses, but it’s genetically engineered food and unfit for consumption for all except Americans who have been eating it for years. Gore is not alone in this undertaking, the Europeans generally follow suit. Therefore the leaders keep the food while the people starve. In addition, Mr. Gore has gored capitalism in favor of socialism, although Gore, Clinton (both of them), Obama, Pelosi, and a host of other Democrats (including Christians) repeatedly deny the claim that what they’re doing is textbook socialism. If it walks like a duck…

In his virulent ideological stance, Gore, the New Evangelical Left, and Democrats in general believe that capitalism is the culprit in all our misery. For most Democrats to point to greed is a case of ultimate hypocrisy. How do you think Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi, and Loretta Sanchez live in multi-million dollar homes? Oh, I know. They got a deal from Freddie Mac.

Indur Goklany has written a very provocative and common sense book entitled The Improving State of the World. It bears the sub-title: “Why We’re Living Longer, Healthier, More Comfortable Live on a Cleaner Planet.” I’m sure you’ve heard about everything Goklany writes about in the New York Times or the Los Angeles Times, haven’t you? No? How odd. Well, apparently this is not all the news that’s fit to print, especially since it cuts across their—and other liberal propaganda rags that pass themselves off as newspapers—environmental beliefs.

In spite of all the doom and gloom, did you know that the average human on planet earth has never been richer, better fed, healthier, or lived longer? It’s true, but to listen to the environmental activists, you’d think we are all on the brink of utter ruin. Now this is not to say that we cannot do better, but it is to say that we cannot and never will do better following the ideas and ideals of Al Gore, Jim Wallis, Brian McLaren, Dan Kimball, the other signatories of the “Evangelical Climate Initiative” documents, and the left in the Democratic Party.

Those on the Left (both in the Democratic Party and now in evangelicalism) are aware of the Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, Neo-Malthusian biologist at Stanford, Paul Ehrlich (The Population Bomb), and Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, but have never heard of Herman Kahn, Julian Simon, or Bjørn Lomborg. We are what and who we read. The left does not mind peppering us with stats that point out that over the last two centuries, global population increased more than seven times from about 900 million to approximately 6.5 billion. This sounds like the eve of destruction until you calculate in that manufacturing industry increased more than seventy-five fold, and global economic product increased more than sixty times.

In fact, in terms of hunger, infant mortality, life expectancy, economic development, education, political rights and economic freedoms, it has been the wealthier, free market societies that have led and paved the way for these benefits to mankind. Even in countries like China and India, significant—but not perfect—increases have been measured. I know what I’m about to say will not be popular with some, but I’m going to say it anyway. First, available food supplies per capita per day increase as countries become wealthier, not poorer. According to Goklany, “These upward trends with respect to wealth for both 1975 and 2002 are statistically significant at the 99.9 percent confidence level.”[1]

Second, by reinforcing the increase in food supply, wealthier populations could also afford more food for their citizens, irrespective of whether that food was grown domestically or imported.

Third, wealthier countries—all other things being equal—generally have greater access to clean, safe water and sanitation.[2] How does this evolve? The ability is typically advanced with time and the application of advanced technologies.

Fourth, wealthier countries have increased the life expectancy of their people. “For much of human history, average life expectancy used to be 20-30 years. By 1900, it had climbed to about 31 years. By 2003 it had increased to 66.8 worldwide.”[3] That did not come about by wealthier nations reverting to wearing loin cloths and making goat cheese by candlelight.

Fifth, wealthier nations have been more successful in controlling the spread of infectious and parasitic diseases, such as cholera, smallpox, malaria, tuberculosis, and typhoid. Far too many who criticize wealthier nations like the U.S. fail to remember that we were forerunners in all but eradicating those dread diseases. It was the free market that provided the incentives and expertise for these things and not communism or socialism. The next time you want to criticize your country keep in mind that it was America that led the way in clean water supplies, public health measures, water filtration, chlorination, sanitation, pasteurization, and vaccination. In addition, the free market enabled people to direct part of their wealth and human capital to dealing with the “diseases of affluence,” such as heart diseases, obesity, and HIV/AIDS. While the political left and now some in the evangelical left created crises surrounding the supposed ill effect of genetically modified crops, the carcinogenic impact of using cell phones, and the saving of the smelt fish at the expense of California farmers.

