Why the global warning debate doesn't matter

In recent years the media has discussed global warming quite a bit. It has become an important issue for the left, which holds that the “carbon footprint” that humans are leaving on this planet could well melt the icecaps, cause the oceans to rise, and totally disrupt life on earth as we know it. Many on the right on the other hand sees this as fear-mongering and believes that global warning is a hoax concocted by blowhards such as Al Gore. Further, the right views government efforts to reduce greenhouse gases will cost businesses billions and hamstring the American economy. Obviously, both sides have ideological reasons for their positions and those on the extreme left and the extreme right can be pretty dogmatic about this issue.

It appears that many scientists do believe that global warming is caused by human activity. But it also seems that a substantial and perhaps even growing number of scientists dispute this claim. The global warming debate seems important. Certainly the potential consequences of getting this issue wrong either way are pretty bad. In the end, however, I just don’t think this debate is all that important. Why not? Mainly because I don’t think people are going to change their ways all that much, especially Americans. I heard not too long ago on NPR that as individuals liberals don’t act any differently than conservatives when it comes to the environment. That seems about right from my personal experiences. I’ve definitely known liberal colleagues who drive more and drive less fuel efficient vehicles than do I.

As a nation, we may well adopt lifestyles that consume less fossil fuels in general and oil specifically. But this will be due to market forces, namely the rising cost of oil and other fuel. Of course, it would also improve our long-term national security if we moved away from oil as well. One thing is for sure, we aren’t about to give up our cars, electricity, and other modern conveniences, especially for something as abstract to the average person as global warming.
Industry and agriculture, which is also heavily dependent on fuel isn’t about to do this either. The vast majority of Americans aren’t remotely interested in living more like the Amish. We prize the conveniences of our live above almost everything else. This attitude isn't a good thing and is also why things such as abortion are so difficult to fight. Abortion is the taking of innocent human life and is a monstrous evil. Sadly, for many Americans it is a convenience that helps give them the “freedom” to live materialistic and sexually unethical lifestyles.

Americans aren’t about to give up their cars and other gadgets. If the government tries to reduce carbon emissions in a manner that hinders access to these modern conveniences, it will face an outcry from the public. I’m not a scientist, so I can’t say much about the science of climate change one way or the other. But I hope anthropomorphic global warming is a hoax. If it isn’t, we’re screwed because there is no way that Americans, much less the rest of the world will every change their lives in a way that would stop it. That in the end is why the debate over global warming just doesn’t matter. It’s a lot of talk on an issue where apart from market forces and technological innovation we just aren’t going to make in substantial changes.

Is Christianity really declining in America?

A recent study and recent articles have suggested that Christianity in general and Evangelicalism specifically are in decline in America and that America will likely experience significant “secularization” in the next twenty years. First, the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) released a poll that showed that almost all Christian denominations have lost ground since 1990. For example, among the two largest Christian groups, Catholics went from 26.2% to 25.1% of the population while Baptists went from 19.3% to 15.8% of the population. The number of Americans who listed “none” however, has grown from 8% in 1990 to 15% in 2008. For a more complete breakdown of these numbers see “USA Today’s” article on this at:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-american-religion-ARIS_N.htm

In addition to this report, noted Evangelical blogger Michael Spencer who blogs under the site “Internet Monk” has published an article in “The Christian Science Monitor” called “The Coming Evangelical Collapse.” Spencer predicts that Evangelicalism will decline significantly in the coming decades and that America will become more secularized. He has a host of articles discussing this on his website as well. For more information see the following links:

Michael Spencer “The Coming Evangelical Collapse”

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html

Spencer’s more extensive original blog posts on this issue:

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-original-coming-evangelical-collapse-posts

Michael Bell’s “The Coming Evangelical Collapse: A statistical review, part I and part II”

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-coming-evangelical-collapse-a-statistical-review-by-michael-bell

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-evangelical-collapse-a-statistical-analysis-part-ii-by-michael-bell

