Excellent essay on the unscientific underpinnings of the green movement over at the “Defining Ideas” site:

“The vogue of environmentalism stems from two ancient myths disguised today by a thin veil of scientific authority.”

I don’t actually have the time to spare for this, but I cannot NOT comment on President Obama’s invocation of Jesus and his personal Christianity in support of forced redistribution of wealth by the government in the same week his administration was deploying the coercive power of the Executive Branch to force Catholic Charities to pay for birth control and abortions.

First, the President’s statement:

But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.” It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who’ve been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.

This largely theological argument was put forth in support of raising taxes on the rich. It’s a familiar one. I’ve seen similar arguments from the prominent politically liberal Christians such as Jim Wallis, Brian McClaren and Tony Campolo and the whole Sojourners crowd.

It invariably sounds holy at first blush. But there is a common fallacy in these arguments–one that is essentially heretical and idolatrous at the root. Allow me to explain.

As many have observed, President Obama’s statement above takes the God who requires much from those to whom He has given much and substitutes the government in His place.

In the view of the Christian Socialist, it is the government that bestows the privilege of earning wealth and it is the government’s right and responsibility to determine how much of those earnings any individual deserves to keep, AND who deserves to be the beneficiary of that confiscated wealth.

As John Hindraker at Powerline succinctly put it:

In drawing this equivalence, Obama implicitly substituted the government for God; in Jesus’s teaching it is God, not any earthly ruler, who gives us much and expects much from us in return.

My Sojourner-y friends make frequent appeals to Jesus’ calls for charity and compassion for the poor. And those calls are real, legitimate and vitally important. But as I tried to explain to a earnest left-leaning young brother a while back:

“The teachings of Jesus and the rest of the Bible absolutely compel me to reach into my wallet and help the poor, widows, orphans and the oppressed. But those same teachings forbid me to reach into my neighbor’s wallet and force him to do the same against his will. Or to vote to use the coercive power of the government to achieve the same end.”

Why? Because true Christian charity is voluntary–an act of the will that comes from the heart. If it is forced or coerced, it does not please God nor comport with the Bible’s manifold encouragements to share, give and help.

There is, however, a Bible word for resenting the fact that someone has more stuff than I do.

The Bible calls it covetousness. And the ugly truth is, the spirit of covetousness is at the heart of virtually all “soak the rich” political policies. Ironically, President Obama’s “to whom much is given” quote was drawn from the 12th chapter of Luke–a chapter in which Jesus warns His followers to “beware of covetousness.”

But the most egregious sin of  this line of political thought isn’t envy and resentful coveting. It’s pure, old-fashioned idolatry. The arguments of politically liberal Christians consistently put government in the role of God or Messiah.

As Hindraker’s colleague at Powerline, Scott Johnson, wrote in a post titled “Render Unto Barry:”

Reverend Obama not only offers up the endorsement of Jesus for his economic policies, he also presents himself as standing in the shoes of Jesus, requiring much from those to whom much is given . . . As for Obama’s invocation of Jesus, when Obama demands that “the rich” pay their “fair share” — the text implicitly underlying yesterday’s sermon — Obama is closer to Caesar than to God.

Biblically speaking, the role of the Messiah is to bring deliverance and relief from poverty, sickness, lack and oppression. This is the role Jesus–the one true Messiah–claimed for Himself in a synagogue one day as he chose to read from the 61st chapter of Isaiah:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.” (Luke 4:18-19)

Today there are many who claim the name of “Christian” who view Messiah to be the legitimate role of government. Our president is one of them.

It is no accident that four years ago candidate Obama encouraged and stoked the frenzy of messianic fervor that surrounded his campaign. (For a great overview of this phenomenon in images, go to the blog “Is Barack Obama The Messiah)  Obama was and is the perfect embodiment of this idolatrous liberal Christian exaltation of Government-as-Messiah. (By the way, George W. Bush was infected with a mild strain of this flu, too.)

This is not new. For much of the last half of the last century there were European political parties that called themselves, Christian Democrat, Christian Democratic Socialist, etc. (Check out this 1953 Time Magazine article about the movement.)

These were the principle force behind the construction of the anti-capitalist welfare state that is currently bankrupting Europe and making it impossible to enact the reforms necessary to save it.

When you make government a false messiah, it becomes a jealous god. Which is why this week we saw the government claiming the right to override and supersede the conscience of the Catholic Church in the name of “women’s’ health.”

If you really want to understand the roots of this phenomenon, and you’re up for a very meaty, very philosophical read, I enthusiastically recommend Prof. Herbert Schlossbergs’ masterpience book. It’s appropriately titled:

Idols for Destruction

Destruction is where idolatry invariably leads.

I’ve thrown together a little video of my first few hours on the ground in Nepal. It runs about four-and-a-half minutes. Have a look. A little commentary follows:

If you’re having trouble viewing the video, click here.

To get to Kathmandu required about 32 hours of travel–including a 15-hour non-stop flight from Chicago to Delhi– with very little sleep.  After a few hours sleep at the very nice Hotel Himalaya in Kathmandu, I was picked up by a wonderful local Christian man who coordinates much of the work of Puresa Humanitarian in Nepal.

We needed to pick up our film crew at the airport but had a couple of hours to kill, so my host took me to one of the holiest spots to the world’s 800 million-plus Hindus.

I was jet-lagged, disoriented, and on sensory overload as we walked along the Bagmati river opposite Pashupatinath Temple. I’ve traveled all over the world but this was the “other-y-ist” place I’ve ever been.