In our next installment, we will delve more deeply into Al Gore’s corruption with environmentalism when he was Bill Clinton’s science and technology czar. Apart from that being an incredibly scary thought in itself, we’re going to see how Gore ran with that position and how many high-level appointees to regulatory agencies he put into place. You might not recognize all the names, but what they did was corrupt and unscientific. It was this patent and manifest dishonesty that was the fodder for Earth in the Balance. We will see that Gore’s ideology was not only a money grab, but he intentionally discredited renowned scientists who disagreed with him and threatened, through his henchmen, to ruin their reputations. Why, he could just as well be a politician from Chicago.

---

[1] Indur M. Goklany, The Improving State of the World, (Washington, D.C.: The Cato Institute, 2007), p. 24. Emphasis added.

[2] Ibid. 30.

[3] Ibid., 31.

How Does One Measure the “Global” Temperature?

Conservative commentator, Mark Levin, opens the section in his book entitled “Enviro-Statism” with this accusation of the statist ideologue: “His pursuit, after all, is power, not truth. With the assistance of a pliant or sympathetic media, the Statist uses junk science, misrepresentations, and fear-mongering to promote public health and environmental scares, because he realizes that in a true, widespread health emergency, the public expects the government to act aggressively to address the crisis, despite traditional limitations on governmental authority.”[1] Is this true? Apparently, the signatories of “Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action,” which is part of the Evangelical Climate Initiative do not believe Levin’s words.

Claim 1 reads, “Human-Induced Climate Change is Real. Since 1995 there has been general agreement among those in the scientific community most seriously engaged with this issue that climate change is happening and is being caused mainly by human activities.” (Emphasis added.) Now many believe this statement, but disbelieve Levin. One of the most relevant questions that needs to be asked is this: Are those signatories—and others like them—relying on what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says without any personal investigation? Most do not feel qualified to discuss something as complex and convoluted as how weather works, so we are willing to leave that to the “experts,” who perform this boring work for a living. Why these scientists have probably never watched an episode of American Idol, don’t know which team Brett Favre plays for, what Tiger Woods’ shot at Augusta, or Ichiro Suzuki’s batting average is. Most of them probably believe that Elvis is still dead. That’s how out of touch they are. But they do serve a positive function for us. They study the environment so we don’t have to.

In the midst of this, we hardly ever ask even simple questions like: how do you actually measure the temperature of the globe? How do variants such as a temperature reading in Antarctica and in Honolulu average out? Once a reading has been taken from a weather balloon and a ship at some point in the vast ocean, how are they harmonized? Computer models? Are they reliable? How do we know? We’ll touch on computer models in a moment, but the notion of “global” warming appears silly on its face.

So when the IPCC comes out with position papers, we tend to rely on a few people reading them for us and then telling us what they conclude so we, in our turn, can feign upset about the environment, even though we’re not willing to give up on big oil and electricity quite yet. The IPCC report that the signatories cling to (which is different from clinging to one’s Bible and guns) also vilifies CO₂ as a culprit in causing global warming. So I want to take a few moments in this installment of Ethos and look at CO₂ and the development of the IPCC reports.

Is CO₂ Really That Bad?

To hear Al Gore, the IPCC, and its hangers-on say it, one would believe that we are on the eve of destruction. Dr. Ian Plimer of Australia disagrees. In fact, you can add his name to your list of eminent scientists who believe that global warming, as it is presented to us today by the IPCC, the media, and the hacks and pundits is bogus. Dr. Plimer is a well-qualified scientist who has written a new and provocative book entitled Heaven and Earth. Global Warming the Missing Science.[2]

Plimer is convinced that to one degree or another, “We are all environmentalists.”[3] This begs the question: what kind of environmentalist are you? You see, there is more than one kind. “Some of us underpin our environmentalism with political and romantic views of the environment, some underpin their environmental view with economic pragmatism and many, like me, try to acquire an integrated scientific understanding of the environment.”[4] In short, this integrated approach takes into account matters such as life, ice sheets, oceans, atmosphere, rocks and extraterrestrial phenomena which influence our planet.[5] Note well: Plimer is not talking about Martians or flying saucers.

He is convinced that there are a number of “dynamic” factors at work and in play on planet earth, but he does not put God into the equation. What he does do and say, however can help us from a “common grace” standpoint. He writes, “Climate has always changed. It always has and always will. Sea level has always changed. Ice sheets come and go. Life always changes. Extinctions of life are normal.”[6] Thank you! This gives us another good reason to shake off the chains of political correctness and environmental tyranny.

