Climate Action Plan

I recently heard about cities in California being required to create Climate Action Plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to adverse climate changes. We're all familiar with this type of thinking and can guess what is in those plans. I'd like to propose my own plan, one which is achievable and not merely aspirational, one which is driven by growth and not reduction, and one which leads to human freedom and flourishing and not governmental crackdowns.

First, we need to gratefully acknowledge that we have been given the sun as a source of practically infinite energy. According to NASA, the sun shines down 44 quadrillion watts of energy on the earth every year. This is the equivalent of 44 million large power plants in continuous operation. And even that is a miniscule fraction of the total energy emitted by the sun in every other direction than Earth. The amount of energy available to us can be regarded as infinite.

The sun has always been the source of all energy on the earth, but our method for capturing and using that energy has varied. A primitive hunter-gatherer eats plants and animals which channel energy from the sun. Burning wood or coal releases energy captured from the sun using the more advanced technology of mills and mines. Pumping and refining and burning oil was a major advance in technology that propelled modern economies, but with unforeseen consequences. Nuclear, solar, wind and geothermal energy are newer advances which have not matured yet, but have potential.

In all these cases, the energy coming from the sun can be regarded as infinite, but the limiting factor in capturing and using that energy has been human ingenuity. Any increase in human creativity and ambition is rewarded with a greater use of what we've been given. This positive, limitless perspective is fundamentally different from most climate catastrophe theories, and I sincerely believe it is correct.

Second, from this perspective, governments should see their part in fostering the growth of human creativity and productivity. We need just and peaceful societies that facilitate the education and advancement of the brightest and most ambitious among us, without regard to racial quotas or income inequality or other revolutionary social theories. Even if the schools of your city don't produce the next Einstein, your city can be a model of how to encourage learning and productivity which is then emulated elsewhere where the next Einstein lives.

Third, governments should tell the truth about what is actually happening and what is actually possible. Instead of aspirational plans without viable mechanisms, instead of virtue signaling on Earth Day, instead of recycling bins without any feedback loop on what goes in them, governments should focus on making accurate data available on the impacts of human society on the earth. Collect the data and allow human freedom and creativity to figure out what to do about it. No elected leader today knows how to solve the problem. I don't either. This should humble us. But we can agree on where the solution will come from.

Fourth, governments should avoid alarmism. We often hear of water shortages in California and are urged to conserve. "We're still in a drought" is a common refrain. Yet the amount of water on earth is constant. Sometimes the reservoirs of California are full and sometimes they are empty. Climate change may cause increased droughts in some places, but it can also cause increased rain in other places. In all cases, there is an energy cost associated with pumping, damming, desalinating, and filtering. With the right technology, we can pay the cost and everyone can have water. Instead of banging the drums of calamity and reduction, which eventually are tuned out, we should focus on costs and benefits, which can lead to understanding and action.

Fourth, US and European governments should advocate solutions that can be applied worldwide because climate change is a worldwide phenomenon. One can debate whether 40 million Californians can afford EVs by 2035, but 1 billion Indians cannot. Any "advance" we make in our small corner of the world which can't be replicated by the billions trying to climb out of poverty amounts to virtue signaling. You aren't saving the planet; you're just driving a Tesla.

Fifth and finally, we should all calm down and be grateful. Compared to all of human history, the Industrial Revolution is a recent phenomenon. The Digital Revolution has barely gotten started. We have witnessed so much growth in prosperity and education and opportunity in our lifetime that we lose perspective on how quickly things have changed and how much we have benefited. There is certainly more to do, and some of that work may be unwinding the unintended consequences of past progress, but it can be done if we allow people the freedom to do it.

Why I'm not a Sabbatarian

In the Old Testament, God commands his people to keep the Sabbath, the seventh day of week or Saturday, by refraining from work and dedicating the time to rest and worship. Many Christians believe that the Sabbath was changed into the first day of the week or Sunday, also called the Lord's Day, and continues to have the same purpose and requirements. This Sabbatarianism is described in the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 21, paragraphs 7 and 8. It's a doctrine and practice over which Christians can agree to disagree, but it exposes important issues which are useful to understand. My position comes from New Covenant Theology or Progressive Covenantalism taught by reformed Baptists (that is, I didn't come up with this.)

