Winging It

Frankly, I'm getting tired of it. "It" is a full-on daily assault from WE, Al Gore's We can solve the climate crisis campaign. "To Our Leaders: Free us," the ad demands with images and music behind it. "Free us from our addiction to oil. Save us from $4.99 per gallon gas. Save our economy. Save us from this climate crisis. Give us truly clean energy. Use the wind. Use the sun. We demand that we use them. We demand that we repower America. There is a solution. There is no time to waste. We want a better future. We demand a better future. We the American people are no longer asking. Give us 100% clean electricity within 10 years." It ends with a "link" to the website.

What is it of which I'm tired? I'm tired of being told that there is a climate crisis when science still isn't quite sure of it. I'm tired of being spoken for. I wasn't aware that I was making this demand. Apparently every American is demanding this "100% clean electricity within 10 years." No one asked me. I'm tired of this entire concept of "we demand" without any reference in the slightest to how. Oh, sure, wind and sun, that's all it will take. Sign me up. Except I know that this is, first off, a lie and secondly it is incredibly expensive. Current technology does not exist to power America by these clean forms. The technology that does exist is phenomenally expensive. Did you know, for instance, that using current technology to harness the sun to power my house (and only my house) would cost $40,000 to install? One house ... $40,000. That's without transmission lines. And that's in the very small section of the United States that can actually use solar power. Extrapolate that out to include every house and every business and the vast system of transmission that would be required and we're not talking "cheap" or even "affordable" in our current economic climate. (And remember, the "demand" is not simply for "fossil-fuel" free energy, but "clean" energy, which eliminates nuclear, gas, coal, wood, solid waste, or any other "dirty" sources.)

Take a look for a moment at the cost of changing our power generating structure in America. According to the Energy Information Administration, we currently have a capacity for 1,075,677 megawatts of power. Of that, 977,711 megawatts are "unclean". (It may be more, since "other" includes some clean and some not so clean.) So how much would it cost to replace that power with clean, renewable power? Well, APS here in Arizona is building one of the world's largest solar-thermal plants here in the area of Gila Bend. They are spending $1 billion to produce 280 megawatts of power, enough for 70,000 homes. Now, let's see ... if we do the math, all we would need is about 3500 of these plants to replace the "bad" generation. And at $1 billion, well, that math is easy ... that would be ... oh, wait, that's a really big number. We're talking $3.5 trillion. The other cost to consider is space. The plant will cover 1900 acres. without accounting for transmission lines or boosters or the like, to generate sufficient power to replace existing sources, we would need to occupy 6,650,000 acres or roughly 10,390 square miles. No small area to consume.

Okay, so maybe that's not entirely viable. We can surely go to wind power as well, right? T. Boone Pickens is planning to build a 4,000 megawatt wind generator system. His expected cost is between $10 and $12 billion. Now, to use wind to replace the existing "bad" energy sources, we would need another 245 of these systems. (By "systems" I simply mean a field of wind generators.) That would cost somewhere between $2.45 to $3 trillion. (I can't find any figures on land use.)

There is, of course, one other option. Geothermal power uses the planet's internal heat to create electricity. Now, all we really need to do is take over Yellowstone National Park with its many geysers ... no, wait, that's not going to work. Okay, so surely we can just drill some deep holes and get there that way, right? Well, it's not quite that easy. Geothermal energy production has its environmental concerns. The fluids are often corrosive, and the process can make land areas unstable. Still, currently we are getting something like 8,000 megawatts of power worldwide from geothermal sources with the United states leading the way by producing some 1,935 megawatts. The DOE has calculated an average cost of $1.68 million for a geothermal plant built in America. Of course, experts estimate that, with enhanced technology, we could possibly produce 138,100 megawatts of power worldwide. Since America would need around 980,000 megawatts, that isn't going to help at all. Besides, estimates put the building of a 1,000 megawatt geothermal plant at $3 billion. Even if we could figure out how to do it, that would require nearly $3 trillion to replace the existing sources.

One thing about that commercial ... you know, the one that bugs me so much ... is that it includes a demand to "Save us from $4.99 per gallon gas." In the commercial, right there between our oil addiction and our economy, the commercial shows a counter with a rising price of gasoline for our cars. Now, what, in all this plan, will help with our cars? How will that help lower fuel costs? The truth is that we don't use a whole lot of petroleum to power our generators. Natural gas is by far the biggest source. So how will it help the rising cost of driving our cars if we were to manage to switch to other sources of electricity? But I guess I'm not supposed to ask questions like that.