So what about the culprit CO₂? Plimer declares, “The Earth’s climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Without this, there would be no life on Earth. Despite well-documented linkages between climate and solar activity, the Sun tends to be brushed aside as the driver of climate on Earth in place of a trace gas (carbon dioxide—CO₂), most of which derives from natural processes. The CO₂ in the atmosphere is only 0.001% of the total CO₂ held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life.”[7]

“But,” someone may object, “what about the supercomputers scientists use to gather their information?” Good question. Plimer’s answer, however, is this: “Calculations on supercomputers, as powerful as they may be, are a far cry from the complexity of the planet Earth, where the atmosphere is influenced by processes that occur deep within the Earth, in the oceans, in the atmosphere, in the Sun and in the cosmos.”[8]

There are other issues as well. For example, “If we look at the history of CO₂ over time, we see that atmospheric CO₂ content has been far higher than at present for most of time.”[9] Even more enlightening is his assertion that “To argue that human emissions of CO₂ are forcing global warming requires all the known, and possibly chaotic, mechanisms of natural global warming to be critically analysed and dismissed. This has not even been attempted. To argue that we humans can differentiate between human-induced climate changes and natural climate change is naïve.”[10]

Moreover, many are so under the influence of the media that they are convinced that CO₂ is a pollutant. It is not.[11] In fact, quite the opposite is the case. “Global warming and a high CO₂ content bring prosperity and lengthen your life.”[12] You will not hear that on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, or ABC. You have to wonder why, don’t you? Rather than being a pollutant, CO₂ “is plant food, is necessary for life, and without CO₂ there would be no complex life on Earth.”[13]

Why Would You Sign the IPCC Reports?

In 1896, a Swedish chemist attempted to calculate crudely what would happen concerning CO₂ and the burning of fossil fuels. His calculations led him to conclude that if atmospheric CO₂ doubled, the temperature on earth could increase by five degrees Celsius. His prognostications proved false. The history of science is filled with predictions and failures and “our time” is no different, although some credulous beings tend to believe that we’re all going to roast and time is running out—rapidly.

On June 24, 1974, Time ran a piece that warned we were heading towards a new Ice Age. Newsweek followed suit in 1975, as did that paragon of unbiased reporting National Geographic in 1976. There was no doubt. Scientists agreed that the earth was rushing towards global cooling. I have my own theory and it is this: In the run up to President Jimmy Carter’s presidency (otherwise known as the “Index of Misery” by those of us who barely survived it), everything from the temperatures to bank accounts cooled off precipitously. So sure was science and the popular magazines that the earth was cooling that Lowell Ponte stated, “Global cooling present humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for 110,000 years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance: the survival of ourselves, our children, our species.”[14]

The media laugh and scoff—rightly—when some evangelical’s head gets so big that he or she feels the compunction to predict the return of Jesus. Why don’t they, however, hammer Mr. Ponte as well? We all know the answer to that one. Anyway, fast forward to April 3, 2006 and without a word of apology for misleading the masses, Time devotes an issue to global warming. All the news fit to print. Oh, that was the New York Times. Sorry. The renewed interest in the latest fad—global warming—caught Al Gore’s attention and drew him away from his labors of inventing the Internet long enough for him to chair a meeting of the US Senate Committee on Science, Technology and Space in 1989. Thankfully, this hearing didn’t last long and allowed politicians to move on to important issues such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and universal health care.

But allow me to sketch a brief time line of how we came by the IPCC document. In 1990, this established UN entity became concerned after a number of climate experts such as Robert Redford, Barbra Streisand, and Meryl Streep helped make opposition to global warming fashionable. Therefore, under this undue pressure, “The IPCC gathered many climatologists, meteorologists, environmentalists and political activists and published several voluminous publications, the first of which was 1990.”[15] Like most of our important legislation these days, which is also so voluminous that our elected officials vote on it before they read it, few read or understood the contents of these reports and articles. To this date, those who contributed are touted as the 2,500 scientific experts that constitute a “consensus” about global warming.