While the Sabbath was grounded in God's pattern set in the creation week, it is only commanded to man as part of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:8-11), which is the opening and summary text of the Mosaic Law. The word Sabbath first appears when manna is given (Exodus 16), much like the first Passover is described a few chapters before it is instituted as part of the Law (Exodus 12). When God finishes his initial law giving in the book of Exodus, he calls the Sabbath the sign of the covenant (Exodus 31:13), just like circumcision was given as the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 17).

The Gospels show that Jesus was a faithful Jew who kept the Sabbath, but even in Jesus' teaching there are hints that something is changing (Luke 6:1-11). The rest of the New Testament explains this change by teaching that the Sabbath has been fulfilled in Christ, along with all of the Mosaic Law (Galatians 3:17-29, Colossians 2:16), In a similar way, Jesus hints that dietary and sacrificial laws would change (Mark 7:19, Mark 13:1), but he leaves it to his Apostles to explain it fully. Paul instructs Christians to graciously accept brothers who still practice the Sabbath (Romans 14:5), but he is clear in the same passage about the reality of Christian freedom from Mosaic Law (Romans 14:14).

The Christian practice of faithfully gathering on the Lord's Day is related to the Sabbath, just like baptism is related to circumcision and the Lord's Supper is related to Passover, but this relation is one of shadow giving way to substance (Hebrews 8:5, 10:1). There is continuity and discontinuity between Old and New, but we need some guide or rule to understand it.

The Westminster Confession of Faith describes a tri-partite division of Mosaic Law in chapter 19. The moral part of the Law is binding in all ages, while the ceremonial and judicial parts of the Law were temporary, only for the Old Covenant age. While this system has some value in distinguishing continuity and discontinuity, it doesn't actually help distinguish which individual laws are in each part. The Sabbath seems ceremonial, like the monthly and yearly festivals, but Westminster assumes it is part of the moral law, likely because of its placement in the Ten Commandments.

Instead, I believe the teaching of Jesus, as contained in the whole New Testament, is the Christian's guide to understanding the Old Testament. Some say that where the New Testament is silent, the Old Testament is still binding. But I find the New Testament is not silent in any matter that binds the conscience. The simple principle is that we are no longer under the jurisdiction of the Mosaic Law, which has been made obsolete, but are under the Law of Christ (Hebrews 8:13, 1 Corinthians 9:21, Galatians 5:18). In a similar way, an American citizen sees great continuity between his country's laws and British common law, but he is clearly only under the jurisdiction of the former. The Old Testament is still the infallible and authoritative Word of God, the revelation of his character and purposes, but it must be understood in submission to Christ, which means we always read it in the light of the New Testament.

The one passage in the New Testament that explicitly calls for continued observance of the Sabbath actually commands the New Covenant fulfillment of faith in Christ, not Old Covenant practice. Hebrews 3 and 4 quotes from Psalm 95, "Today if you hear my voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion...As I swore in my wrath, 'They shall not enter my rest.'" The author reasons that the Psalm describes the Israelites refusing to enter Canaan under Joshua (3:16), yet it was written by David hundreds of years after that event (4:7). He then argues that there remains an ongoing command and opportunity to believe God and enter his rest (4:8). And then he says, "So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest." This Sabbath rest has the same precedent in God's creation week, it's related to the Mosaic Sabbath rest, but it is a rest from keeping the Mosaic Law by instead trusting in Christ who is the better mediator, better high priest, better sacrifice and better temple. If this one reference to the Sabbath establishes a continuation of Old Covenant practice, it makes no sense of the immediate context or the argument of the entire book.

Finally, how does this affect my practice? I have no trouble being in close fellowship with Christians who practice a Sabbath day. I would never want to flaunt my freedom. I highly value the gathering of the church on the Lord's Day and the wisdom of taking a break from work and using the time to worship God and studying his Word. I'm even writing this blog post on a quiet, easy Sunday afternoon. But I don't call it Sabbath keeping. Christ is my Sabbath and I have entered into his rest by faith.

