Climate Change/Global Cooling and Media and Scientific Honesty

Listen, I believe global warming is real and caused by man—for a couple reasons I’ll mention later—but the incredible dishonesty by media and scientists makes me so angry that I want to join the other side.

How I Got on This Subject

I haven’t had much time on the internet lately. I’ve been on a trip to California, working very hard to encourage some discouraged saints and bring them together in the power of the Holy Spirit.

So this afternoon I have a couple hours of internet time. I’ve been learning some things about humidity lately—as you can tell from some recent posts, and I was very curious about the recent high humidity heat wave in Tennessee.

I was looking up 1999 temperatures in Tennessee because I remember that summer being much hotter than this one, with temperatures climbing to 103o and higher regularly and heat indexes occasionally up to 114o.

The Dishonesty That Got Under My Skin

In the process I read an article that says …

Climate change promises to bring with it longer, hotter summers to many places on the planet. This June turned out to be the fourth-hottest month ever recorded—globally—scientists are reporting. With more heat waves on the horizon, and a big one currently sweeping much of the U.S. (Scientific American)

It’s not that this is directly dishonest. It’s the constant barrage of information like this that seems to add up to a conclusion. Meanwhile, some extremely important bits of information are completely left out.

What You’re Not Being Told

Phil Jones resigned from the Climate Research Unit in the UK after the "Climategate" scandal. (Several committees have determined that the unit did nothing drastically wrong, but that’s no wonder. They only did what everyone appears to be doing, skewing the information.)

The BBC, unlike any American news sources that I know of, interviewed Phil Jones and asked him some very hard, very direct questions. The one that ought to matter to a lot of us is …

Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

Phil Jones’ answer to this was no, but it wasn’t no to global cooling. It was no to "statistically significant." Here’s what followed his no answer …

This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant. (Emphasis mine)

Did you catch that?

Since 2002, the globe has been cooling! Thus says a scientist who was forced to resign because it was alleged that he was skewing data in order to prove that Earth is warming!

Phil Jones is an avid supporter of man-caused climate change.

How About a Little Honesty on Climate Change

Have you ever heard that of the top 10 warmest years, four of them have been since the year 2000?

I have. Repeatedly.

Have you heard that the globe has reduced in temperature about 1/10th of a degree celsius since 2002?

Yeah, I’d never heard that, either, except on right wing talk shows that are accused of extreme bias and purposeful ignorance.

So who’s being biased and purposefully ignorant now?

Let Me Ask You a Question

Doesn’t it seem extremely irresponsible—and, in fact, purposely dishonest—to tell someone that global warming seems to be true based on the fact that 4 of the last 10 years are among the 10 warmest years on record without also telling them that there’s been an overall cooling trend the last 10 years?

Yeah, that’s what I thought, too.

Let Me Ask You Another Question

If your web site and national magazine are called Scientific American, then wouldn’t you consider it your obligation to your audience to present balanced, accurate, well-researched scientific information?

Yeah, me too.

And if you knew that our planet has had a cooling trend since 2002, would you consider it balanced, accurate, and well-researched to say, "Climate change promises to bring with it longer, hotter summers to many places on the planet"?

Yeah, I wouldn’t, either.

Reasons I Believe in Global Warming Despite the Dishonesty We’re Facing

  • Carbon dioxide has been known to be a greenhouse gas for almost a century, not just recently. In the last 50 years, we have burned a good portion of the fossilized plant life (i.e., coal and oil) that used to be trapped in the earth, releasing massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.
  • Shooting down global warming sanely and scientifically would make any group of scientists rich and famous, but none are doing so.
  • Glenn Morton, one of my favorite scientists and a geologist for oil companies, is arguing against global warming with a lot of vitriol and often irrelevant arguments. It seems to me that if he had a good case, then a researcher as good as Morton is would avoid all the anecdotes and local (and thus irrelevant) reports he leans on.

If you were enlightened by this article, then this one may give you more directions to research in.

 

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Greed and Glory from Men: The Appearance of the Apostle Paul, Part 2

This series started by looking at Paul’s boldness and his avoidance of flattering speech.

All of these attributes come from 1 Thessalonians 2, and they are all the result of one thing: Paul’s focus on and commitment to the Gospel of Christ.

Paul never lost sight of the goal: preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the salvation and transformation of all who believe.

Today’s topics come from 1 Thess. 2:5-6, where Paul says, " … nor with a pretext for greed … nor did we seek glory from men" (NASB).

Knowing Ourselves

Both these things …

  • Greed
  • Glory from men

… have to with personal gain.

We are all prone not only to being influenced by greed and glory-seeking, but also to being deceived by them.

Exhort one another daily, while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. (Heb. 3:13)

I have never heard of a deceived person who knew they were deceived.

By definition, a deceived person thinks they’re right. A person deceived by sin thinks he’s not sinning.

A person deceived by greed and glory believes they are not self-seeking. They believe they care about God and about the ministry of the Word of God.

Our protection from these things—according to the writer of Hebrews—is being exhorted/encouraged (parakaleo can mean either) on a daily basis.

Don’t judge yourself in such matters. Let God judge you, and ask your brothers and sisters in Christ to judge you as well … not in condemnation, but in exhortation and, thus, love.

Glory from Men

If there’s anything that has a stronger draw on the hearts of men than money (and women), then it’s glory. We love to be glorified. We love to be held in honor. We love to lead. We love to be respected.