So what are we to make of this? Is Christianity in general and Evangelicalism specifically on the decline? First, I believe it is difficult to accurately measure faith. We can, however, make some generalizations on the basis of polls that measure religious affiliation, basic beliefs, and church attendance. If one looks at the findings of George Barna, the vast majority of Americans don’t have, and probably haven’t had in years (if ever), a “biblical worldview” or a belief system that corresponds to basic, orthodox Christianity. Barna’s numbers strike me as a bit too pessimistic at times. Nonetheless, I think his findings are generally correct. The majority of Americans simply aren’t and probably weren’t orthodox Christians. For more information on Barna’s data, see for example:

http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/21-transformation/252-barna-survey-examines-changes-in-worldview-among-christians-over-the-past-13-years

Another way to examine this situation is to examine the numbers on church attendance. Presumably, most people who are committed to their faith attend church on a weekly or regular basis. The statistics for church attendance in America vary considerably from about 20% to 45% of the population. Those who believe it is around 20% or so tend to look at actually head counts of attendance. Those who see it as higher such as Gallup and Barna use self-reporting, i.e. they simply poll people if they attend church regularly. In my view, the 45% is a bit high, though 20% probably is too low as it doesn’t count people on any given Sunday who are believers and aren’t in church because of an illness, work, travel, vacation, family obligations, weather, transportation problems, etc. One might also add some people who really are believers but have for whatever reasons (hopefully temporary ones) become disenchanted with church and aren’t currently attending a church. The interesting thing is that church attendance in America peaked at near 50% in the 1950s, declined shortly thereafter and has remained fairly stable in the 40s and high 30s in many polls since then. For a full discussion on the various numbers of church attendance, see this blog post:

http://missionalchurchnetwork.blogspot.com/2008/11/weekly-usa-church-attendance.html

So what does that mean? Is Christianity really declining? Is our society become more “secular”? Is it going down the same road that Europe has traveled? I’m not entirely sure this is the case. First, even in the 1950s something like 50% or more of people in America didn't attend church on a regular basis. In all likelihood, most of these people were nominal or cultural Christians who reported they were Christian because it was considered socially acceptable. Yet they rarely if ever darkened the door of the church, probably didn’t have a deep faith in Christ, if any at all, didn’t know much about the central tenants of the Christianity, and certainly didn’t live their lives on the basis of any “biblical worldview.”

The problem with this whole recent "decline of Christianity" and "secularization" narrative is that it assumes that more Americans were Christian in the past that probably were in reality. What we may be seeing today isn't so much "secularization" or "decline" of Christianity, but the erosion of cultural Christianity. I wouldn't be surprised if many if not most of the 15% of Americans who now list "none" under their religious affiliation would have been nominal or cultural Christians from the 1950s until say 2000. Since I haven’t seen any numbers pointing to a serious drop in church attendance, what may well be happening is that people who are nominal or cultural Christians are no longer checking the "Christian" box in surveys and check "none" instead.

Perhaps people today are simply a bit more honest about their faith or lack thereof. I would say that the ARIS’ number of 15% of Americans as “none” is too low itself. Certainly the number of hardcore atheists and even agnostics is fairly low. But the number of people in America who aren’t really Christian and don’t belong to any religion whatsoever is without a doubt higher than 15%

We may well be seeing the beginnings of decline for Christianity in America. Nevertheless, the current data only gives us a snapshot of what is going on. Until I see numbers that show a real drop off in church attendance, my guess is what we are really seeing is a decline of cultural Christianity. This decline could be permanent or it could be temporary. At the moment, I would attribute it to three things. First, the political polarization of the Bush years and the identification of conservative Christianity in general and Evangelicalism specifically with Bush. Second, the sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church. Third, the continued and bitter disagreement over issues arising from the sexual revolution (abortion, gay marriage, etc.). For my views on the third issue, see my recent post on this blog entitled “America in 1965: Religion, sex and what the secular left’s ‘theocrat’ charge misses.”

