From Hurricane Forecast Molehills To Sharpie Mountains

Recently I was talking with a friend who was wrestling with the reality of working with people who lied all the time. “It’s not just big things. They lie about things they don’t need to lie about. It makes no sense.” The fact that they so easily lied about mundane things seemed to unsettle him more than knowing they lied about big things. 

I understood my friend’s frustration. I used to work with a guy who lied all the time to people around him.  He, too, fudged the truth on everything almost instinctively. He would lie to others in front of me all the time - and he knew that I knew he was lying. It didn’t take long before I not only didn’t believe anything he told me, but I generally didn’t trust him. 

Most ethicists would agree with the following premise: as a general rule, lying isn’t the right thing to do. I suspect most of us would agree with the following corollary: there may be exceptions (we would lie to save a life, for example). We might even begrudgingly acknowledge yet another aspect: it’s to some degree understandable (even if it's not defensible) to lie in certain situations when the stakes are personally high. 

Of course you lied about cheating on your taxes when the IRS called; of course you denied the affair; of course you said the bloody glove wasn’t yours. Both the lie and the act that triggered the lie are wrong, but it’s a lie that makes emotional sense even as we disapprove of it on a rationally moral level.

The ideal is that we set our moral bar at the highest level on this issue. The rule is “Don’t lie.” This includes an understanding that genuine moral dilemmas exist in which lying might serve a profoundly greater good (think Corrie Ten Boom lying to the Nazis about hiding Jews).  

So, how much lower is that moral bar set when lying becomes acceptable for situations that are not at over genuine moral dilemmas but are instead over issues of serious personal impact? 

How much lower is that already lowered bar set when any situation is fair game to get you out of a merely uncomfortable situation?  

How much lower is that already lowered bar set when someone constantly evades the truth on even the most mundane and inconsequential things? 

And just how much should that concern us? 

What does it reveal about the character of the person in question?

Some Thoughts On Natural Disasters And The Mind Of God

“If a kid asks where rain comes from, I think a cute thing to tell him is, ‘God is crying,’ And if he asks why God is crying, another cute thing to tell him is, ‘Probably because of something you did.’” (Jack Handy, Deep Thoughts, 1992)

_________________________________________________________________

As America recovers from yet another massive natural disaster – or “act of God,” in insurance company lingo - the inevitable question resurfaces in Christian circles: Why is God crying? What is God angry about?  Why does it his some and not others? What did we do or not do right? I've written about this before, but I want to revisit this based on some conversation I know is taking place in Christian circles. 

This is a popular topic  in Christian circles every time a storm hits, especially if it hits where we don't live. Usually, the apparent target of God’s wrath is a particular situation or people group about which the person claiming clarity happens to feel very strongly:

•  It’s the abortion doctors! 
• It’s because of international policies! 
• It’s the Middle East conflict! 
• It’s liberal, feminist Marxists! 
• It’s the greedy Wall Street 1%! 
• It’s evolution in our schools! 
• It's the President! 
• It's megachurches (yes, I saw that one online)
• It's for someone with whom I am displeased!”

There’s quite a list that gets generated in the aftermath of a disaster like hurricanes or tsunamis. Apparently, God has lots of options.

Omens, Disasters, Prophecy And American Pride

I have written elsewhere about other concerns I have about how the modern church handles the Bible in relation to prophecy.  In this post, I want to focus on a particular observation that has sunk in over the past week or so: Most of the discussion in the United States about eclipses, hurricanes, judgment and prophecy only makes sense if you live in the United States. 

The entire world didn't have a total solar eclipse last month, yet somehow because the U.S, got it, that was a signal of the end. In 2016, South/East Asia, North/West Australia, and the Pacific and Indian Ocean had a total eclipse. In 2015, it was Europe, North/West Asia, North/West Africa, East and North America, the Atlantic and the Arctic. Total eclipses happen a lot all over the world, but for some reason they don't count unless they blanket the United States. The rest of the world was having natural disasters in 2017 as well, including tropical storms and flooding (some of which devastated church communities) but apparently their experiences did not merit the same prophetic consideration as ours.

This, I think, ought to give us pause, and I will offer several reasons to explain why.

Harvey, Irma And Global Warming: The Facts From Experts Whose Opinions Matter More Than Mine Or Yours

After hurricanes Harvey and Irma, it was hard to miss the multitude of headlines demanding that we pay attention to global warming now. Those who refuse to see this connection are science deniers at best and possibly criminals at worst (some are suggesting politicians who deny or minimize global warming should be arrested). 

But there were other voices as well, voices cautioning that the correlation was not so clear. The more I read, the more I realized how many 'weasel words' permeated the coverage (might, could, likely, probably, many speculate, etc). Even worse, headlines and even conclusions within articles often did not align accurately with the actual facts in the article. 

I figured it was time for some research. I looked for national and international agencies, think tanks, meteorologists and climatologists. I did not try to avoid anything or confirm a particular bias. As far as I know, what I have to offer represents the mainstream or consensus scientific view. I know "consensus" is a dirty word in some circles, but if it's good enough to give force to the global warming argument, it should be good enough to give weight to this topic as well.

These quotes will address the number of hurricanes, their strength and duration as compared with existing data over the history of hurricane activity, and whether or not we should be drawing a connection between the power of the recent hurricanes and global warming. 

I think you will see that while there is minor disagreement, the general consensus is solid: global warming does not get credit for Harvey and Irma (except for perhaps a couple extra inches of rain). These are not climate change deniers saying this. Everyone I read affirms that the globe is warming, and that if trends continue we should eventually see significant impact, even if it might be a while.