This is such a strong influence on us that God has provided many ways for us to battle the temptation and deception of glory.

Deliverance from Glory-Seeking

1. Humiliation

First, you can count on God to humiliate you. You can count on God—if you’re really his and not marked for perdition because of your self-will—to ensure that you have plenty of opportunity to be humbled.

Humbled, though is a nice word. Humiliated, however, is not so nice. Do not fret when God humiliates you. It hurts badly, but it is important for your own salvation.

2. Weakness of the Flesh

Many Christians are deceived into thinking that God is concerned about correcting all their faults.

He’s not.

He’s concerned about making you useful, and perfect people aren’t all that useful. They’re impossible to follow.

It’s important that a minister of the Gospel have weaknesses and struggles. It’s important that people know they have them.

Paul had a "messenger of satan" that perplexed him. He cried out to God for deliverance, but God told him that God’s strength would only be made perfect in weakness (2 Cor. 12:9).

Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard had weaknesses and temptations … sexual ones. I assure you that they are not the only preachers of the Gospel with such struggles.

Their temptations and subsequent sin were exposed publicly.

God will not deliver you from weaknesses and temptations. He will only deliver you from sin.

Nor does God intend to deliver you by public exposure. He wants you to privately expose yourself.

Confess your faults one to another and pray for one another so that you may be healed. (Jam. 5:14)

We don’t make provision for weaknesses in leaders today. Leaders are separated from the people. The church is not a family. It’s more like a manager (the pastor), some players (active members of the church), and a crowd of fans—some for the team and some against it.

Thus, church leaders are forced to perform. No provision is made for the fact that God sends messengers of satan to them, working on them, wearing them down, making them needy, causing them to struggle … so that the power and the excellency would always be his and never theirs.

Church leaders must come from among us.

Obtaining church leaders from seminaries is a practice far more foolish and dangerous than we realize. Beyond the fact that it’s unbiblical, against the tradition of the apostles, and we don’t care … beyond all that, it’s horribly dangerous.

It produces Jimmy Swaggarts and Ted Haggards.

A church leader should be confessing his weaknesses, obtaining prayer, and being healed … humbled all the time, considering himself, lest he also be tempted.

The tried men of our elders preside over us, obtaining that honour not by purchase, but by established character. (Tertullian, Apology 39, c. A.D. 200)

We observe to come from divine authority, that the elder should be chosen in the presence of the people under the eyes of all, and should be approved worthy and suitable by public judgment and testimony. (Cyprian, "To the Clergy and People of Spain"; c. A.D. 250)

Conclusion

Let me just drop this here. I’m sure there’s more to say, but that’s a lot to chew on if you read all this.

I mentioned at the start that Paul was able to say those things in 1 Thess. 2 because he was focused on the Gospel and its transforming power. He was never moved from his goal. He was always steady and straight ahead.

The things above are true for disciples. They are true for those that want to be transformed by God.

Others may find that God doesn’t get in their way. He doesn’t humble them. Their goal is to honor themselves, not to honor God, and so God doesn’t deal with them at all.

Instead, they hear the worst thing that anyone can hear from God, which is "your will be done."

So if you have been called by God as a worker in his body or as a preacher of the Gospel, don’t fret your weaknesses … confess them. Ask for prayer. Be transformed and healed by the prayers of your brothers and sisters, and thus live in humility, apart from the glory of men, a true servant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

Last-Minute Hotel Deals at Expedia.com

 

Posted in Church, Gospel, History, Holiness, Modern Doctrines, prayer | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Appearance of the Apostle Paul

I stole the title of this post, "The Appearance of the Apostle Paul," from an old friend of mine. I don’t remember precisely what he taught, as that was 20 years ago, but I’m pretty sure it was similar to what I’m about to say.

What I’m about to say comes from 1 Thessalonians 2.

I really want to get back to Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians, but apparently that’s not for today. I really want to cover this.

Boldness

I Thess. 2:2: After we had already suffered and been mistreated in Philippi … we had the boldness in our God to speak to you the Gospel of God amid much opposition. (NASB)

One of my favorite people is K.V. Daniel of Mercy Homes Ministry.

K.V. is always focused. He’s relaxed and pleasant to be around, but he never loses focus of his goal. He is preaching the Gospel, making disciples, serving, and raising up children for Christ.

If what’s going on doesn’t enhance that purpose, then he’s moving on to the next thing.

The apostle Paul was like that. He’d been beaten and jailed in Philippi, then run out of town. But when he got to Thessalonica, he wasn’t thinking about resting … he was thinking about the Gospel.

He put aside everything else, and he preached the Gospel.

Notice that I titled this section "boldness," but I talked about purpose.

That’s really important.

Bold preachers of the Gospel have purpose, not just courage. If they relied on courage, then you and I would have an excuse. Maybe we’re not gifted with courage.

It’s not courage; it’s purpose.

Paul was focused on the goal; K.V. Daniel is focused on the goal; Noah Taylor (Rose Creek Village) is focused on the goal.

Those men inspire me. They are not more courageous than you and me; they are more focused than you and me.

It’s time for us to follow them.

No Flattering Speech

1 Thessalonians 2:5: We never came with flattering speech … (NASB)

This is tied to purpose as well.

Paul knew why he was preaching the Gospel, and it wasn’t to get people to agree that what he was saying is true.

Let me repeat that …

Paul knew why he was preaching the Gospel, and it wasn’t to get people to agree that what he was saying is true.

It was to transform people.