Covid and Climate Change

To speak with authority on the COVID-19 pandemic or on climate change, you generally need some academic credentials or professional experience. These are complex scientific topics. Yet it seems that both covid and climate change have a lot in common, and the list of experts who are well-qualified to speak on both must be very small. Our scientific age of hyper-specialization has created a conundrum for the common man to untangle.

Both covid and climate change involve risk analysis. How dangerous is it? How does the danger of a new coronavirus variant compare to other dangers like social isolation, putting people out of work, or shutting down schools? It took time for data to come in and these varying risk levels to become more actionable. Likewise, how does the danger of warming two degrees Centigrade compare to the danger of third world poverty? What kind of timeframe is needed to make this judgment? When anyone argues that there's no more time to debate, my skepticism grows.

Even with some agreement on the danger, both covid and climate change involve a cost/benefit analysis for mitigation. What can actually be done about it, at what cost, and who gets to decide? After three years of mask mandates (finally ending February 2023), it became clear that there was no point in discussing the effectiveness of the mask. It had reduced to a sign of compliance. Some may think the mask is an effective and effortless way to reduce risk. Others see the mask as useless and authoritarian. Whatever your opinion, the sign is primary and the effectiveness is secondary. This reminds me of the recycling bin and a curious incident at my company years ago. At an all-hands townhall meeting, the CEO would often answer questions from the employees. One employee was concerned that our cleaning staff regularly tossed the contents of the recycle bins and the trash bins into the same dumpster. The CEO responded that we shouldn't worry because the recycling gets separated out at the waste facility. I've never looked at the sign and significance of the recycling bin quite the same again.

Both covid and climate change involve a tension between public policy and personal responsibility, which maps neatly to our left/right party lines. Governors of New York and California issued strong mandates to control public behavior. Governors of Florida and South Dakota issued strong statements that individual citizens should remain free to confront the problem as they thought best. The virus knows nothing of state lines, so we have no clear-cut way of measuring who was right. Carbon emissions also know nothing of state lines, so the effectiveness of climate legislation in California can't really be measured.

Both covid and climate change pit the developed West against developing Asia. The virus originated from China, possibly from Western-funded lab research gone wrong, and it spread rapidly out of Asia with Western-driven globalization. The Asian-style response of lock downs and masks also spread with it to the West. If the burning of fossil fuels has been the decisive factor in rising temperatures, that innovation arose in the West as well. And yet it's Asia that is now burning the greatest amount of fossil fuels to lift multiple billions of people out of poverty for the first time. Asia is going to burn what it needs to burn in order to get there, and who in the West can say no?

Finally, both covid and climate change show the dangers and benefits of modern science. We may have created that virus, and we may have created this global warming. But we also quickly created a vaccine and new medications, and we have smart people who can figure out how to produce and consume energy in new ways without the old risks. I don't have much faith in government mandates, but I do in human ingenuity.

The Neglected Qualification

The Neglected Qualification is a book by Douglas Wilson about the Biblical requirement, found in Titus 1:6, that pastors/elders have children who are believers. The parallel passage in 1 Timothy 3 doesn't have this particular requirement, but repeats the general principle that a man is only qualified to lead the family of God if he has demonstrated that he can lead his own family. There is much wisdom and sound reasoning in the book, but I disagree with the main point to which it seems the book drives.

I want to list the ways in which the book is wise and helpful before addressing my disagreement and offering a counter proposal.

The qualification of the state of the pastor/elder's family, both wife and children, should surely not be neglected. "When we are looking at a man's family, we are looking for what we want to see duplicated - for Paul tells us that it will be duplicated" (p30).

The wise elder will leave the 99 of the congregation to pursue the one wandering sheep in his family.  In doing so, he is not only not disqualified, but is actually demonstrating the qualities of Jesus (p13). We should not embitter our kids by having any and every problem in the church outrank their problems (p42).

Wilson offers procedural wisdom, saying we "should let the simple requirement drive the majority of your cases, and deal with your exceptional cases as they arise" (p20). And that when an elder has a difficult situation, "in such tangles those most closely involved should not be judges in their own cases" (p9).

