Climate Change is Gospel Issue! - Good Faith Part 1

Oh!

Ha ha!

Yeah!

Oh!

I like that when Italians, when you say something out of line with an Italian there, and he's like, oh!

I like that.

I like that.

In any case, let's jump right into it today.

I hope you had a good weekend.

Excuse me.

I hope you had a good Lord's Day.

I hope you had a good everything.

We're just gonna do it, you know.

We're gonna go into the very next Good Faith Debate.

How should Christians care about the environment?

This is, you know, people have been saying they can't wait for me to get to this one, and I totally

understand why.

You know, this is a very important topic.

Climate change and the gospel.

It's a gospel issue, and Jake Meador, he's there, and I've talked about Jake

before.

I literally thought he was a cross -dresser when I first saw a picture of Jake, but it turns out he's not.

He was wearing like some kind of a tribal blouse.

It looks like a blouse, so I'm gonna call it a blouse because I'm not tribal, so I'm gonna call it a blouse, and he's got the

long hair and all that kind of stuff, and he, quite frankly, he looks like a beetle, so you know he's

promoting socialism because if you're, if you look like a beetle, you're shaped like a beetle, and you

sound like a beetle.

Somehow, I don't even know what beetles sound like, but I know that Jake Meador sounds like a beetle.

That's, that's the, that's the uniform for a socialist, and George Orwell pointed that out back in 1984.

I guess it was the book 1984.

I don't think it was written in 1984, but they're always beetle -shaped, and Jake Meador is

no exception, so this is a debate really about socialism more so than it is about the climate,

I'm assuming, because that's just how these things tend to go, but, but how should Christians care about the environment?

It's only fair that I answer the question because, you know, I, I care about the environment.

I do.

I enjoy going outside.

I enjoy having nice, pristine waters to fish in, and I've got friends.

I've got friends who go hiking.

John Harris, he goes hiking all the time, and people just like to be outside and be in nature and

enjoy the beauty that God has created for us, and that is true, by the way.

This is, this is, nature and the creation was created for, for mankind, not the other

way around, right, and so this is very important.

We have to read this.

We get it right from Genesis.

Genesis 1 goes right into it, the very first book in the Bible.

God said this.

This is verse 26, and God said,

So God created man in his own image.

In the image of God created he him.

Male and female created he them.

I love how the King James says that.

And I, I, that's what I do when I'm out there fishing.

I'm exercising dominion over smallmouth bass, and brook trout, and rainbow trout,

maybe even a northern pike every now and then.

You know, I keep and raise chickens, and, and, you know, those chickens, I'm exercising dominion over those chickens.

God created the, the raw materials of earth, and he created them for us to subdue, and

to, and to replenish, and to cultivate, and to have dominion over it, and so the earth

and what's in it was created with an intention in mind, and that intention was in

part for us to have dominion over it, and to use the materials to create, and to build,

and to cultivate, and that is a very important part of what it is to be a human being, and so

Christians should be stewarding this, right?

They should be taking care of this, and, and all of that, but of course we, we have

context too, you know, we, we have certain rules, and certain things that we should do, and one of the things that

this always reminds me of, well, actually, we'll get to it, we'll get to it.

I'm sure at some point I'll have a, a chance to, to talk about this one proverb that, that

environmentalists always remind me of, so let's, let's jump into this debate, you know, it's gonna, it's gonna

be an interesting one, so a debate really about socialism, you know, and at least they're

honest here, so, so, so look at this, so, excuse me, sorry about that, should Christians support economic

regulations intended to protect the environment?

That's, again, this, that shows you this is actually about socialism.

This is not really about, you know, should you be part of a, of a team that goes out

voluntarily and picks up trash at the local park.

If you want to do that kind of stuff, I, I totally support that.

In fact, when I go fishing, I'll often pick up trash, because I see trash in the water or on the side, you know, a lot of

fishermen aren't very cleanly, and so I'll pick up trash, throw it out, you know, fishing line, I'll

oftentimes find fishing line in the water, and I'll pick it up and all that kind of stuff, and, you know, sometimes that's not even their

fault, you know, the line breaks and the line just stays in the water, whatever, so, so this is really not about that, this is about

the carbon credits and, and things like that, schemes is what this is about, this is about

schemes, and so Jake Meador over here, you know, and as, as is typical, the more feminine of

the two is usually the more liberal, and it's the case here as well, I mean, Jake, I understand it's not a

cross -dresser, but he's definitely the more feminine of the two men, there's just no question about it, you can even

tell that just from this dark picture here, so anyway, we're gonna jump into it, and

yeah, well, this will be an interesting one, we'll talk more about the beetle borg over here in a moment, I'm sure.