In my view, the first two issues are temporary. Americans have a short memory. I have a hard time believing these, especially the association of Bush with conservative Christians, will have a long-term impact on Christianity in America. Finally, some young people may be turning away from church. Many of them are disgusted with Bush and are infatuated with Obama. But historically young people attend church in lower numbers than the rest of the population. They often come back to church when they get married and have children. And today's young people who hate Bush may hate the Democrats 10 years from now because of crushing taxes, debt, and entitlement (Social Security, Medicare) expenses that will certainly fall on their backs. Remember the baby boomers turning away from church and the whole "Death of God" discussion in the late 1960s? Numerous commentators then believed Christianity was on the verge of a huge collapse and that young people were leaving the church in droves. That in fact did occur for mainline Protestant churches. But things weren’t near as dramatic for Christianity as a whole.

It is possible that we will see a real decline of Christianity in the next twenty years. But it is really too early to say. I do think we can say that cultural Christianity is waning. The gap between the world and the church is certainly growing starker in America. This is especially the case as the gulf between the sexual ethics of non-religious people and orthodox Christians that first opened in a major way in the late 1960s continues to widen. Truly, our country has no common sexual ethics, which is why we have the “culture wars.” Still, I'd be hesitant to draw too many firm conclusions one way or the other about “decline” and “secularization” right now.

Maybe God is busy clearing out some of the deadwood and underbrush of "cultural Christianity" that is in our culture. Come what may we Christians should love others, seek to live humble and holy lives, make the Gospel known to others, and above all cling to our faith in the incarnate and risen Christ. In the end, St. Patrick’s ancient prayer is as relevant today as it was over 1,000 years ago.

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

Below is the real reason to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day.

The Prayer of St. Patrick or “Breastplate” of St. Patrick

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through the belief in the threeness,
Through the confession of the oneness
Of the Creator of Creation.

I arise today
Through the strength of Christ's birth with his baptism,
Through the strength of his crucifixion with his burial,
Through the strength of his resurrection with his ascension,
Through the strength of his descent for the Judgment Day.

I arise today
Through the strength of the love of Cherubim,
In obedience of angels,
In the service of archangels,
In hope of resurrection to meet with reward,
In prayers of patriarchs,
In predictions of prophets,
In preaching of apostles,
In faith of confessors,
In innocence of holy virgins,
In deeds of righteous men.

I arise today
Through the strength of heaven:
Light of sun,
Radiance of moon,
Splendor of fire,
Speed of lightning,
Swiftness of wind,
Depth of sea,
Stability of earth,
Firmness of rock.

I arise today
Through God's strength to pilot me:
God's might to uphold me,
God's wisdom to guide me,
God's eye to look before me,
God's ear to hear me,
God's word to speak for me,
God's hand to guard me,
God's way to lie before me,
God's shield to protect me,
God's host to save me
From snares of demons,
From temptations of vices,
From everyone who shall wish me ill,
Afar and anear,
Alone and in multitude.

I summon today all these powers between me and those evils,
Against every cruel merciless power that may oppose my body and soul,
Against incantations of false prophets,
Against black laws of pagandom
Against false laws of heretics,
Against craft of idolatry,
Against spells of witches and smiths and wizards,
Against every knowledge that corrupts man's body and soul.
Christ to shield me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding,
So that there may come to me abundance of reward.

Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me,
Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ on my right, Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down, Christ when I sit down, Christ when I arise,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the threeness,
Through confession of the oneness,
Of the Creator of Creation.

America in 1965: Religion, sex and what the secular left’s ‘theocrat’ charge misses

It has become commonplace in recent years for those on the left, especially those who are non-religious to accuse traditional religious people of attempting to impose their religious views on the rest of society. This is particular the case on matters related to sexuality such as abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, abstinence only sex-education and so forth. Some of the more extreme voices on the left have resorted to labeling orthodox religious believers who voice their opinion on this issues in the public square “theocrats” or “Christianists” who seek to “roll back the clock” and put “fundamentalists” (a much abused and loosely used term) in charge of the government. Several liberal authors published books that made this argument during the presidency of George W. Bush. While the election of Obama has calmed down many liberals, this narrative remains dominant on the left and will likely remain so for years to come.