"Give us solar power and give us wind power and give us geothermal power -- clean energy." That's the demand. Farther than that, "we want it in 10 years!" And don't get me wrong. I like clean energy and renewable energy and cheap energy. That's all good. But, the technology to do that is limited and the space it will take is much more than is currently used and the cost to accomplish it is massive. Still, we demand it and we demand it now! Listen, while you're at it, why not ask for some other useful impossibilities? You know, "a million dollars in every wallet" or "peace on earth" would be nice ... as long as no one asks "So ... how are we going to do that exactly?" or "Who's going to pay for that?" or other practical considerations.

I am not a real political pundit. No one really looks to me for political advice and I rarely make any political predictions. I'm no expert. So it was somewhat of a surprise to me when I realized I did make a prediction a couple of years ago and it has actually come true. Back in 2006, we here in Arizona voted on a proposition (Prop 107) that would have banned homosexual marriage and would eliminate "domestic partnership" rules. It failed by a margin of 48.5% to 51.5%.

Back then I wrote, "I suspect it will come back later to bite us. Polls suggested that a proposition to ban homosexual marriage would have been approved by 75% of the voters. Arizonans didn't shoot down Prop 107 because they want to legalize homosexual marriage. None of the 'No on Prop 107' arguments were predicated on 'legalize homosexual marriage' or the like. No! The push against Prop 107 came from the second line in the proposition that said, in essence, 'We do not have to recognize as married anyone who is not married.'" I knew then that if we wanted to take another stab at defining marriage to be between one man and one woman, the opponents would throw this back in our faces. "We already voted on this!" Not true, of course. We denied the call for eliminating domestic partnerships.

So now we're looking at Prop 102. I have never seen a clearer, more easily understandable proposition. Right or wrong, it is certainly unambiguous, certainly free of "legaleze."
Twenty words ... that's all there are. If passed, it will modify our state constitution. The polls have it leading slightly.

You know what the opposition is saying. "It's an anti-gay measure." No, it isn't. It doesn't address homosexuals at all. It simply defines one English word -- marriage -- using what the California Supreme Court recognized as "the longstanding and traditional definition." It doesn't say anything about domestic partnerships or any such thing. "We already voted on this!" No, we didn't. That never was the issue in that vote.

The law requires truth in advertising, but never let it be said that we should have truth in politics.

And to Governor Napolitano (and those like her) who are asking, "What's the point?" (there is already a law on the books that defines marriage as between a man and a woman), I do have an answer. The point is "Look at California! They had a law on the books. It was thrown out."

I was pretty sure in 2006 that this would be the approach by opponents. I was right. Sometimes I hate it when I'm right.

There are so many "fixes" being thrown out for us in the economic world. "Lower taxes!" That hasn't helped. "Lower interest rates!" Neither has that. "Infuse more cash!" That didn't help. "Buy out bad debt!" That's not working. And no one seems to have a real good handle on what to do about it. McCain assured us "the fundamentals of our economic system are sound" which, of course, Obama pounced on. I don't know why. If "the fundamentals of our economic system" are that people need to buy stuff so companies need to provide stuff that people need to buy so companies need to employ people to provide that stuff ... you know, Capitalism ... then it would seem that this is still the case. So I don't know what McCain meant or what Obama meant. But even "experts," market folk who know this stuff, can't agree on either the cause or the fix for this economic problem.

I think I do know the cause. It isn't Big Business. It isn't Big Government. It isn't Corporate Greed. It is people. There is a word used quite often in the New Testament. It is translated in older English as "covetous" or, in the newer translations, as "greedy." It is listed with the common sins, the common failings of Man, the typical reasons that humans do not get to heaven (Eph 4:17-19; 1 Cor 6:9-10). The word means, essentially, "not enough." It means "desiring more." It is a standard sin, one, in fact, that the Roman Catholics classify as one of the seven deadly sins.

Americans have changed. Where there used to be a community that banded together to help each other we've shifted to a dog-eat-dog world where "what I want is what I need and you had better not get in my way." We shifted from a pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstrap view of the world to a "health care is a right" world. Imagine that! "Health care is a right." Where did it come from? Who gave it? Who imposed it? We've eliminated the possibility of "unalienable rights endowed by our Creator," so who or what endowed this right? Who or what maintains this right? Who or what will respond if this right isn't met? I want answers!