Wilson makes a helpful distinction between selecting a new elder and retaining an existing elder. "Before he is in office, views about his family are a judgment call. After he is in office, they are a charge" (p35). This allows members to go with their gut on installation, but it protects the elder and his family from unreasonable scrutiny. The analogy of picking a wife vs. remaining married to that wife is apropos (p34). This distinction best fits the presbyterian model (elder for life), but can be applied to a congregational model with terms. The elder resuming another term after a required hiatus is largely continuing his role as elder.

But all of this is preamble to his central recommendation for church governance at the end of chapter 8, "If a natural child of an elder or minister, having grown up in his father's house, is lawfully excommunicated by the church, the resignation of his father will be required at that same time" (p47, also stated similarly on p9). 

First, let me clarify two minor things in this recommendation. I don't like the distinction between the natural child and the adopted child or step child. Adopted children often struggle with the profound loss of their birth parents and their sense of identity, and step children have been scarred by a death or divorce they didn't cause. These extenuating circumstances must be considered. But there are also extenuating circumstances for natural born children that must also be considered, and making this distinction between types of children doesn't help with that.

Also, "lawfully excommunicated by the church" implies a formal proceeding in a local church in which child and father participate. But Wilson later clarifies, "If we adopt the policy I am suggesting in the larger church - that of asking elders and ministers to step down if their children are excommunicate (or the moral equivalent)..." (p55). So any unbelieving or grossly sinning child, regardless of church membership or proceeding, is in the equivalent state. I don't believe Wilson intends that the child be present in the local church where his or her father is serving in order to apply this rule.

Overlooking those points, how do I disagree with this recommendation without also "neglecting the qualification"?

First, Wilson's recommendation does not capture his distinction between making someone an elder and retaining that man as an elder. He only addresses retaining the elder.

Second, Wilson's recommendation doesn't state that when a child is known to be unbelieving the office of the father must be reevaluated by a qualified board. It simply says the resignation is required, and it is discussed elsewhere that discretion might be applied to override this requirement.

Third, Wilson argues that "children" must equally apply to young children in the house and to grown children out of the house or capable of being out of the house because young children cannot be accused of debauchery and rebellion (p44). No, two year-olds cannot. But 16 year-olds can. And a 22 year-old who went to college as a credibly professing believer, but fell under the influence of secular philosophy and atheistic science, is in some sense a rebellious child, but he or she is also a responsible adult. This all too common and tragic situation should never be neglected. It may reflect a flaw in the father's training or ongoing care. It should be considered, especially for a new elder, and even in the case of retaining a current elder, but I don't see how this recommendation captures any of that wisdom. Wilson says Eli's and David's sons should be regarded as responsible adults (p24), but his culminating recommendation doesn't incorporate that.

Finally, Wilson persuasively argues that Titus 1 is patterned after Deuteronomy 21. Execution of a disobedient son in Israel and excommunication of a disobedient child in the church are similar. Both Israelite and Christian parents are called to train their children to know the Lord and children are to obey their parents and follow their model of faith. Wilson says, "This is for all of us. But since we are supposed to learn the harvest of all Christian living from those who are given spiritual responsibility for us, it makes sense that Paul would begin by requiring this of church officers" (p54). The elder is required to have a complete harvest among all his children, without exception, into adulthood. If the father raises 10 children to know the Lord, all entering adulthood with credible professions of faith, and then one marries and later divorces and is unrepentant, I do not see how an expectation of covenantal harvest extends to an automatic resignation of the father from his elder/pastoral work. Surely he should not neglect the qualification. He should pursue his adult son. He should take the case to his fellow elders to see if he should step down for a season or forever. But Wilson is arguing for something more strict and automatic.

And so, now it comes to what really matters. Wilson should be commended for offering a recommendation, and if all I do is tear it down, I'm not building up the church. So I humbly offer my own recommendation to address the Neglected Qualification, much of it based on Wilson's own teaching: 

If a new elder candidate has an unbelieving child in his home, the church should presume he does not meet the Titus 1:6 qualification unless proven differently. If any elder, new or existing, has an unbelieving child of any age and living situation, he should humbly submit himself and his situation to the judgment of the other elders, they should consider what has been revealed about the spiritual maturity and reputation of that elder, and whether he remains in office or not he should pursue his child with a greater urgency than his work for the congregation.