In the 1996 edition—and this is funny—one contributor on the impact of global warming was a health expert, whose field of expertise was the effectiveness of motorcycle helmets. I should mention that the same author had written on the health effects of mobile phones. Others were environmental activists and one very specialized expert had written on the dangerous effects of mercury poisoning in land mines. There must be a doctoral dissertation in there somewhere. Are you kidding me? If you step on a land mine, mercury poisoning is the very least of your worries. More important, however, is the fact that “Those who drove the publication of the chapters on the health effects of global warming had no formal expertise in the chapters’ subject material…”[16]

What this boils down to is this: “if we investigate the biographies of the 2500 ‘climate scientists’, we find that many were not even scientists. To claim that this group of 2500 people represents the world’s top scientists is untrue.”[17] The upshot is that the IPCC produced a Summary for Policymakers in 1996 that stated “the balance of evidence suggests that there is discernible human influence on global climate.” Don’t you love it when people lie to you and the media backs them up? It’s even a tougher pill to swallow when so-called evangelical leaders like Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Dan Kimball, Brian McLaren, and Jim Wallis sign this kind of nonsense and there are no repercussions from the evangelical community. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go and refine my calculations on the Second Coming.

---

[1] Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny, (NY: Threshold Editions, 2009), p. 114.

[2] Ian Plimer, Heaven and Earth, (NY: Taylor Trade Publishing, 2009).

[3] Ibid., 9.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., 10.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid., 11.

[9] Ibid., 12.

[10] Ibid. Emphasis added.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Lowell Ponte, The Cooling. Has the Next Ice Age Begun? Cited by Plimer, Heaven, 18.

[15] Ibid. 19. Emphasis added.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid., 20.

The Seen & Unseen Things

Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) wrote two books that should be mandatory reading for all Americans. The first is entitled simply The Law and the other bears the title That Which is Seen & That Which is Not Seen. As he opens his little work That Which is Seen & That Which is Not Seen, he writes this: “In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause—it is seen. The others unfold in succession—they are not seen: it is well for us if they are foreseen.”[1]

Some might be thinking, “This is all well and good, but I am not an economist and quite frankly find economics boring.” That would be too bad, but Bastiat continues and reminds us that “the true economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.”[2] Then he adds, “In fact, it is the same in the science of health, arts, and in that of morals. If [sic] often happens, that the sweeter the first fruit of a habit is, the more bitter are the consequences.”[3] In the course of his explanation, Bastiat encourages us by saying, “Let us accustom ourselves, then, to avoid judging of things by what is seen only, but to judge of them by that which is not seen.”[4]

This is a great lesson for us, all the more because we want to take proper care of the earth. Progressive secularists believe that God’s words to man about having dominion over the earth and subduing it give Christians a carte blanche to rape the earth. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The clarion call in Genesis 1:26-28 is that true biblical stewardship and preservation entails doing things God’s way and thinking his thoughts after him. As a matter of information, this mandate continues to be directed to believer and non-believer alike. The only way a secular environmentalist can truly be an environmentalist is to acknowledge God and follow his directives.

In the long run, we want to make wise use of the resources that God has placed at our disposal, but, simultaneously, we must be acutely aware of the ideologies and presuppositions behind the current discussions—the things that are not seen. Everyone has an agenda. The U.N. has one as does the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that is connected to the U.N. Claim 1 of The Evangelical Climate Initiative states that The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the world’s most authoritative body of scientists and policy experts on global warming. The first part of that statement is patently false. 5,000 scientists signed the document, but 32,000 equally authoritative scholars refused to sign it. The phrase “policy experts” frightens me because it smacks of a room full of President Obama’s czars, like Van Jones, Mark Lloyd, and Cass Sunstein, just to mention a few.

Two people who carry no brief for Christianity, Janet Biehl and Peter Staudenmaier, have co-authored a little book called Ecofascism. Lesson from the German Experience.[5] In the Introduction, they point out that “ecologism” has long roots “in nineteenth-century nature mysticism.”[6] This would explain, in part, why the American counterparts to this history are also enamored of animals more than humans, like Cass Sunstein, who has imbibed heavily of the bioethics of Peter Singer. Mr. Sunstein, by the way, is America’s new regulatory czar, which portends of many yet unforeseen things that are not good.