"So," you say, "you're saying it's not Big Business or Big Government or Corporate Greed? What about ..." and you'll give me your favorite argument or example. Don't misunderstand me. These entities are populated with ... people. These people are infected with the new American mentality. The new American mentality requires things like, for instance, equal pay for equal work. (Did you know that Jesus disagreed with that mentality (Matt 20:1-15)?) This mentality has long ago pushed past "privileges" and gone beyond "rights," pushing all the way to "entitlements." And those "entitlements" are broad. The new American mentality is hedonistic. "If it feels good, do it" is our national mantra. The new American mentality is "not responsible." "I am not responsible for anything that happens." If something goes wrong, it's the product's fault or the big company's fault or the government's fault. If there's something wrong with me it's the fault of hormones or chemical imbalance or a syndrome (named or unnamed). If I buy a house with money I don't have and will never have and then lose that house, it's not my fault. And if I have a problem, someone else had better fix it ... now! The old American mentality was a "free market" mentality. A laborer is worthy of his hire. In the original "Puritan work ethic" the idea was "I will do what I can to support my community." If a community needed shoes and I could make shoes, I'd be a shoemaker. That shifted to "I will do what there is a market to do." If I can get people to buy my widget, I'll make widgets. That has shifted even farther today. "There must be no poverty (and we get to define 'poverty') and I deserve more."

It's a funny thing about people. It seems that the more they have the more they want. Have you ever, for instance, met people who came out of the Great Depression? That was a different generation. They tended to avoid "more" because they didn't have it to begin with. The same is true in third world countries. While we "need" new window coverings every year, they are happy with a hole in the wall (literally) that serves as a window. While this lousy, three-year-old couch "needs" to be replaced soon, they're content with a dirt floor and a mat on which to sleep.

How did we get in this mess today? "Desiring more." It was wrong of lenders to limit their lending to "rich" people who could afford to borrow money. They had to loosen their standards to allow "poor" people to borrow money. Why? Because they "desired more." A place to live wasn't sufficient. Ownership was required. It wasn't merely desirable; it was needed. Oh, it wasn't solely there that the problem occurred. That was simply the symptom. "More" from Enron meant that they could manipulate the energy market in California. "More" to Wall Street meant that they could drive up oil prices by speculating on oil futures. "More" tells illegal aliens that they have the right to break the law to get what they want. And somehow "enough" never seems to rear its ugly head.

The original "free market" idea of Capitalism was based on the original mentality that took into account other people and encompassed an underlying morality. This underlying morality has eroded. It isn't the fault of George Bush. It isn't the fault of Bill Clinton. It isn't the fault of the Democrats or the Republicans or even Wall Street or a greedy banking industry. It is an erosion that has been occurring for a lot longer than that, and it is finally down to the bare rocks of "greed" and "me first." A "free market" seems, to me, to be a market that is free to succeed ... or fail. The voices from government and its leading wanna-be's seem to be that "accountability" and "oversight" are the key to fixing the problem. Charge the American people with the bill and let the government fix our problems. By no means should we allow big companies to fail. Frankly, a "bail out" is a band aid on a cancer patient. The problem is not with Big Business or Big Government or Corporate Greed. The problem is with the sinful humans that inhabit those entities. And the fix is not to shore up their failing economics. The fix is a spiritual revival.

As for you and I, Christians, remember:

A friend sent this to me and it was worth it to pass it on to you. If you don't laugh, at least you'll have new insight into my character.

1. I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger. Then it hit me.
2. Police were called to a daycare where a three-year-old was resisting a rest.
3. Did you hear about the guy whose whole left side was cut off? He's all right now.
4. To write with a broken pencil is pointless.
5. The short fortune teller who escaped from prison was a small medium at large.
6. A thief who stole a calendar got twelve months.
7. When the smog lifts in Los Angeles, U.C.L.A.
8. The math professor went crazy with the blackboard. He did a number on it!
9. The professor discovered that her theory of earthquakes was on shaky ground.
10. The dead batteries were given out, free of charge.
11. A dentist and a manicurist fought tooth and nail.
12. A bicycle can't stand alone; it is just two-tired.
13. A will is a dead giveaway.
14. A backward poet writes inverse.
15. A chicken crossing the road: poultry in motion.
16. With her marriage she got a new name and a dress.
17. A grenade fell onto a kitchen floor in France, resulting in linoleum blownapart.
18. He broke into song because he couldn't find the key.
19. A calendar's days are numbered.
20. A boiled egg is hard to beat.
21. If you jump off a Paris bridge, you are in Seine.
22. When she saw her first strands of gray hair, she thought she'd dye.
23. Bakers trade bread recipes on a knead to know basis.
24. Acupuncture: a jab well done.