The Spirit of a Python

I mentioned the trouble Paul in Philippi. Do you remember why it happened?

While Paul was preaching a slave-girl with a spirit of a python …

I’m actually cheating a little here. The Greek word for the spirit she had is, literally, "python." However, the word is in reference to a legendary serpent from Pytho that guarded the Oracle of Delphi.

The snake we call a python is named from that legendary serpent. Luke wasn’t actually calling it a spirit of the snake we know, but a spirit of divination like what the Oracle of Delphi had.

Oh, yes. The Scriptures teach that spirits or demons are real, and we’ll survive our battles much better if we know the Scriptures are correct on that matter.

So this slave-girl with a spirit of divination doesn’t oppose Paul, she supports him!

She follows him around crying out, "These men are slaves of the Most High God, and they are proclaiming the way of salvation to you!"

Nice, huh?

Paul didn’t think it was nice. He wasn’t looking for approval, he was looking for transformation.

Therefore, he wasn’t going to share the stage with a demon.

You know the rest of the story. He became "greatly annoyed" with her, cast the demon out, ruined her owners’ business, and was thrown in jail for being a troublemaker.

Flattering Speech in the 21st Century

We’re not as astute as Paul. We share the stage with the devil all the time.

The Scriptures say that anyone who makes himself a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. In fact, friendship with the world is enmity with God.

Nonetheless, when we find that our Gospel is so watered down that it’s not saving anyone, what do we do?

Do we fix it?

No. We add friendship with the world.

We add basketball courts, rock ‘n roll music, rap, worldly hairdos and clothing styles, worldly speech, sports, and anything else we can do.

Then we obtain a modicum of success by preaching the world!

There’s a difference between loving those who are captured by the world and preaching worldliness.

I don’t want the stinky, homeless guys to be afraid to approach us. I don’t want the guys with the rings in their eyebrows to feel put off by us, nor the girls with the mohawks and black fingernails.

But it’s ridiculous if we’re encouraging followers of Christ to do those things!

Christ’s way doesn’t involve being cool, looking rebellious, or running contrary to the society in our clothing and hair.

We’ve done far worse than use flattering speech. We’ve changed the Gospel!

Not Ashamed of the Gospel

Paul didn’t just say he wasn’t ashamed of the Gospel. He said there is a reason he’s not ashamed of the Gospel …

Rom. 1:16-17 (wording from NASB, formatting from me):

I am not ashamed of the Gospel because …

  • it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes …
  • in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith

Paul’s Gospel transformed lives. It did so because he didn’t compromise it.

He didn’t change it because he was beaten with whips in Philippi. He didn’t change it to make people feel good. He gave it out true and straight, just the way he got it from Jesus.

What was it? His description of his Gospel was: “Repent, turn to God, and do works appropriate to repentance” (Acts 26:20).

Of course, this repenting, turning to God, and doing works was accomplished by a grace that comes from God through faith in Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:8-10).

And that Gospel worked.

The Gospel and the Revelation of the Righteousness of God

Look at what Paul said …

In it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith

When Paul’s Gospel was believed, a righteousness of God was revealed.

There’s a righteousness that the Law produces. Paul wasn’t impressed with it. It involved a lot of failure, a lot of stealing, and a lot of adultery (Rom. 2:1-3; 17-24).

But Paul’s Gospel, when believed, caused a righteousness to come forth in believers that revealed the righteousness that God wants to bring to the earth.

That’s why the Gospel is of faith and not of works. It’s not that God doesn’t care what works you do. God knows that in your conscious, western, logical, overconfident, arrogant, selfish mind, you don’t even know what good works are, much less have the power to do them.

But if you believe the Gospel and obtain grace, then grace will teach you how to live seriously, righteously, and godly in this present age (Tit. 2:11-14). You will be created anew to do good works that God himself has prepared for you to do (Eph. 2:10).

Paul wasn’t ashamed of the Gospel of Christ because he was seeing it create disciples who revealed the righteousness of God. They were living the life of Christ through the incredible power of grace, a grace bestowed by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 6:14; 8:13; Gal. 3:3; 5:16-18; etc., etc., etc.)

More</h3

Well, that's more than enough for one post, don't you think?

I guess I'll leave …

  • not with a pretext for greed
  • nor did we seek glory from men
  • proved to be gentle among you, like a nursing mother
  • so fond an affection for you
  • imparting our own lives as well as the Gospel
  • working night and day
  • behaving devoutly, uprightly, and without blame
  • and exhorting, comforting, and testifying so others would walk worthy of God

… for future posts.

The part in 1 Thess. 2:13 that says that the word of God "performs its work in you who believe" (NASB), is basically covered above under "The Gospel and the Revelation of the Righteousness of God."

 

Posted in Gospel, Holiness | Tagged , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Water Baptism in Christian History

For those of you that read my blog, but not Christian History for Everyman, I’m just letting you know I made a page on water baptism for that site.

It’s pretty comprehensive, even though it only touches on the mode of baptism by accident and that only one time.

 

Posted in Bible, Gospel, History, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , | 2 Comments

What Church Would be Like If All Christians Were Christians

Enough weather. Back to following Christ.

I got asked today, "Why is church done the way it’s done? Why do we have the system we have?"

There’s one simple answer:

Church has to be done this way to accommodate the fact that the majority of church members aren’t saved.