For orthodox Christians such as myself who are actually familiar with traditional Christian churches, the “theocrat” charge is clearly exaggerated. It seems more indicative of fear and an ignorance of religion on the left than the aspirations of orthodox Christians. Clearly there are those in the so-called “religious right” who have said and done some foolish things. And conservative Christians have often uncritically supported the Republican party, which in turn has done little for them. The ‘theocrat’ charge, however, is completely overblown and unfair. It only serves to automatically discredit one party and shut down discussion before it starts. But that may be the point anyway.

So what is the secular left missing in all this? To explain this, it is worth remembering what America was like in 1965. Why 1965? Because the United States in 1965 was a very different nation. Yet it was on the cusp on a number of social, cultural, and economic changes that shape contemporary American society today, especially its politics. By the end of 1965, president Johnson’s signature of the Civil Rights Act and Voters Right Act had ensured that Jim Crow segregation was on its deathbed. Johnson was also in the process of expanding the federal government with his “Great Society” programs and getting the nation knee-deep into Vietnam.
America in 1965 was still a nation with a strong industrial base. Computers were unknown in the workplace and had little impact on the way most business operated and the way most people lived. America was not dependent on foreign oil. The big three dominated the automobile industry and Japanese imports were not popular. Immigrants from Asia and Latin America were largely unknown. Far fewer Americans lived what is called “the sunbelt” today. Of course, all of this was about to change.

The same was true of American culture. In terms of religion, mainline Protestant churches were at the height of their influence. As the election of president Kennedy seemed to have shown, Catholics and Jews were largely accepted as part of the religious mainstream. Evangelicals and especially fundamentalists as well as agnostics and atheists were considered outside the mainstream. Nonetheless, only around 40% of the population attended religious services on a weekly basis and much of the population was only nominally religious. Religion, however, was generally seen as a good thing by most of society. America in 1965 had not yet experienced the counter-culture movement or the feminist movement. It had also not experienced the sexual revolution of the late 1960s and 1970s. Clearly the seeds of feminism and the sexual revolution were present in 1965. Alfred Kinsey’s ideas were far from unknown in academic circles, the FDA had approved the birth control pill, “Playboy” magazine was beginning to take off, and feminist icon Betty Friedan’s book “The Feminine Mystique” had been published.

In 1965, abortion was illegal to one degree or the other in every state in the Union. No fault divorce as unknown. Premarital sex was frowned upon as was having children outside of marriage. A couple who lived together before they were married would have been considered scandalous. Pornography was not common and was widely seen as immoral. Homosexual behavior was seen as immoral, unnatural, and psychologically abnormal. The idea of “gay marriage” was completely unknown and would have certainly been seen as utterly absurd. People who were religious, nominally religious and non-religious generally shared these attitudes. America was no utopia in the 1950s and early 1960s. But Americans of various political and religious persuasions shared a common set of ethical values with respect to human sexuality in 1965.

Your average atheist, agnostic, nominal religious person, or ‘progressive’ religious person in 1965 quite likely wouldn’t have supported the abortion laws we have today. They most likely wouldn’t have seen homosexual behavior as normal and won’t have dreamed of supporting “gay marriage.” For “gay marriage,” the same would be true in 1985 and in many cases in 1995. For Gen Xers and especially for Baby Boomers, all of this was well within their lifetimes. So were agnostics and atheists (say Ayn Rand) in 1965 and even beyond ‘theocrats’? Of course not. This is precisely why the ‘theocrat’ charge is so misplaced. It utterly lacks perspective and fails to acknowledge that the left has experienced sea changes with respect to how it sees human sexuality and sexual ethics .