The opposite bank of the river is lined with “ghats”–stone steps that allow pilgrims to come bath in the river and for families to burn the bodies of deceased loved ones and then toss the cremains in the river. (Yes, the same river in which the pilgrims are bathing, not to mention cows are walking and pooping amid the ubiquitous monkeys.

The wind was blowing toward us across the river, which meant we were constantly walking through the smoke of about a half dozen burning human bodies. The smell was . . . distinctive . . . and unforgettable. Gongs and bells were randomly sounding along with an occasional blast from a conch-shell horn. Cows, monkeys, snakes. All that and the jet leg combined to make this feel like a walk through the outer suburbs of hell.

Oh yeah . . . and then there were these guys:

More video and pics in the days to come. More than you probably care to see.

A week of traveling in Nepal has left me grateful, dazzled and utterly exhausted. Kathmandu. Bairahawa. Pokhara. And a little mountaintop village we could only reach on foot.

Nepal is a place of astonishing beauty. The people are largely warm, friendly and industrious. Oh, and the children are ridiculously cute.

Nepal is 80% Hindu, 11%, Buddhist, 4% Muslim, 4% Kirant, and .9% “Other.”  Somewhere in that .9% are Nepal’s Christians. In those statistics lies the answer to the question: “Why is Nepal such a poor nation.”

I’ll share more thoughts, pics and even a video or two in the days to come.

I’ve always been of two minds about the shroud. I’ve been skeptical that it is the burial cloth of Christ, simply because the Bible states clearly that Jesus was “wrapped” in “strips” (plural) of linen.

John 19:40–Then they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury.

Nevertheless, it’s a pretty mysterious and amazing little artifact. The fact that the image on the shroud is essentially a 3-D negative that current artists can’t find a way to reproduce is fascinating.

Israeli botanist says plant images on the Shroud of Turin could only have come from a spot near Jerusalem. Here.

The 10 Biggest Threats the World is Facing in 2012.

Readers of a certain age will understand the Bob Seger reference. I am in fact heading to Nepal in a few days. Work is taking me there to document the amazing work of a couple of organizations combatting human trafficking there. Like this one.

For that and several other reasons, blogging will continue to be pitifully sparse around here for a while. But one of my resolutions for this next trip around the sun is to at least post frequent little links here to things I find interesting, after the fashion of Instapundit.

Here’s a down payment: An amazing shot for shot comparison of the iconic opening sequence of Raiders of the Lost Ark, revealing how very much  Spielberg borrowed from the only adventure serials of the 1930s.

Check it out!

Dear 2012,

Welcome. Please be gentle.

So Tim Tebow has become a verb. To “Tebow” is to kneel in prayer in the course of of a football game. I can certainly understand why this has become a huge internet meme and the source of endless questions and sports talk discussion and mockery. After all, no high-profile player has ever done that before:

Okay. So perhaps it’s not all THAT rare. Maybe it just the fact that Tebow is seen praying on the sidelines that’s so unprecedented. Or not:

The fact is, although there may be no crying in baseball, but there has always been praying in football. And lot’s of thanking of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Remember how the Minnesota Vikings’ great Cris Carter used to begin every postgame interview with a thirty-second “praise the Lord” before answering the question he was asked. You could almost hear the TV director’s eyes rolling out in the trailer, but I loved it. And to my knowledge, Carter’s expressions of faith–both vocal and visual–were never a source of controversy or high-profile mockery.

Cris Carter

For years I watched former OU Sooner tight end Keith Jackson take a knee to thank God after every touchdown–something the six-time Pro Bowler had occasion to do 49 times in his nine stellar seasons in the NFL. And I don’t recall anyone ever having a problem with Jackson’s kneeling. And it certainly wouldn’t have become an internet meme even if there had been such a thing as the internet when he burst on the scene.

And then there was perennial All-Pro defensive lineman Reggie White:

White’s faith only became controversial after he committed the unpardonable sin, i.e.,  made some politically incorrect remarks about homosexuality.

So in the light of all this, why is Tim Tebow’s faith suddenly a huge honking deal? Why is Tim “wearing his faith on his sleeve,” and “jamming his Christianity down our throats” as I heard one profanity-spewing ESPN Radio guest describe it a few days ago, while dozens of other NFL players who make the same kinds of statements of and exhibit very similar displays get a pass?

Here’s a hypothesis. Take a look at Tebow and the other pictures above and then play a quick game of “One of the These Things is Not Like the Others.”

Is it possible that the popular culture is much more likely to accept/overlook expressions of faith in God from black folks than from white folks? Is there a double standard in the media? I suspect that’s the case. In fact, this is a phenomenon I first start noticing several years ago in the movie and music business.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m thrilled that black artists and actors can openly express a Christian faith without becoming pariahs in Hollywood. I just wish other Christians had the same experience.

Frankly, there is something subtly condescending and patronizing in a “oh, aren’t they adorable” way about the manner in which Hollywood and the media elites ignore or even praise Christian faith in African-American celebrities and athletes even while mocking or condemning it in others.

It doesn’t surprise me when the popular media trains fire hoses of scorn and vicious mockery on politicians who are outspoken about their Christian faith (see: George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, et. al.) I recognize there is an invisible, spiritual component fueling the animus. Nor does surprise me that Tim Tebow, whose John 3:16 face paint became a media meme back when Florida played for the national championship against Oklahoma, comes in for special derision from a fallen culture.

But it would be nice if some of the critics would at least have the decency to recognize that the reason Tim keeps talking about his faith is that he keeps getting asked about it.