What Church Would Be Like If All Christians Were Really Christians

If all "Christians" were really Christians, then we’d actually do what the Bible says …

  • When we come together, we’d all—or mostly all—come prepared to exercise our gifts when we met (1 Cor. 14:26). Opportunity would be give to all to do so (1 Cor. 14:31)
  • We’d talk about all the verses no one wants to talk about so that we could serve Christ better.
  • We’d obey the command to exhort/encourage one another every day (Heb. 3:13) rather than writing it off as incongruous with modern life.
  • It would be impossible to schedule every teaching because their would be teachers for whom teaching is a gift from God (as well as shepherds—plural—who have the ability to teach). Some teachings would have to be called impromptu, and other scheduled teachings would be canceled at times.
  • We’d talk about whether our meetings were boring and change them if they were. The meetings would probably rapidly change into something very different from three songs, offering, and a sermon.
Some churches have adopted a new traditional form of worship

  • We would pattern our church leadership after the multiple elder system of the Scriptures (Acts 14:23; 20:17,28; 1 Pet. 5:1-4), not business-style with a CEO (the pastor), VP’s of the various departments (associate pastors), and a board of directors (deacon or elder board)
  • We’d care about the use of episkopos, presbuteros, and poimen in Scripture.
  • We’d stop accusing the Roman Catholics of violating Matthew 23:9 until we stopped referring to our CEO as "Pastor such and such."
  • We’d live like a family and expect to have input when a brother or sister takes a job, moves, marries, and certainly massive involvement should there ever be a divorce.
  • Those who expect privacy—meaning the family of God minding its own business on such issues—on such issues would be told they’re not Christians.

There’s a lot more examples that could be given. You who read this could probably give better examples than I could.

A Warning

It would do us well to take note of the fact that ALL of us once lived our lives under the influence of and in subjugation to the Prince of the Power of the Air, the spirit that currently works in the sons of disobedience.

All your unsaved church members are doing the same.

So if over half your congregation is not even interested in Jesus’ requirements for a disciple (Luke 14:26-33), then the devil does the majority of the voting in every one of your business meetings.

Yeah. Shocking, huh?

 

Posted in Church, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Revisiting Relative Humidity Versus Dew Point

Here’s an easier version of yesterday’s post.

The Facts on Relative Humidity vs. Dew Point

Relative humidity doesn’t tell you anything. That percentage of humidity you hear on the news every day is worthless.

Dew point is a much better gauge of humidity.

Why Those Facts Are True

The rest of yesterday’s post explained why that was true, but here’s a shorter explanation …

  • Relative humidity measures the amount of water in the air in comparison to what the air can hold. Thus, it changes with the temperature.
  • Dew point tells you at what temperature the air will be fully saturated so that water will begin to condense out of the air into dew.

You don’t have to understand that last sentence. You only have to know that dew point tells you exactly how much water is in the air.

What Dew Point Tells You

Dew Point over 80o
Rarely happens in US. Often happens near Persian Gulf and Red Sea and in southeastern Asia. Oppressive. When temperatures are in the 90’s, dew points this high produce heat indices over 130
Dew Point over 75o
Very humid and uncomfortable
Dew Point 70 to 75o
Noticeably humid and uncomfortable
Dew Point 60 to 69o
Slightly humid
Dew Point below 60o
You won’t think it’s humid

Selmer, Tennesse

Dew point in Selmer was 78o today. That’s very, very high humidity for the US. It was worse than Houston or Dallas today.

Because the dew point was so high, the heat index was 102o even when it was only 88o in temperature.

Compare that with Sacramento that had a temperature of 94o, but the dew point was only 45o. The result was a heat index of 90o—less than the actual temperature.

 

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Humidity, “Relative” Humidity, and Dew Point

I know this has nothing to do with the typical subjects of my blogs. But, let’s see … this is about God’s creation!

Eleven years ago, Tennessee had a very hot summer while I was living in a school bus converted into an RV … with no air conditioning because I didn’t have enough electricity to run an air conditioner. At some point that summer I noticed that as the weather got warmer, the humidity percentage got lower.

For example, in the morning, when it would be maybe 75 degrees out, the relative humidity would be way up around 90%. But by mid-day it would drop to 50 or 60%, and if the temperature got over 100 degrees, then it would drop to maybe 44% or something like that.

When it’s 100 degrees outside, 44% humidity seems miserable, and I always wondered why.

Today I found out.

The Important But Unknown "Dew Point"

Last year sometime I heard a newscaster say that the humidity was a certain percentage because the dew point was 72 degrees.

Suddenly I understood why humidity would change as the temperature rose.

When the dew point is 72 degrees, then if the temperature is also 72 degrees, you have 100% humidity.

Warm the temperature up to 80 degrees, and the air can hold more water, so the same amount of water in the air is now less than 100% humidity.

Also, you’ll see dew on the ground in the morning only if the temperature drops below 72 degrees overnight.

So relative humidity changes with the temperature, even though the day is just as humid whether it’s 80 degrees outside or 90 degrees.

It’s dew point that’s constant.

As a side note, I remember reading about a Boston Marathon that was run in 90-90 weather, meaning 90o with 90% relative humidity.

That didn’t happen and doesn’t happen in the US.

It was probably 90% relative humidity in the morning when the temperature was in the 70’s, but it wasn’t anywhere near 90% when the temperature reached 90 degrees.

America just doesn’t get dew points in the high 80’s … ever

Judging Humidity by the Dew Point

Houston is one of the most humid cities in the nation because it’s dew point averages 74 degrees during the summer.