Welcome to TGC's Good Faith Debates, these are conversations designed to help you learn how to

navigate difficult, emotional, maybe even polarizing issues in our current...

It's very emotional, as you can see, I'm sure Jake is a very emotional man,

yes, yes, it is, the environment is a very emotional thing, you get people and you're killing Mother Earth,

Mother Earth is at stake here, it will die, it'll be heat death, and the carbon credits, and

you know, people get really uppity about it, and it's just, you know, it really does kind of invert, you

know, creation, God says he created creation for us to have dominion over it, but the

way that a lot of people treat it, it's almost like creation has dominion over us, it's Mother Earth, we must protect Mother Earth,

otherwise we will not have any more oceans, the oceans, we'll have a lot more oceans, I guess, the polarized caps,

the polarized caps will create a big ocean.

Life and culture, my name is Jim Davis, a pastor Orlando Grace Church, and it is my

privilege to be able to be the moderator for these debates, the topic for today

is climate change and environmental protection.

You cannot tell me he does not look like a beetle, this is a beetle, right here, I don't know

how George Orwell knew this, but socialists always look like beetles,

why, why?

This is of course something somehow even Alexandria Ocasio -Cortez looks like a beetle, I don't understand

it, skinny beetle, but she's still a beetle.

Now that we have eight billion people living here, technologies that we have not had before, so this

is a question that Christians really need to wade through, and of course, what role does the government have in that?

I'm thankful to be joined by two people who have thought through this and are willing to debate here

today, we have Jake Peter here, Brian Mattson here, Jake is

a writer, speaker, and your editor -in -chief for Mirror Orthodoxy, Brian, you're a theologian, a writer, a

musician, and a senior scholar of public theology for the Center for Cultural Leadership.

Thank you both for joining us, and Brian, we'll start with you and.

Get to hear your perspective on this issue.

Well, thank you, Jim, I'd like to begin by sharing what I believe are some controlling worldview norms

that should inform Christians as they think about the environment, and then I'd like to share three areas of

ethical concern that we ought to consider.

As Christians, we have distinctive views about creation, human beings in relation to creation,

and the purpose or telos of that relationship.

Christianity has a unique perspective on.

Creation.

This is a little weird, you know, no criticism against Mattson here, he sounds like he's got

good presentation skills, and it certainly seems like he prepared to give like opening remarks in like an

actual debate.

That was good, I mean, that's what he should have done, this is essentially supposed to be a debate, but it's weird because he's

like reading from a script, right, he's got pre -prepared remarks, but the aesthetic of this is like, oh, we're just, you

know, we're just in my living room having a nice conversation, and over coffee, it's just casual, that's the

aesthetic here where they're just kind of, we're just hanging out, it's just a conversation, it's not a debate.

So it looks weird because he's like reading from like pre -prepared remarks when it's just a casual conversation.

This would have made perfect sense if he was at a podium like a real debate or something like that, but the aesthetic here

is not that, so it's just a little awkward.

It's unfortunate.

It's almost like he prepared for an actual debate, like they told him this is going to be a debate, so he's like, okay, cool, I'm going to prepare

like it's a debate, and then he gets there and it's like a bait and switch, it's not really a debate, and now he's got to read from a

script while he's supposed to be having a casual conversation.

That's probably what happened here, and of course, Jake Meador, he was ready for a casual conversation.

If you notice, he's wearing flip -flops.

I don't know why Gospel Coalition thinks I need to see.

His feet, but I guess they do.

I don't know.

As Herman Boving helpfully puts it, we neither denigrate nor deify

nature.

So unlike Gnosticism, we don't believe that the material world...

Look at this schlub.

I mean, honestly, look at this schlub.

Why is it like this?

Why is it like this?

It's like the liberal is either always the woman who's dressed like a Sith Lord, or

it's a schlub, and that's what we've got here.

We've got a beetle borg over here.

Probably eats a lot of seed oils.

I'm not one to talk, though.

I've been doing a little bit too much bloat maxing.

I'm getting.

Control of it, though.

I'm getting control of it.

Rather, it was created very good, and unlike those who deify nature as divine,

we believe that creation remains exactly that, a creation.

As Paul warns us in Romans chapter one, we're not to worship and serve created things

instead of the creator.