Isn't it interesting how "sins" change? In the '40's, it was a "sin" for able-bodied men not to join the military. As a nation we believed it was right, noble, good to fight to defend our country and other countries, even if it cost us lives and comfort. Today it's a "bad thing", reserved for losers shortchanged by the system. In the '60's it was racism. We needed to treat all people equally. That changed in the '70's to treating certain groups with favoritism ... you know ... to make up for previous conditions. In the first half of the 20th century it was a "sin" to engage in sex outside of marriage and a "sin" to get a divorce. These, of course, have shifted from "sin" to "norm." "Sins" change, at least in the national view.

Here in the 21st century things continue to change. It's a "sin" to be boring. It's acceptable to have religious beliefs, but a "sin" to have them in public or even to allow them to shape your worldview. Well, if it's Christianity, I suppose. Some religions seem to get a pass from most people. And when did it become a sin to make money? It seems a universal belief (well, almost universal) that "rich people are evil" and it is mandatory that they be stripped of what they have. They must be penalized! Take what they have and give it to the rest! People used to aspire to be rich. Now we have politicians promising to take as much as they can from rich corporations (you know ... the ones that employ a lot of people) and rich folks (you know ... the ones that have worked hard to get where they are at) and give it to the rest of us ... the ones who work for the corporations and haven't managed to get rich on our own. That is offered as a selling point for a campaign, a promise without apology, a "good" thing.

Sometimes I don't think I'm following things at all ...

In the comic strip, Fox Trot, Jason is a brainy little troublemaker who likes to aggravate his older brother and sister and likes to do math homework. In one strip, we see Jason outside with one of his friend (Marcus, I believe) getting ready to play football. "Go deep!" he tells Marcus. Marcus says, "Okay ... how do you correlate predestination with free will?" "Too deep," Jason replies.

It has long been the philosophical problem -- If God is sovereign, how can Man be free? R.C. Sproul tackled that problem on Friday night. He used the passage in Genesis 50:15-21 as his text. You may recall this story. Joseph had come out the far end of his rather lengthy trials as prime minister, so to speak, of Egypt. Because he was there, his family was saved when they encountered a 7-year drought. Then his father died. In Genesis 50, then, his brothers were afraid that, lacking the protection of their father, Joseph might retaliate. So they devised an apology. "Dad asked you to please forgive us." Yeah, fine. Joseph makes the classic, "Romans 8:28 of the Old Testament" response: "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). In this passage, then, we see a parallel. On one hand you have the intentionality of the brothers -- evil. At the same time you have the intentionality of God -- good. "Will" -- volition -- is defined as "the ability for intentionality", and both are present in this sentence from Joseph.

The problem is this: If God is sovereign, then Man cannot be free. If Man is free, then God cannot be sovereign. That's where it seems to stand. However, the problem starts in its semantics. If you define "free" as "autonomy", then the problem remains. If the phrase "Man is free" means that Man is self-ruled, self-determining, responsible only to himself, then it would be a logical contradiction to argue that God is sovereign.

Now, lots of Christians try to weasel out of this dilemma. "God's sovereignty," they may say, "is limited by Man's freedom." Well, okay ... the contradiction is gone, but not the dilemma. A God "limited" is not sovereign, and we're back to a problem. Or how many times have you heard this in some form or another? "God saves as many as He can. He wants to save everyone, but He relies on Man to choose Him." Again, if God has limited His sovereignty, then God cannot be said to be sovereign no matter how we choose to couch the term. "Limited sovereignty" is not "sovereignty". The truth is, if God is sovereign, then Man cannot be autonomous. If Man is autonomous, then God is not sovereign.

The answer, of course, is not to minimize God. The answer is to put Man back in his proper place. It is true that autonomy for Man eliminates sovereignty for God. But what if Man is not autonomous? What if free will exists, but is limited? Ah, you see, now we have eliminated the contradiction. But do we still have "free will"?

If you define "free will" as "choosing according to your strongest inclination" and you allow for the possibility that God may (as sovereign) intervene in your inclinations, then we don't have a problem, do we? That is, if "free will" is "choosing without coercion" and God doesn't coerce, where is the problem? As an example, no one argues when they come to an intersection, "I don't have free will" because they cannot choose to, say, go "up". So if God should limit choices and still allow choices, is there not "free will"?

The question is too big for a lot of people, skeptics and Christians alike. Some choose to go the irrational path of limiting God. I choose to go the path of limiting Man. I don't see limited free will as "no free will." Do you see "limited sovereignty" as actual sovereignty?

John MacArthur tackled one of the toughest questions Christians are asked today. You know the one. I probably don't have to say it. "If God is good, why does He allow such suffering and evil?" It has a name: theodicy - the justice of God versus evil. Lots of people struggle with this concept. Skeptics often see it as the "proof" that there can be no God.