Selmer, Tennessee, where I am, is nearly as humid, often running over 70 degrees in the summer.

Corpus Christi, TX and the Florida Keys have the worst humidity in the US, averaging a dew point of 75 degrees in July. The Florida Keys are more humid in winter, though, averaging over a 60-degree dew point even then, making it the most humid place in America.

This is how dew points feel …

  • Under 60 degree dew point: comfortable
  • 60 to 60 degrees: starting to feel humid
  • 70 to 75 degrees: very humid for most people
  • Over 75 degrees: oppressive
  • Over 80 degrees: Basically never happens in US; More on the Persian gulf below
  • Under minus 20-degrees-fahrenheit dew point there’s real problems with skin drying out

I’m visiting in Auburn, CA right now. It almost never feels humid here. That’s because most of the time the dew point is around 55 degrees, and it drops into the 40 sometimes. Not much moisture in the air at all.

Now, I want to remind you that if you have a 75-degree dew point, the weather will feel very humid even though the relative humidity is only going to be around 50% at 93 degrees. It will be around 90% relative humidity on the same day if the temperature is only 80 degrees.

Specific Humidity Versus Relative Humidity

Relative Humidity is that percentage you always hear. As I’ve been pointing out, it’s a useless number. On the very same day, with the very same real ("specific") humidity, you’ll have one percentage at 85 degrees and a lower percentage at 90 degrees.

Real humidity is measured in grams of water per kilogram of air. It’s a constant, and it tells you how humid the air feels, but no one ever tells you that number. Instead, weather reports do give the dew point.

For example, weather.com tells me that the dew point is 73 degrees in Selmer right now. (Note: You have to click the "details" link under the current temperature to see dew point.) The temperature is also 73 degrees, so the relative humidity is 100%.

It’s midnight here in California as I write this. It’s 2 a.m. back home in Selmer, but I know that the grass is almost certainly wet already.

The specific (real/actual) humidity is some amount of grams of water vapor per kilogram of air, but no weather service tells me that. Instead, they give me the dew point.

At 85 degrees, the dew point and the specific humidity will be the same as they were at 73 degrees, but the relative humidity won’t be 100% anymore; something closer to 70% instead.

The formula for calculating relative humidity is pretty complicated. I won’t give it here, and I don’t understand it fully anyway.

By the way, if the temperature drops to 72 degrees in Selmer, the dew point will drop to 72 degrees as well.

Why?

Because 72-degree air can’t hold enough water to maintain a 73-degree dew point. Water condenses out of the air onto grass and cars, dropping the specific humidity and the dew point.

The dew point will continue to drop as the temperature drops, and the air loses more and more water.

Extreme Weather and Record Temperatures

That book I link above has some really cool statistics in it.

The highest humidity ever recorded was a 95-degree dew point in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia on July 8, 2003. Since the temperature was 108 degrees, the relative humidity would fake you out and say it was 90% or less, even though it was the highest real humidity ever recorded.

Do you wonder what the heat index was that day?

So do weather men. There’s no chart for temperatures and dew points that high. The guess is that it felt like 155 to 160 degrees that day.

Wow.

More Extreme Weather

Here’s more wow …

The town of Bender Qaasim in Somalia averages—AVERAGES—a high of 105 degrees and a dew point of 83 degrees. While this is only a relative humidity of 61%, we have learned that percentage is meaningless. An 83-degree dew point is extremely humid. Such humidity pretty much NEVER happens in the US, not anywhere, not even in Florida or anywhere along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico.

Thus, the AVERAGE summer heat index is Bender Qaasim is 145o.

145o HEAT INDEX!!!

ON AVERAGE

Because they’re close to the water, their temperature is fortunately very stable and doesn’t get above 113 degrees.

However, at 113o with their over 80o dew point, the heat index is—literally—off the charts. Weathermen have to guess that it’s between 150 and 160o.

Wow.

Hot Seas

The reason the Persian Gulf and Red Sea areas experience that kind of humidity is because the water in those seas gets up near 90o during the summer. That provides a lot of heat for evaporation, filling the air with water vapor.

The record for the Persian Gulf is 96o water. For the Red Sea it’s 98o.

Swim, anyone?

Bangkok, Thailand qualifies as possibly hotter than Persian Gulf countries because it stays hot year round, breaking 90 degrees pretty much every day. One day in April of …

Wait, wait …

I’m pulling too much from the Extreme Weather book above. You’ll have to get it yourself if you want to know the rest.

Dew point is 54o here in Auburn tonight. That’s comfortable no matter what the relative humidity is (55% right now at 71o). The grass will be dry in the morning because it won’t drop to 54 degrees overnight.

 

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged , | 5 Comments

Letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians: Chapter Two

If you haven’t been following this series, it begins with Ignatius’ introduction 3 or 4 posts ago on June 28.

The Text of Ignatius’ Letter to the Ephesians 2

We’re on chapter 2 today. It reads as follows:

As to my fellow-servant Burrhus, your most blessed deacon in all things pertaining to God, I
plead with you to let him stay longer, both for your honor and your bishop’s. Also, Crocus—who is worthy of both God and you and whom I have received as a sign of your love—has refreshed me in every way, just as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ will also refresh him together with Onesimus [the bishop mentioned in chapter 1], Burrhus, Euplus, and Fronto. Through them I have beheld all your love.
     May I always have joy from you, if I am truly worthy of it. Therefore, it is fitting that you should glorify Jesus Christ in every way, for he has also glorified you. Glorify him so that by a unanimous obedience "you may be perfectly joined together in the same mind, in the same judgment, and may all speak the same things concerning the same thing" [1 Cor. 1:10]. Be subject to the bishop and the elders so that you may be sanctified in every way.