Why I Celebrate Halloween

October 31st is right around the corner, and this is my first Halloween with an empty nest. But I'm still planning to carve a pumpkin and be ready for trick-or-treaters to come knocking. 

I realize many other Christians with whom I share much in common feel compelled to not celebrate for a variety of reasons, so I thought I'd offer a few reasons why the party will still be happening at our place.

First, for over twenty years Halloween was a fun event to celebrate with our kids: the costumes, the candy, the pumpkin carving, sometimes just as a family and sometimes with friends. Second only to opening presents on Christmas morning, this is a kids-centric event. Go have fun!

Second, Halloween is one of the only events that brings out the neighborhood. I don't want to miss the little ones coming to my door, saying hello to the young parents and cheering them on. We want to be the generous neighbors, not the dark-door neighbors, so we give out the big candy bars.

But what about all the witches and ghouls and Freddy Kruegers and all the over the top stuff? Well, you don't have to dress or decorate that way yourself. This is a 1 Corinthians 5:9-10 moment. It's a ready opportunity to show kindness to your neighbor, thinking more of him than of yourself.

Finally, however grisly and gruesome the world tries to make Halloween, it turns out that God has the last laugh, as he always does (Psalm 2:4). The origin of Halloween is thoroughly Christian which is captured in the original name All Hallows Eve, or the Eve of All Saints Day. The European tradition of dressing up as ridiculous devils on that day was to taunt and tease the Accuser of the Brethren on the day before celebrating the life and witness of those Brethren. In Christ the devil has no power over us, and in God's plan his doom is sure.

Martin Luther, who nailed his 95 Theses to the church door at Wittenburg on Halloween in 1517, thought that we should ridicule the devil, even breaking wind to send him running. I think I'll send him running with a jumbo Snickers given in the name of Christ.

Finally, for any parent out there who abstains from Halloween because the candy is not healthy, I think two and a half years of Covid should give us pause on how well our modern scientific culture actually understands health. I'm all for more vegetables and less sweets, but that Snickers bar, with all its fat and sugar, still fits squarely into the author's intended meaning in 1 Timothy 4:4, created by God, good, and to be received with thanksgiving. Especially on Halloween.

Questions on marriage, dating and relationships

It's Q&A with the high school youth group tonight! We got a few anonymous questions ahead of time, so I've tried to prepare some good answers. It's quite the privilege to be asked. I'm answering these from a guy's perspective, but the answers are general.

What do you enjoy about marriage most?

Most: A companion to talk with. Genesis 2:18.

Runners up: having children, dancing, sex, cooking and cleaning for me, teaching me to love classical music and Jane Austen, singing hymns together, watching sunsets, watching TV, the list goes on.

What was the biggest struggle in marriage you have had to overcome? And how did you?

Conflict avoidance and lack of empathy - personality traits imprinted from my youth, and empowered by selfishness. Very hard to overcome. I have never loved anyone as much as my wife, and I've never treated anyone as awfully as my wife. That's a hard reckoning. 1 Timothy 1:15.

What is the biggest threat to a healthy relationship and marriage?

The big answer is sin, which means as you learn to follow the Lord more in repentance and faith, your relationships benefit. The more specific answer is selfishness. Learn to care about others more than yourself: you will not find joy by seeking your own pleasure. Philippians 2:4.

What is an important skill to have in marriage?

Listen and understand. 1 Peter 3:7.

What are some key red flags in a dating relationship?

Are you hurrying up the physical intimacy? It's an easy substitute for real relational maturity, and it will blow up in your face. Proverbs 5 and 7.

Do you lack friendships with guys? Having a set of guy friends is important for your own growth. Think about what happens after marriage - the number friends of the opposite sex drops to exactly one, and the rest is guys.

Are you doing better in school, more engaged at church, reading more, learning more, etc.? Or is your dating relationship all-consuming?

What role do parents play in a dating relationship?

They are a source of wisdom and perspective that comes from their experience and maturity. Go ask them questions about their own experience. Get them talking, then listen carefully. Also, consider that your wife will likely treat you the way she acts towards her dad today.

Is it still premarital sex if it's not sexual intercourse?