Part of the problem is that so many Christians are ill-equipped to answer it. They try a variety of illegitimate responses. "Oh," they assure us, "it isn't God's fault. It's Adam's fault. He brought sin into this world." Okay ... so why did God allow Adam to do that? (By the way, most don't realize it, but God certainly did create creatures with the ability to make choices without the ability to sin. We call them "animals" and they make choices every day ... except they never violate God's law. He obviously could have done it with Adam.) "No, no," another group argues, "it wasn't Adam's fault. It was Satan! He's the one." So how does that help? Didn't God know that Satan would fall? Couldn't He have prevented that? And the problem is back in God's lap. Others have tried other methods of keeping God's hands clean, so to speak. One attempt is what is known as "process theology". In this one, God is "in process." The more He does, the better He gets at being God, but He hasn't arrived yet. He's getting better and better and some day, well, He'll be awesome! Or there is "openness theology" that argues that God cannot know the future because, well, it hasn't happened yet. So what happens in the future isn't God's fault. These, of course, simply strip off the basic nature of God and we're still left with the problem.

The answer, actually, is quite simple ... even if it's unpleasant to some. It's a simple, logical process:

1. Evil is. (Evil, in fact, is dominant.)
2. God is.
3. Therefore, evil is because God intended it.

In other words, to the question, "If God is good, why does He allow such suffering and evil?", the answer is "because He wants to."

"Oh, yeah, that's better," those others argue. "You've just placed all this in God's lap." Well, yeah, but it's not because I'm willing to do so; it's because God is willing to do so. While we're busy down here trying to save God's good name, He's busy writing down stuff that denies our efforts.
And, oh, there is so much more like this.

I suppose if we were God's lawyers, we'd be shushing Him. "Don't say a word!" we'd advise Him. "This kind of stuff is too incriminating." It appears that God has no interest in worming out of the question. Instead, it appears that He is agreeing. "I am God ... and I allow evil." In fact, the last several chapters of the book of Job are God speaking in response to Job who has, in essence, asked, "If God is good, why does He allow such suffering and evil?" His reply, essentially, is, "What makes you think I have to answer to you?" And Job's reply, when it is all done, is "I know that Thou canst do all things, and that no purpose of Thine can be thwarted ... Therefore I retract, and I repent in dust and ashes" (Job 42:2,6).

In Scripture, God takes the responsibility for allowing evil to exist. It is for His reasons. We can know this because He says so. We can also know this by the circumstances in the Bible. For instance, the single, supreme evil committed by human beings was the crucifixion of God's Son. That, my friends, was God's plan. They meant it for evil; He meant it for good. And there are explanations as to what His reasons are or might be. Romans 3:5, for instance, points out that our unrighteousness demonstrates God's righteousness. Romans 9:22 says that He intended to show His power and wrath.

So the problem, you see, is not with God. Our "American experiment" of personal independence is good, but it hasn't served us well when it comes to thinking of a sovereign God. And our sin nature has elevated us to the "most high" when we needed to remember we are "creatures." God doesn't have a problem with His responsibilities. It looks like the problem is on our end.

There have always been questions about this. What was Jesus praying about? What are the ramifications to "prayer" when Jesus asks for something that He doesn't get? What "cup" was He concerned about?

Of course, most of the questions are not as big as they seem. For instance, Jesus got exactly what He prayed for: "Not as I will, but as Thou wilt." Still, what was it that had Jesus so worked up? What was that "cup"?

Here's what I think. Jesus was about to go to the Cross. Certainly He was fully aware of the pain that would entail. "Come on," some might urge, "take it like a man!" Yeah, yeah, but I don't think the physical and emotional torment was in view here. I think Jesus had a specific cup in mind. In Scripture the term "cup" is used often in terms of life's situations. It is also used quite often in terms of judgment. In Psa. 116:13 it refers to "the cup of my salvation." Elsewhere:
That concept is in many places. Isa. 51:17 talks about "the cup of His anger." Jer. 25:15 speaks of "this cup of the wine of wrath" from God. In Rev 14:10 we read of "the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger." (You know ... the origin of the lyric "He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored.")

When Jesus went to the Cross, God Incarnate, the Holy One, took on Himself the infinite offense of human sin. The Infinite God bore the infinite wrath of God. Jesus's final cry was the "cup" that He dreaded but took anyway: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" It was the wrath of God He bore that was the cup He dreaded, the cup He drank, and the payment He made on our behalf.

Now that's something about which to worship.