Now, as for humans, Ronald Reagan was fond of a truism that I think.

Is certainly consistent.

Did you see that?

Hold

on

a second.

Hold on a second.

Okay, okay, okay.

Maybe I'm just crazy.

Listen, you might think I'm crazy.

I probably am a little bit crazy.

Did you see that face he made, though, when he said Ronald Reagan?

He brings up Ronald Reagan, and the moderator just gives him this really weird smile.

He's like, look at this.

Watch this.

As Paul warns us in Romans chapter one, we're not to worship and serve created things

instead of the creator.

Now, as for humans, Ronald Reagan was fond of a

truism.

He's like, Ronald.

Reagan, and he's like, ooh, I like Ronald Reagan, too.

It's very weird.

Very weird.

Although, I will say, like I said, I've been studying statement analysis

and body language stuff, and this is probably what happened here is this guy gave a little weird smile when he

mentioned Ronald Reagan.

I guess, you know, Ronald Reagan's like street cred for, like, typical conservatives, right?

So he smiled, and then this guy gave a really weird smile back.

Watch this.

Just watch the mirroring that's going on here.

It's very weird.

For one, we're not to worship and serve created things instead of the creator.

Now, as for humans, Ronald Reagan was fond of a truism that I think is certainly consistent.

With Christian anthropology.

I'm sorry, guys.

I'm sorry.

This episode is taking a weird turn, but oh, man.

Maybe I'm just crazy.

I might just be crazy.

If you think I'm crazy, let me know.

Humans are ecology, too.

That is to say that humans belong to nature.

Ronald Reagan said it.

You know it's got to be true.

In an otherwise pristine environment, our presence here is a creational norm.

Notice that before the creation of humans, God repeatedly in Genesis chapter 1 saw that it

was good.

But it was only after he creates his image, the imago dei, and he blesses them and commissions

them to rule and subdue the earth that he saw that it was very good.

And that means, thirdly, that the relationship between humans and nature from the beginning

involved productive cultivation of the earth as an intrinsic good.

That's what I said.

God is not miserly.

He made the earth so that it responds to human cultivation.

And that's true even after the fall.

Thorns and thistles, yes, yet fruitfulness in response to labor, nonetheless.

Now, I highlight all of this.

This is good stuff.

I got to be honest.

I'm impressed with this so far, you know, not with the Ronald Reagan comment notwithstanding, although that was a fine comment, too.

This is impressive.

Who is this Madsen guy?

This guy sounds pretty good.

I'm not going to lie.

I'm impressed.

He basically started where I started.

You got to start at the beginning.

And, you know, it's not that humans are a virus killing Mother Earth.

It's not like that.

It's like, no, no, Mother Earth, if that's not a real thing, by the way, that if you are going to call it Mother

Earth, that's there for us.

That's there to respond to us.

We use the raw materials the way we see fit, the way we want to cultivate and create and

replenish and subdue and have dominion.

It's there for us to use.

It's not you're using and abusing Mother Earth.

It's like it's not really like that.

It's actually the opposite way.

It's there for our use.

That's why God created it.

You want to cultivate it.

You know, the gold ore is there not just to stay in the ground, in the dirt.

It's there for us to extract and then use for our purposes.

That's what it's there for, to beautify our homes and to beautify, you know, our fingers, you know, get a gold ring or something like

that or use for money or whatever it is.

It's not just there just to stay there, right?

It's there for our use is really what it comes down to.

Now, we have to replenish the earth, too.

It doesn't mean that we strip mine things and not consider ramifications.

No, we have to consider that as well.

But anyway, let's continue because I'm impressed by this.

I'm not going to lie.

I'm waiting for one good faith debater to actually be solid.

And I got to say, I'm impressed with this start.

Does anyone know this guy?

Is he good?

Sounds good.

It seems.

To me that many environmental and economic approaches undermine these worldview

commitments to significant degrees.

For example, I agree with that.

Nature is deified and worshiped, often literally.

It is imbued with personhood and rights as if humans were made subject to

it.

Rather than the other way around.

I got to say, I haven't seen this before.

He said everything that I was saying.

This is real.

I'm very impressed.

That's true.

People worship and serve the creation and they do it literally quite often.

And that's very, this is good.

Many environmental approaches view humans as inherently parasitic and suspect.

Cultivation is often viewed as essentially destructive and not productive.

These kinds of assumptions, it seems to me, are alien to Christian theology.

Moreover, our question today also involves economics and there's no such thing as a

neutral economic worldview.