My blogs are always way too long. We’re going to keep them shorter and spend several days on chapter 2, so that we can cover deacons in this post, elders and bishops in another, unity in a third, and maybe a couple others like glorifying Jesus Christ through obedience.

But for today, let’s stick to just deacons.

Ranting About Deacons

Deacons are a pet peeve of mine because there’s no such thing.

Let me explain.

The German word for table is tisch. If I were translating a German document, wherever I came across the word tisch, I would write "table."

But let’s say that I was translating a religious document, and the table being talked about was the table of show-bread in the temple. Let’s also say that because I thought that table was exceptionally holy, I didn’t want to call it a table like all other tables. Not knowing what to do, I choose to simply leave the German word tisch untranslated, and I call this one table a "tish."

Over time, as everyone came to call that table a tish, they could easily end up thinking that the document I translated had a special word for table—that it didn’t use the ordinary word for table but some special word.

That is what has happened with the word deacon.

The Greek word diakonos is found in the New Testament 29 times. The word diakoneo is found 32 times. Diakonos is almost exclusively translated "servant" in modern translations and "minister" or "servant" in the KJV. Similarly, diakoneo is translated "serve" almost exclusively.

The exception is 1 Timothy 3, where translators have decided that because it is an "office" of the church, it ought not to be translated servant.

So they left diakanos untranslated as "deacon" twice and diakoneo as "serve as deacon" or "use the office of deacon" three times.

I think that’s wrong, and I really don’t think it’s honest, either.

The Office of Servant

There was an office in the church called "servant," and you had to qualify to be one.

Do you want to bring food to the sick? You had to qualify. Did you want to be on the finance committee, collecting money from the saints and spending it to feed the poor, the widows, and some of the church leaders? You had to qualify. You had to be noted for your walk with the Lord in order to serve in such a position.

Qualifying to Serve

In Acts chapter six we read that there was some conflict in the church about the support of the widows. The apostles didn’t have time to handle it, so they asked the church to pick out seven men that they could put in charge of feeding the widows.

What qualifications did they ask for?

Was it a good business sense? A feel for diplomacy? Compassion for widows? A desire for ministry? A soft heart?

None of those things. Instead they asked for …

  • A good reputation
  • Filled with the Spirit
  • Filled with wisdom

Obviously, Paul felt the same way. If you wanted to be a servant in Ephesus (where Timothy was receiving Paul’s letter), then you needed to be serious, straightforward, not greedy, pure in conscience, and understanding the mystery that is our faith. And you had to have enough experience in Christ to have a "blameless" reputation.

And this was to qualify to serve on the finance committee or to feed widows and orphans.

God’s Standards

God takes his service seriously.

To be a servant, you have to meet the qualifications given above.

To be a widow, you had to meet qualifications as well.

In the early church, the widows and virgins were a force for God. They performed all sorts of services for the church. In return, they were supported—read fed and sheltered—by the church.

Convents and nuns are probably the descendants of the early church’s widows and virgins.

Some of their service is mentioned. She "trusts in God," "continues in supplications and prayers night and day," "washed the saints’ feet," and "relieved the afflicted."

In fact, if she wasn’t known for good works prior to being widowed, she wasn’t allowed to be brought on the church’s roll.

Having Standards Higher than God’s

This is completely off the subject of this post, but since we’ve wandered close to it, I want to address it.

I’ve have a lot of interaction with Mennonite or Mennonite-influence Evangelicals (I like to call them half-Mennonites) over the last 20 years. Their churches—as well as other descendants of the Anabaptists like the Amish, German Brethren, and Hutterites—usually have what they call "standards."

I have a page on Anabaptists at my Christian History for Everyman site, but if you really want to know about the Anabaptists, you should get the book The Secret of the Strength.

Don’t get a different book! There’s a lot of fantasy about who the Anabaptists were based on wishful thinking. The Secret of the Strength by Peter Hoover is very well referenced. He devoted great effort to the references because he’s confronting people of his own Anabaptist background in the book.

I’ve talked to Peter on the phone—well, listened; it’s hard for him to stop talking—and I know people who know him. He’s an honest man who has done the footwork and the research and who has done it well.

I remember talking to a bishop of a Christian community here in Tennessee. He was from an Amish background, and his community had Amish-style standards. One of them was that belts were not allowed; suspenders had to be worn to keep the pants up.

This particular bishop was a truly great man and great Christian, an unusually godly, kind, and wise man, so he was very open and friendly talking to me, even though there was no other reason than friendship for him to let me question him.

I asked him whether he really would refuse to break bread with and fellowship with someone just because he wore a belt. Does God really care about such things?

He told me that it’s a simple fact among Anabaptist communities that if you start letting standards go, the whole community begins wandering away from God … usually very quickly.

While I have the utmost respect for this bishop, who has since died, and while I understand his difficult position, I can’t agree with him. If the community is going to backslide because they enter into fellowship with people who wear belts, then they are not being made holy by God. They’re being made holy by rules, and by rules that are not instituted by God nor by Jesus Christ, Lord and Head of the Church.

I talked to another man just a couple days ago whose church requires their pastors to believe and teach a pre-trib rapture.