But apart from the nature mysticism in Germany in the nineteenth century, these co-authors make a connection between the seemingly harmless and naïve nature mysticism and the rise of Hitler’s Third Reich. They inform us that “Nazi ‘ecologists’ even made organic farming, vegetarianism, nature worship, and related themes into key elements not only in their ideology but in their governmental policies.”[7] Much of this easily translates into the American phenomenon of environmentalism. Both authors agree “that the ‘ecological scene’ of our time—with its growing mysticism and antihumanism—poses serious problems about the direction in which the ecology movement will go.”[8]

The Green Wing of the Nazi Party

In 1934, Ernst Lehmann penned Biologischer Wille, Wege und Ziele biologischer Arbeit im neuen Reich. That groundbreaking work contained the following thoughts: “We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations. Only through a reintegration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age. Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole…. This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we were born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought.” (Emphasis added.)

Lehmann’s expressions were already present in the thought of Ernst Arndt. Some of the nature mysticism about which the co-authors wrote is reflected in Arndt’s 1815 article on conservation and his concerns regarding deforestation. In that article, Arndt said this: “When one sees nature in a necessary connectedness and interrelationship, then all things are equally important—shrub, worm, plant, human, stone, nothing first or last, but all one single unity.” (Emphasis added.) In our modern situation, we could mention the fanaticism behind preserving a particular species of field mouse or the smelt fish in California.

If you go to bewaterwise.com, you’ll find statements on that site that emphatically state that California’s water supply is in such grave danger that we must conserve and for those who will not comply, the law will step in and levy fines. What they do not tell us there is that California has a dam that is 95% complete that will supply—more than adequately—the water demands for the entire state. The problem, however, is that greenies have put a stop to the completion of the dam through excessive, bogus litigation because of their inordinate concern about the smelt fish. Never mind that they have been assured that the precious smelt fish (we all enjoy a nice dinner of smelt, don’t we?) is in no harm. The upshot of this litigation is that many farmers in California cannot get adequate water for their crops, so their farms are shutting down. What is clear in what ostensibly concerns the environment is Arndt’s notion that man is no better than a shrub, worm, or tit mouse. Anyone with a modicum of sense ought to see how absurd this is. Every Christian, surely, ought to see and comprehend that being made in God’s image places man on a different scale than a smelt fish.

In the latter half of the nineteenth century, Germany experienced a phenomenon called the völkisch Bewegung. Essentially, this movement was in reaction to the rise of industrialism, capitalism, and urbanization. This movement reveled in the nature mysticism already present and prevalent among some social engineers in Germany. These thinkers “preached a return to the land, to the simplicity and wholeness of a life attuned to nature’s purity.”[9] It was this notion that brought with it a plethora of cultural prejudices and that had a profound impact on twentieth century political discourse in Germany. This led, in time, to the actual coining of the term “ecology” by the German zoologist, Ernst Haeckel. What is interesting about Haeckel is he was “the chief popularizer of Darwin and evolutionary theory for the German-speaking world, and developed a peculiar sort of social Darwinist philosophy he called ‘monism.’”[10]

Regarding the concept of monism, Peter Jones writes, “In the deconstructed postmodern world of fractured beliefs and autonomous, unconnected people, the goddess brings good news. She offers an integrated worldview that addresses the great concerns and hopes of our day: ecological wisdom, economic justice, human rights, women’s liberation, equality and harmony between the sexes, personal significance, global peace, utopian dreams, and deep spirituality.”[11] Clearly, obviously, there is a powerfully strong religion component both to America’s infatuation with environmentalism as well as Germany’s. Jones adds, “the new, global religion seeks to undermine Christianity by presenting itself as cutting edge spirituality that will save the planet, and Christianity as hopelessly and intolerably out of touch. According to this approach, Christianity’s worldview has ‘been slowly dissolving from Western consciousness.’”[12]

Matthew Fox wrote Coming of the Cosmic Christ, with the subtitle, “The Healing of Mother Earth and the Birth of a Global Renaissance.” Jones sees through the façade and concludes, “In other words, ecology leads us to this new religion of union with all creatures.”[13] What we call ecology or environmentalism did not just appear on the radar screen. It has a long history and we all would do well to heed just how pagan it is.

---

[1] Frederic Bastiat, That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen, (West Valley City, UT: Walking Lion Press, 2006), p. 1.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 8.

[5] Janet Biehl & Peter Staudenmaier, Ecofascism, (Edinburgh: AK Press, 1995).

[6] Ibid., 1.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid., 2.

[9] Ibid., 7.

[10] Ibid., 7-8.

[11] Peter Jones, Capturing the Pagan Mind, (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003), p. 70.

[12] Ibid., 80.

[13] Peter Jones, Spirit Wars, (Escondido, CA: Main Entry Editions, 1997), p. 57.