The “culture wars” that we have experienced for so many years aren’t a result of “fundamentalist Christians” seeking to “impose a theocracy” on the rest of America. They have taken place because the left changed its beliefs so radically and much of the rest of American society, especially traditional religious believers did not. Traditional believers had this fight thrust upon them. They didn’t start it. In short, if we have a “culture war” it is one that the left started and continues to wage, all while propagating the myth that it is the other way around. There simply is no major effort to impose a “theocracy” on America. In fact, take away major issues associated with differences that have arisen over sexuality such abortion, gay rights, pornography, no fault divorce, permissive sex education programs, and the social acceptance of cohabitation and out of wedlock birth and the “religious right” would disappear over night. In other words, if you want to end the “culture wars” and bring American society to a point when there was a broad consensus on sexual ethics between almost all members of society, liberals and conservatives, religious, nominally religious, and non-religious, then take us back to the "status quo ante bellum." Take us back to 1965.

So what should the Republicans propose? Some suggestions

So if the Republicans weren’t nearly worthless and had any credibility, and if they had any ideas worthy of offering the public, what might they propose as an alternative to what the Democrats are currently doing? The Republicans should actually propose real conservative ideas, though tough economic times do require some ideological flexibility. It’s easy to be negative and sit back and criticize the Democrats. The Democrats did this for years with Bush. It didn’t help them any and made them appear as simply a bunch of nay-sayers. Some of their criticism of Bush were correct. But they didn’t go anywhere because they went over the top at times, came off as bitter and hateful, and above all didn’t have any new ideas or alternatives to offer. The Republicans need to avoid this and while in the opposition should offer a real alternative instead of just complaints. I would offer the following general suggestions:

1. Cut the size of the federal government, especially unnecessary programs.
2. Cut back our defense budget by reigning in our commitments abroad. We have no need of an Empire and it will bankrupt us in the long run.
3. We need to avoid too much government debt and inflation via printing money. There is a real possibility that some of the policies currently being pursued could weaken or even destroy the value of the dollar, which would be a disaster.
4. We need to do something about illegal immigration, the loss of industry, and our dependence on foreign imports. While there is nothing wrong with a service based economy per se, our fundamentals do not seem solid for the long term.
5. Something needs to be done to prevent entitlement programs from eating the federal government’s budget alive in the future. Some real entitlement reform needs to be discussed.
6. Some temporary government spending on infrastructure (roads, bridges, the power grid) might not be such a bad thing. Investments in alternative energy that would help free our dependence on oil would be especially worthy of government spending. After all, in the long run our current energy situation is both an economic and security problem that needs to be addressed.
7. We should have across the board tax cuts, but especially on the middle class and small businesses. These would stimulate spending and create jobs.
8. The public loathes the idea of government bailouts because they seem to reward greed and reckless incompetence. Bailouts should only be a last resort to prevent a recession from turning into another Depression. When at all possible, the market should be allowed to take care of itself. Some people who bought too much house should have their homes foreclosed on. Some banks that made reckless loans should go under. But we shouldn’t stick to free market principals to the point that it plunges us into a Depression.
9. What about companies who took bailouts? If a bank or company takes government money, there should be some serious strings attached. For example, the CEOs who made the poor decisions that put them in such dire straits should have to forfeit all the big bonuses they were awarded for the bogus “profits” they made their company in the form of back taxes and penalties. Bailouts should mean their golden parachutes get turned into lead. If said corporate leaders get fired, go bankrupt, lose everything they own, or even go to jail, too bad. This would send a clear message to the corporate world about what happens to people who take such reckless actions. It would also play well with the public who hates the idea of those responsible for this mess being rewarded i.e. “bailed out” for their stupidity.
10. It is clear that the banking industry needs to be regulated more. The government especially needs to zero in on preventing fraudulent lending the future.
11. Finally, we don’t need to lose focus that many individuals, banks, and corporations in America did not act recklessly. Regulations and taxes should not be allowed to hurt those who did not act foolishly. They already have to pick up the tab as taxpayers, so why should they be hurt twice for things they are not responsible for? Truth be told, the government should try and ensure conditions in which responsible people, banks, and corporations can take advantage of the stupidity of others in the market.

