Environmentalists vs. actually feeding hungry people

Norman Borlaug, an American agronomist (I have never used that word before), died this weekend. His advances in seed technology have been credited with saving the lives of 245 billion people.

There’s a good summary of his work here. This section stuck out to me:

Borlaug warned that the Green elites tended to be wealthy, urban individuals who saw the “wilderness” as a place to vacation, but wouldn’t want to live there. “Our elites live in big cities and are far removed from the fields. Whether it’s [Lester] Brown, or [Paul] Ehrlich or the head of the Sierra Club or the head of Greenpeace, they’ve never been hungry.” Borlaug warned that the urban elites in the West “are easily swayed by these scare stories that we are on the verge of being poisoned out of existence by farm chemicals.”

Environmentalists have long championed coercive measures “to make the world a better place.” Normal Borlaug actually did make the world a better place. His only crime was that, he wasn’t saving insects, but the lives of people in Asia, Africa, and Central America. And in the Green heirarchy of values humans come last.

HT: JT

You’re rich because of the Reformation.

(This post is a summary of part of Wayne Grudem’s talk today at RTS Charlotte’s Fall Lecture Series.)

Until about 1550 AD, there had been almost zero economic growth for centuries– that is, no substantial increase in per capita annual income. From about 1550 to 1750, slow economic growth began to spread, especially in Northern Europe. In about 1770 economic history changed forever with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution; per capita income began to grow dramatically, and the growth hasn’t stopped. In 1750, the ratio of per capita income in rich vs. poor nations was about 5:1; today it’s about 400:1.

It wasn’t that everybody started in the middle, some nations became poorer and some became richer. Everybody started at about the same place: poor!

How did this come about? What has made the last 500 years so dramatically different than the previous several thousand?

In his book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, Harvard history professor David Landes (who is not a professing Christian) credits the Protestant Reformation, beginning with Luther in early 16th-century Germany.

The Reformation brought a new idea: what’s become known as the “Protestant work ethic” or the “Reformed doctrine of vocation.” It was a huge shift in how men and women approached work. Work was no longer seen as a necessary evil, but a way to serve God and fulfill his command to exercise dominion over the earth. For centuries prior to the Reformation, the dominant view was that to really serve God, one had to be a nun or a priest– incidentally, fields that make little economic contribution to society.

With the Reformation, men and women began to see their everyday life as a sphere where they could serve and please God. The farmer, the blacksmith, the housemaid all did work that mattered to God. This understanding provided an incentive for innovation, development, investment, and all sorts of other things that lead to economic growth. The results changed the face of the whole planet.

John Piper rocks, but he’s not your pastor.

Or Keller, or Driscoll, or whoever. Good reminder and encouragement from Challies today.

Wow, sorry to hear that.

Apparently the church that sent us this direct mail “can think of no better way to thresh out pressing topics than through the language of song.”

No better way? Really? Perhaps I could make a suggestion.

Selective memory, glass houses, and all that.

I didn’t watch the President’s speech last night. But apparently Joe Wilson, a Republican representative from South Carolina shouted “You lie!” when the President claimed that Democratic health proposals would not cover illegal immigrants.

That is classless, tacky, unprofessional, disrespectful, and stupid. Wilson has since apologized, as he should have. As a human being and as the President, Obama is entitled to respect and civility, and elected officials should have the self-control to act like adults on such an important occasion. (Now I have been known to raise my voice at the TV when the President speaks; if I met him in person I would show greater restraint.)

That said, it’s hilarious to see the New York Times’ account of the incident. The article notes that “members of both parties were trying to recollect such a pointed attack from an individual lawmaker at a presidential address,” then goes back to the Clinton years for an example:

When President Clinton addressed Congress in 1993 to push his health care plan, “both sides of the aisle received the President warmly,” according to a report in The New York Times at the time.

“But when he began talking about raising taxes on tobacco to pay for the plan, or the need to cut Medicare and Medicaid, many on the Republican side of the aisle began snickering, shaking their heads skeptically and making faces at each other,” the article said.

Oh, those childish Republicans, up to their old tricks. But I was trying to remember– wasn’t there another president between Clinton and Obama? Oh yes, that’s right. His name was George W. Bush. He was booed and shouted at, oh, about every single time he addressed Congress. I’m sure the New York Times was appalled at such juvenile behavior at the time.

Good reading on Calvin

From Between Two Worlds:

Timothy George has the cover story in CT: John Calvin: The Comeback Kid. See also his two sidebar/mini-articles: The Reluctant Reformer and Calvin’s Biggest Mistake.

These are all great. In 20 minutes you can get a very good overview on Calvin’s life and thought.

Why calling “racism” in political debate is unhelpful.