What can I say?

I am impressed.

That is right.

There is no, this isn't a question, this is a question of economics.

And there is no such thing as a neutral economics worldview.

The Bible has a lot to say about economics.

And if you look at the law of God, you get a specific economic system that the Bible

allows for, and you definitely get economic systems that the Bible does not allow for.

That is really, really good.

I'm impressed.

This guy is pretty based.

He's.

Based.

Based.

When it comes to economic interventions into the private sector by the state, it seems to me we

ought to ask what kind of economic worldview is involved.

So is there an underlying antipathy to, say, the private sector itself?

And it's beyond that too.

Does.

It, is it against the private sector?

Maybe, maybe not.

But it's really more about God's law.

And I hope they talk about God's law because that's the key here, right?

That's the key.

Because most Christians do care about the environment, but the reality is we have to care about it within the confines and

the context of God's law.

Because when you break God's law, you're actually hating God and also hating your neighbor.

There's a proverb, this is a perfect time to bring it up.

There's a proverb that talks about how a righteous man has regard for his beast.

So a righteous man takes care of his animals.

I've got chickens and I take care of them.

I provide them a coop to live in.

Hopefully it's clean enough for them.

They've got good food to eat.

They've got water.

I take care of them.

They've got a good life.

And I use them for my advantage.

You know, I use them for their eggs.

I'll use them for their meat and stuff like that.

They're also quite entertaining to watch.

So I'll use them for my advantage, but it's an exchange.

I'm taking care of them as well.

I'm not treating them poorly and all that.

So a righteous man has regard for his beast.

And then the proverb says, even the mercy of the wicked is cruel.

The mercy of the wicked is cruel.

Why is the mercy of the wicked cruel?

The reason why is because the wicked have no guardrails.

They've got no moral standards to actually really define what mercy really

is or what love really is.

And so they'll come up with some kind of a scheme.

And it's a scheme.

It's a money -making scheme.

A lot of this stuff, the carbon credit stuff that likely this beetle over here is going to talk about, this

borderline cross -dressing.

Want to be fair.

Borderline cross -dressing beetle.

He's going to be talking about schemes like carbon credits or things like that.

That's the kind of schemes he's going to be talking about.

Fines and stuff like that.

These are money -making schemes.

These are guild schemes to make sure that certain guild players benefit while other guild players don't.

These are scams.

They're bamboozles.

They're fugazi.

They're flim flam.

They're bunko.

They're schemes.

And so here's what happens.

So they say, oh, we're killing Mother Earth.

We must do something for Mother Earth.

And then, oh, carbon credits.

Carbon credits.

Oh, emissions.

Emissions targets.

Emissions targets.

And so what ends up happening is that Americans, they have the money to meet these emissions targets

or pay the fines or whatever.

And then poorer countries don't.

They can't do this.

But they want to have a good relationship with the United States.

So they sign these accords.

And then they can't use diesel engines to harvest their food.

And so they starve.

So they starve.

And because the mercy of the wicked is cruel, they weren't even considering the impact on humans.

They were more considering, oh, Mother Earth and the future of humanity.

It's like, yeah, but you don't really care about the future of humanity if you don't care about the present of humanity.

Like, that's a scam.

That's flim flam.

That's typical bunko fugazi.

And so it's a scam.

It's a scheme.

And that's what happens.

That's why the mercy of the wicked is cruel, because they don't have any reliable way to define mercy.

Christians do.

Christians do.

And so Christians look at the law of God and they say, here's what the government's for.

Here's what the government's not for.

The government's an avenger, a revenger of God, a servant of God, executing justice upon the

evildoer.

It's not there to decide whether or not some farmer in Zimbabwe can use a diesel engine to

harvest his crops.

That's not what the government's there for.

And so, you know, Beatles like this fall for the moneymaking schemes because they're useful to the regime and they make a

few shekels along the way.

But Christians have to have a higher standard, a higher judge, a higher authority.

And that's the law of God.

That's why I really hope they start talking about the law of God during this debate.

I've got nothing negative to say about this guy.

This guy has made a great presentation.

Let's let him continue, because I'm impressed.

Private property, corporations, wealth, economic growth and productivity and so forth.

If so, then we might be right to suspect that the goal is not actually environmental protection.

So, for example, I would say that I would note that Representative Ocasio -Cortez's HR

109 bill, the so -called Green New Deal, has among its grab bag

of mandates, free health care, affordable housing and economic security for all people.

So worldview matters.

This is really good.