Well, what is it then? As President Bill Clinton said, "It depends on what the definition of what is is." Here's a simple rule of thumb for a high school student: Would you do it if your mom was in the room? 1 Timothy 5:2.

How should I deal with conflicts with other friends as a result of a relationship?

It could be that your friends are trying to point something out. Go talk with them and listen seriously. If you have to choose between a girlfriend and a set of guy friends, go with the guys. You still have a lot of learn and they will be of more help to you at this point.

What is your opinion of high school dating?

Go on group dates with friends in the youth group, but avoid pairing up or trying "get a girlfriend." Instead, make it your goal to get to know lots of people and build quality friendships. Imagine the girlfriend you want to have: what kind of guy would she be interested in? Work on becoming that kind of guy.

If you are aching for a girlfriend, it's usually a sign of insecurity and immaturity. Instead, grow in Christ and learn how to relate to lots of people.

What should I do in a relationship that has gone too far sexually?

You need to break it off, and do it right away. Also, you likely won't be able to, so go ask for some help.

If you were older and ready to be married, then there are other options like pick a wedding date in the near future and remaining abstinent until then, but that's not an option for you. Remember - if you can't be faithful now, why do you think you can be faithful later? Ditto for your girlfriend.

What if I want to be married but don't want children?

That's a normal thought when you're in high school. God created men and women to be attracted to each other and the natural result of that is children. You didn't plan it and you don't need to plan around it. Just relax.

The Genesis 1 creation mandate "be fruitful and multiply" still applies today. It's how God created the world. The Sexual Revolution is trying to re-make it, but it's doomed to fail. The trend towards delaying kids and having fewer kids is going to have devastating results in the modern world. Do you want anyone around who cares about you when you're 80?

Letter to Edvard on his graduation

Dear Edvard,

Mom and I are excited to see you graduate from high school and head to college. We think you're ready and we're very proud of you. We remember the day you were born, kicking and crying and ready to take on the world. You were and are a beautiful son.

Psalm 127 says that children are a reward to parents, like arrows in the hand of a warrior. And an arrow is something you point in the right direction, then let it fly. So here are some things we'd like to say to you as we release the bow string.

In the 18 years you've been in our house, we've observed what kind of person you are. You're a fun-loving person. You make friends easily and know how to have a good time.

You're a diligent worker. After getting through the normal amount of procrastination, you can buckle down and get the work done, at school, at work, or wherever it's needed. And you do this with very little complaining.

You've been given a sharp mind. You're able to understand new things quickly and aren't scared of the abstract or the mathematical. You're an adventurous person, traveling to Bemidji to study Russian, learning to play golf when no one in your family knew a thing about it, and picking up the bass guitar and just figuring it out.

Finally, mom and I know that you're a trustworthy person. We've asked you to take on responsibilities at home, even when we're on the other side of the country, and you make it all happen.

All of these qualities are blessings that God has given you, and they will be assets as you move on to your next stage of life.

We also wanted to give you a few words from the Bible's wisdom literature for the road ahead.

First, Proverbs 13:20 says "Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm." We all end up imitating the people we're around, and at Grove City College you have a great opportunity to choose who you're going to hang out with. Be a friendly person, try lots of things, make lots of new friends, but also be discerning about who you become close with. Look for people who love the Lord, who pursue wisdom, and they will help you become a wise person yourself.

Second, Proverbs 12:24 days, "The hand of the diligent will rule, while the slothful will be put to forced labor." If you learn to work hard at your studies, whether it's Computer Science or another discipline that captures your interest, it opens up a world of possibilities. The world is hungry for capable, diligent people and they get to lead the way. But if you take it easy, just hanging out, what the Bible calls "sloth", you end up getting forced into dead-end situations. Now is the time to grow your capacity.

And finally, Ecclesiastes 12:1 says "Remember your Creator in the days of your youth." Your mom and I have shown you what it means to follow Christ. You know how God's Word is guidance for us and God's people are an encouragement to us. But now it remains for you to choose to continue in your faith and grow into a mature man of God. You have a lot of things before you, but you will do well to remember where you've come from.

We love you very much, Eddie, and we are praying for God's blessing and guidance in your life. We are so grateful that God gave you to us as our son.

Love, Mom and Dad