I don’t pretend to have all of the answers. And I freely admit that some of these ideas are vague at even possibly at cross-purposes. But I do think that in general if the Republicans sought to return to a more authentic form of conservatism and offered alternate proposals that were based on a mix of fiscal conservatism, pragmatism, and basic fairness that they might get a hearing with the public. They might actually contribute to what the government does and help us recovery as a nation and the Republican party as a credible party. With the party’s current group of leaders and commentators, however, I’m not holding my breath.

Republicans and the stimulus package: A lack of credibility

Daniel Larison has an interest post over at his blog "Eunomia" on the current Republican party and the economy. It is worth reading, so I've posted it below:

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/03/07/look-on-the-bright-side

"It seems to me that implicit in a lot of conservative criticism of the stimulus bill, the mortgage plan, and Obama’s cap-and-trade scheme, among other things, must be the odd notion that things would have been very different had McCain won the election. While we can be sure that McCain the crazed earmark-hunter would still be with us (no doubt keeping us safe from volcano monitoring and gang tatoo removal), let us recall that McCain supported cap-and-trade (even if he didn’t necessarily understand what he was talking about when he said so), proposed an insane mortgage bailout plan that pretty much everyone hated, backed TARP and differed from Obama on taxes largely in that he refused to raise any rates. In the end, the main difference turns out to be a disagreement about whether to return the top rate to its Clinton-era level or not. I guess that is a bit more than a dime’s worth of difference, but it isn’t much. Of course, this is why so many Republicans were relieved that McCain lost, because had he won they would have ended up backing a whole host of policies that they are currently denouncing as disastrous. At the same time, we would have had an old, irritable President prone to fits of bellicosity in international affairs and moral grandstanding about any issue he doesn’t understand, and behind him would have been an unqualified VP. However bad things are, remember that they could have been far, far worse."

As Larison notes, as much as the Republicans (rightly in many cases) complain about the stimulus package, it is doubtful that a president McCain would do things much differently if he were in office instead of Obama. Perhaps more importantly, the Republicans don't really have a lot of room to talk after all the problems of the Bush years. Bush and the Republicans in Congress wastefully spent money on pork barrel projects. They spent money like drunken sailors and increased both the size of government and the national debt. Moreover, they got us into the war in Iraq, which has turned out to be an unnecessary disaster that has cost tens of thousands of American and Iraqi lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. Congressional Republicans were also involved in a number of scandals. And last but not least, the Bush administration played fast and loose with civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.

In short, the Republicans did not act as real conservatives in the first place and certainly were not responsibly with power and money. Unfortunately, so far they don't seem to have learned much from their mistakes during the Bush years. Granted, it hasn't been all that long since the November election. But there has been no indication that "mainstream" Republicans have even began to question the disastrous and fundamentally unconservative radicalism of the neocons. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are still widely seen as authentic spokesmen of conservatism. The rank and file of the Republican party haven't exactly turned to Ron Paul for leadership or to paleoconservative publications such as "The American Conservative" or "Chronicles" for new ideas. I wish I could say there is a chance of this happening in the coming years, but I doubt it.

I suspect that the stimulus package may do more harm than good. It appears to have some good aspects, but will certainly increase the size of the national debt and government all while quite possibly doing little to kick start the economy. Politically, the problem is that the Republicans don't have any new ideas and consequently aren't able to present much of an alternative to what Obama and the Democrats in Congress are doing. Not only are the Republicans intellectually exhausted, but they have very little credibility in the eyes of the public. As skeptical as I am about the stimulus package, Republican (and I include talking heads such as Limbaugh and Hannity here) attacks on the stimulus package look a lot like the pot calling the kettle black. I'm sure the same is the case with much of the public as well. The Republicans are going to have to wander in the wilderness for several years. After the follies of the Bush years, they deserve it, though unfortunately in the meantime Obama and especially Congressional Democrats may do damage of their own to our country and economy.