Abraham at 22 Words had a post this weekend on the kerfuffle over the President’s speech to schoolchildren. (I agreed with it.) It only took 2 anti-Obama commenters for the first accusation of racism to come out.

This is now standard in public and private discourse. Criticize Obama or his policies and you will be labeled racist, Nazi, anti-American, etc– whether by a blog commenter or a member of Congress.

There are at least three reasons not to bring up the charge of racism when you’re in an argument. (I mean argument in the technical sense– when you’re presenting and defending your point of view.)

1. It’s an attempt to end debate, rather than respond to the claims of your opponent. That suggests that you are unable to respond to the claims of your opponent.
2. It’s seldom based on evidence, making it both an unforgivable and an unprovable offense.
3. It suggests that you, the accuser, are more preoccupied with race than the accused.

Probably the best response to “You’re just saying that because you’re a racist” is “Well, OK, but you’re just saying that because you’re an idiot.”

DeYoung: Church critics and their inconsistency

From Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck’s Why We Love the Church, as quoted by JT:

But then again, consistency is not a postmodern virtue. And nowhere is this more aptly displayed than in the barrage of criticisms leveled against the church.

The church-is-lame crowd hates Constantine and notions of Christendom, but they want the church to be a patron of the arts, and run after-school programs, and bring the world together in peace and love.

They bemoan the over-programmed church, but then think of a hundred complex, resource-hungry things the church should be doing.

They don’t like the church because it is too hierarchical, but then hate it when it has poor leadership.

They wish the church could be more diverse, but then leave to meet in a coffee shop with other well-educated thirtysomethings who are into film festivals, NPR, and carbon offsets.

They want more of a family spirit, but too much family and they’ll complain that the church is ‘inbred.’

They want the church to know that its reputation with outsiders is terrible, but then are critical when the church is too concerned with appearances.

They chide the church for not doing more to address social problems, but then complain when the church gets too political.

They want church unity and decry all our denominations, but fail to see the irony in the fact that they have left to do their own thing because they can’t find a single church that can satisfy them.

They are critical of the lack of community in the church, but then want services that allow for individualized worship experiences.

They want leaders with vision, but don’t want anyone to tell them what to do or how to think.

They want a church where the people really know each other and care for each other, but then they complain the church today is an isolated country club, only interested in catering to its own members.

They want to be connected to history, but are sick of the same prayers and same style every week.

They call for not judging “the spiritual path of other believers who are dedicated to pleasing God and blessing people,” and then they blast the traditional church in the harshest, most unflattering terms.

ObamaCare = government-subsidized abortions

The National Right to Life Committee has a new document out explaining in detail how every version of the health-care bill would force taxpayers to finance elective abortion.

This is not a surprise or a trick move from the President. He has given every indication at every stage of his career that he wants to make abortion more easily accessible. Every Christian who voted for him either knew this or cast a woefully uninformed vote.

Piper, the tornado, and the aftermath

Last week a tornado struck downtown Minneapolis. John Piper wrote an article about it on the Desiring God blog, with specific reference to a meeting the same day of the ELCA, a Lutheran denomination, in which they approved a document that spoke approvingly of homosexual relationships.

At that point, all hell broke loose. The post now has over 700 comments, which might have the DG staff regretting their recent decision to have a commenting feature in the first place. I saw several references to it on Facebook, often with disapproving comments. A guy on Twitter said “It’s official: John Piper is bat-shit crazy.”

What Piper did not say, and what seemingly most of the people who read it thought he said, was that the tornado was definitively God’s judgment on the Lutherans. What he did say is this: in Luke 13:4-5, Jesus is asked about a seemingly random catastrophe that killed 18 people, and his response is that all people should repent. This means, says Piper (and I think he’s right), that catastrophes in general are a reminder of God’s sovereignty, his coming judgment, and a call to repent and believe. He then applies that warning to the specific situation of the Lutherans.

I know it’s controversial, but it’s really only as controversial as the Bible. Seriously, the Bible casually talks about storms and other natural phenomena as being sent by God all the time. And the parallel with the Luke 13 passage is pretty much a 1:1. Seemingly random event –> application: people should repent.

I thought it was a good, pastoral article. Here’s something that happened in the world, here’s what the Bible says, here’s what we should do. He includes himself in the warning too: “The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin.”

The most you could say, I think, is that Piper should have had a paragraph that started “Here’s what I’m not saying.” Or that a blog post that’s going to be quickly skimmed is not a good format for making a closely-nuanced argument. But it’s not Piper’s fault if people skim him and get the wrong idea, and if we always qualify everything to make sure we’re not misunderstood, we’ll end up never really saying anything. (Link via Abraham Piper.)

It does seem mean, and insensitive, and pompous to our culture’s ears. But, and this is my big point, so does the Bible. I don’t think Piper went anywhere the Bible doesn’t.