Is it any wonder that Christians are split into tens of thousands of denominations?

Unity

We have no idea of the importance of unity. Today, we have forgotten it.

Obviously Ignatius hadn’t forgotten it back in A.D. 107. He mentions glorifying Jesus by a unanimous obedience that causes us to have the same judgment and say the same things.

Unity, according to our Lord—think about it, our Lord, and thus our Commander—Jesus Christ, is what will cause the world to believe that he’s really from God …

Nor do I pray for these alone, but also for those who shall believe in me through their Word, that they all may be one, as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they may also be one in us, so that the world may believe that you sent me. (Jn. 17:20-21)

Together we can know the mind of God (1 Cor. 2:16), and we need to know the mind of God. It is only in Christ’s mind that we can be united. We will never be able to be brought together around the traditions of men.

More later when we get to the end of Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians, chapter two.

 

Posted in Church, History, Holiness | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, Back Pain, and Trigger Point Therapy

I don’t normally write health blogs, but health is an interest of mine, especially muscle and joint pain. I don’t normally write blogs to sell things, but this is something everyone needs to know about.

Yesterday on the radio I heard a lady say she had quit her job due to Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. Today National Public Radio reported that a well-done scientific study indicates that glucosamine doesn’t help with back pain. They also reported that 20 million Americans suffer from chronic lower back pain, and 5 million are trying glucosamine to treat it.

I can’t bear knowing that people are suffering in ignorance.

Why a Great Supplement Like Glucosamine Doesn’t Work on Back Pain

Glucosamine is awesome for your knees, but there’s a reason that it doesn’t help back pain any better than a sugar pill does.

Chronic lower back pain is almost never caused by your spine. It’s almost always caused by muscles. (I’ll give you a reference to a thoroughly researched scientific paper for that as soon as my broken computer comes back with all it’s bookmarks on it.)

So is Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

It is completely crazy that people are getting dangerous and expensive surgery, plus leaving their jobs, over a condition that can be cured most of the time WITH A FREE MASSAGE!!!.

Well, with a bunch of free massages.

Julie Donnelly is one of many people who treat back pain—and a lot of other joint pain—with trigger point therapy. IT WORKS!

She has a book on Carpal Tunnel Syndrome called, oddly enough, Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. It tells you how to look for the muscles causing the pain in the nerve that goes through your carpal tunnel.

On my wife, the muscle turned out to be in the side of her neck. Two days, four massages, and she didn’t have Carpal Tunnel Syndrome anymore.

I did the massages, not a professional. Julie Donnelly teaches you how to treat yourself … LOTS cheaper that way!

Lower Back Pain

As for your back, you really have to do exercises as well as trigger point therapy. Even a lot of chiropractic work fails because they put your tailbone and vertebrae in the right spot, but then your misaligned muscles pulls your spine out of alignment again. So you become dependent on your chiropractor.

Her book on joint pain, which includes back pain, is called Pain-Free Living.

If you have lower back pain, you’ll have to wait till I write a web page on lower back exercises or research some one your own, and you need to do the trigger point therapy. Especially if the pain is also in your hips.

Upper Back Pain

If you have upper back pain, the trigger point therapy will fix it almost every time … and quickly.

How to Get Julie Donnelly’s Books

The Carpal Tunnel Syndrome book is very inexpensive. The Pain-Free Living book runs at typical bookstore prices.

This link—Julie Donnelly’s Julstro System—will send you to her order page. However, you ought to read what she’s written on joint pain and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome before you order. Just follow the links at her site.

Yes, I get a commission if you use this link. Thank you very much.

I’m telling you, though, if you have Carpal Tunnel Syndrome or back pain, you’ll be thanking me.

Purpose of This Page

I did not write this page because I’m trying to make money. I wrote this page because it kills me to hear people say they quit their job over Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, and I know very well that at least 60% of them, probably more, wouldn’t have it if they knew how to treat it.

 

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians: Bishops and Ecclesiastical Authority

"Bishops and Ecclesiastical Authority."

Sorry for the pompous sounding name of this post. I wanted to pull in the liturgical folk who might be searching for a topic like this.

We’re going to tackle Ignatius of Antioch’s comments about bishops, control, and church authority in today’s post. And we’re going to tackle it hard.

What Church Leaders Have Authority from God?

It’s been too long that those who have usurped Christ’s authority have claimed the church’s authority to do so.

The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches have claimed that they are the only churches with leaders authorized by God. They’ve cited Matthew 16 as the authority for their claim, but they’ve cited Ignatius and other church fathers in order to interpret Matthew 16.

Let’s see if there’s a different way to look at the comments of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, about bishops of the churches in general …

I’m printing just the last part of chapter one of Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians, since I’ve already covered the first 2/3 of it on this blog and in my Early Church History Ezine.

Ignatius to the Ephesians, chapter one, around A.D. 110

I received, therefore, your whole multitude in the name of God through Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love and your bishop in the flesh, whom I ask you by Jesus Christ to love, and that you would all seek to be like him. Blessed be the One who has counted you worthy to be given such an excellent bishop.

Repetitiveness

We’ll have to go over this subject again and again as we go through the things Ignatius wrote because he wrote about bishops, their authority, and our need to submit to them over and over again.

This particular reference simply praises Onesimus, bishop of the Ephesians, but in other comments he tries to give them immense authority, a habit that caused John Calvin to deny that so eminent an authority as Ignatius even wrote these letters.