I mean, he said it in a good faith way.

And look, this is a good faith debate, so I'm not going to criticize him for being good faith.

In a nice way, he basically said what I said.

This is a flim flam.

This is fugazi.

This guy's probably never said the word fugazi in his life.

Oh, he probably never done that either.

That's I like that.

Oh, that's what he said.

This is a scam.

This is a scam for socialism.

He said that in a nice way.

This is a socialist scheme.

Good for him.

That's pretty good.

That's savage.

That's savage.

This is how you be a savage in a good faith way.

What he just did was savage.

So with that said, let me turn and focus.

On three particular ethical issues I think we ought to consider.

That's good.

I'm impressed when we talk about regulatory or economic...

Let me know if you know this guy, if he's good.

Things like punitive tax increases, redistributive subsidies,

imposed regulatory costs.

We're talking about civil sanctions.

And I believe that civil sanctions must address actual arms with reasonable

causality and proximity.

So for example, it seems to me one thing for the state to say Acme manufacturing.

You are pouring toxic waste into the groundwater of your local community.

This causes cancer.

Cease and desist.

It seems to me quite another thing to say Acme manufacturing.

According to our computer models, you are contributing to a global temperature change of three and a

half degrees Celsius 100 years from now.

Cease and desist.

I'm concerned about this.

This is a good point as well.

And I don't know why he's picking on Acme.

They're a great company.

They make anvils, safes, TNT.

I mean, they're a fantastic and very productive company.

And I don't want anyone slandering Acme.

But here's the thing.

That's a good point, because if you look at God's law, I think that there are case laws that you could look

at that would allow a civil governing authority, a government, to punish Acme

for giving someone cancer.

Your chemicals went into this water supply.

You gave this amount of people a deadly disease.

And here's what your punishment is.

If you look at the case laws of God, there are situations that would be

applicable for that kind of a thing.

And then if they don't stop after that, then there's even further situations in the case law.

Like if you do something on accident, okay, here's what I'm thinking of.

And of course, I'd have to think this through a little bit more.

But there's the situation where you have an ox that has no history of goring people, and it gores

someone.

Well, something happens to you.

But if you have an ox that has a history of goring someone, and it gores someone, something different happens to

you, and it's a little bit more intense.

That's something that I think we could keep in mind.

Or there's other things.

You know, you're swinging an axe hammer, and it hits somebody or something like that.

There's different case laws that I think would apply to Acme that's pouring poisonous chemicals into the water

supply or something like that.

I think we could do that.

And we need to consider those kinds of laws when we're coming up with our laws.

That's how we do this.

It's a critical part of this debate for Christians.

But you see, the government doesn't typically do that.

They don't really consider God's law when they're coming up with their own laws.

And so they come up with all kinds of schemes, and they are schemes, that

benefit certain companies over others.

We have an example of this like in our current events, right?

So, you know, Silicon Valley Bank failed, and so the government steps in, and they say, oh, we're

gonna guarantee every deposit, no matter how much, over the $250 ,000 of

FDIC insurance.

We're gonna guarantee the deposits of Silicon Valley Bank because Silicon Valley Bank is a strategically important bank.

It's too big to fail!

And all that, right?

So what ends up happening, right?

Because that's a scheme.

That's a scheme.

They shouldn't have done that.

That's a scheme.

So what ends up happening?

So you've got an insolvent bank that the government is now guaranteeing every dollar of

your deposits, right?

What's happening is that smaller banks that are solvent, that are more responsible, that are better banks, that are

more stable, they're losing depositors because now you can

get fully guaranteed deposits at a failing bank.

And so, ironically, there is money going into Silicon Valley Bank, a horrible bank,

coming out of good banks because the good banks don't have their money guaranteed, but the bad bank does.

And so you're creating, it's a scheme.

It's a scheme to help one bank and hurt another bank.

Now, these politicians, of course, will say, well, we didn't intend that.

It doesn't matter.

It's a scheme.

It's a scam.

It's flimflam.

It's bamboozle.

It's fugazi.

That's how it works.

That's how the scheme works.

And this man over here is going to give you all kinds of schemes that he says are to help the environment, but

they're just socialist schemes.

And we're going to probably have a good chance to talk about all of those.

We're going to end this video right now.

I got to say, I'm impressed with this Mattson guy.

I don't know him.

I think I've heard the name before.

Let me know if you know this Mattson guy and let me know if he's solid because he certainly seems solid.

I hope you found this video helpful.

God bless.