For example, in chapter four of the letter we’re looking at, he writes …

It is fitting that you should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop, which you do. For your justly renowned presbytery [i.e., the body of elders], worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp.

It doesn’t stop there, and it doesn’t take much searching to find such comments by Ignatius. They’re in every letter, multiple times, except the letter to Rome (Why?).

The Authority of Ignatius

What Ignatius says matters. The Roman Catholics and Orthodox are right to point to Ignatius’ authority. He’s one of the earliest Christian writers outside the New Testament, having written in A.D. 107 or 116. He was bishop—head pastor, in modern parlance—of the apostle Paul’s home church—Antioch—and it’s likely that he was appointed to that position by an apostle.

The question is: why did he make all those comments about the authority of bishops? And further, why don’t we find such comments in other early writings?

The Situation of Ignatius

Imagine with me, if you will, that you are the head pastor of a thousand member church in Tulsa, Oklahoma. One day, several of your Sunday School teachers report some strange comments made by some of their students.

These are not just any comments. The students have suggested that the Word, the Light, and the Life mentioned in John chapter 1 are separate manifestations of the true God, each of which, at various times, rested on the purely human Jesus’ of Nazareth.

You know that Jesus is the Word, the Light, and the Life, but according to these deceived Sunday School students, your belief is a lie perpetrated by Jehovah, the false and ignorant God of the Jews.

Horrifying, isn’t it?

The following week, it gets worse. A young man who’s been visiting for four weeks comes up to you to thank you for baptizing him. Stunned, you ask what he’s talking about, only to find out that he’s been baptized by the same man who taught those Sunday School students the terrible heresies you heard about.

Incensed, you hunt the man down, speak to him, and run him down the road to infest some other church.

The next week, you find two more of your new people baptized. Worse, each was baptized at a separate house by two different men, both teaching the same heresies as the man you ran off.

Wouldn’t you immediately tell your church that there will be no more baptisms conducted without your approval or the approval of your board of elders? Wouldn’t you tell them that you would like to know exactly what’s being taught at Bible studies in people’s home, and then teach diligently against the heresies being spread by deceived men?

Ignatius was in that very position.

Ignatius and the Gnostics

Ignatius had men in his church and in other cities—who called themselves gnostics, or "knowing ones"—cities that were teaching that everything material was evil, and only spiritual things could be good. Thus, it was impossible that Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead because all material things—including Jesus’ body—are evil.

In fact, any God that made material things had to be evil too … or at least ignorant. Thus their rejection of Yahweh, the God of Israel.

Ignatius wanted these men stopped.

Ignatius and the Gnostic Solution

Ignatius’ solution was to do what you would have done as head pastor in the scenario above.

He ordered that nothing would go on without the knowledge and consent of the bishop. He wanted the gnostic schools shut down and the gnostic teachers silenced.

To do this he requested the people do nothing without first running it by the bishop.

He also showered praise on the bishops of the churches to whom he wrote, hoping to help instill trust and submission into the brothers.

Ignatius and the Authority of the Bishop

Does this mean that everything in the early church was done only with the authority of the bishop?

No. It means quite the opposite.

The reason the gnostics could get away with what they were getting away with is because people were used to doing things apart from the bishop, and the reason that Ignatius had to plead for the bishop to know and approve everything that was going on is because the bishop didn’t always know or approve of everything that was going on.

In other words, Ignatius was issuing strong, pleading commands in order to change the status quo and put a stop to the gnostics.

His commands are not a testimony to the way things were in the early churches but instead are a testimony to the way things were not.

This does not mean that a bishop does not have authority. It’s the Bible itself, in Hebrews 13:7 and 17 that says that we should submit to our leaders. We don’t need Ignatius to say it for us to know it’s true.

But it does mean that Ignatius was not setting an ecclesiastical pattern that we are obligated to follow. In fact, since his pattern was not set in place by the apostles, it is a good idea NOT to follow it—except possibly on a temporary basis to deal with heresies.

Purpose of Early Christian Writings

The writings of the early Christians should be read by us for the wonderful encouragement to holiness they are, but also so that we can learn what the apostles taught.

I read the early Christian writings, especially the ones from the second century. They can be a terrific insight into interpreting the Scriptures and understanding the mind of the apostles.

But we can’t replace apostolic commands with 2nd century commands!

What Should We Believe

As a temporary measure to stamp out heresy, it may be a good and godly idea to have the leading elder, head pastor, or bishop know everything that’s going on and be at every baptism.

That is not the practice of the apostles, though, so it should not be our general practice, either.

Despite the incredible importance of baptism—which Paul said would put us in Christ (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3-4), and which Peter said would save us (1 Pet. 3:21), providing we believe—the apostles let Philip, a non-apostle, baptize in Samaria (Acts 8:12-14), and Paul gave thanks to God that he let others baptize in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:14-16).

When the apostles sent Barnabas to see what was going on among the Gentiles in Antioch, he never reported back to them! Instead, he went to Tarsus to get Paul to labor with him. Afterward, the church in Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas out without any apostolic sanction. There is no indication that Barnabas had ever reported back to the apostles even at that point.

Authority comes from God, not from apostolic succession. Who can deny the authority that Paul had when he went out on the authority of 5 prophets and teachers from Antioch?

It is one thing to put a temporary rule into place to help a congregation stamp out heresy. It’s quite another to make it a blanket authority throughout the church and throughout the centuries.

 

Posted in Church, History | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments