#48 - Before We Get To the New Year...

Because my health has prevented me from blogging regularly, there are a few things I haven’t got to share about in awhile that I want to do before 2009 ends.

1.Christmas – *** Have you noticed how people on television were not saying “Merry Christmas” but “Happy Holidays?” I don’t fault people if they were they trying to be politically correct, but why couldn’t they say “Merry Christmas” AND “Happy Holidays?” When I said “Merry Christmas” to cashiers, I never got a “Merry Christmas” back but usually a “same to you.” It drives me nuts that students no longer have “Christmas vacations” but “Winter breaks” but now I can’t even hear the word “Christmas” said in public. You can probably tell that I feel that being “politically correct” or somehow sensitive to how others feel has just gone much too far.

***The best part of being in some stores or watching any Christmas special on television – even PBS- during Christmas was to hear Christmas carols. It must be a nightmare for the ACLU-Separation of Church and State-Atheist types who want all mention of God erased from the public square. For example, “Glory to the newborn King…God and sinners reconciled…Christ by highest heaven adored; Christ the everlasting Lord…Hail the Heaven born Prince of Peace! Hail the Sun of Righteousness…Born that man no more may die, Born to raise the sons of earth, Born to give them second birth…” (“Hark! the Herald Angels Sing”) Every carol preaches the gospel as clearly as any Sunday morning sermon. Interestingly, though, I did learn that not all Christmas songs speak of Jesus’ birth. For example, in “Joy to the World,” phrases such as “…the Savior reigns,” “He rules the world truth and grace, And makes the nations prove, The glories of His righteousness” speak not of the result of His FIRST coming but of His SECOND coming. It’s just like verses in the Bible where some refer to His first and some to His second coming.

2.Health Care Reform – *** When the “pro-life” Democrat from Nebraska, Senator Ben Nelson, who had said that he would not vote for the bill unless there was clear language in it that prohibited tax payer funding for abortion and represented the ONE vote that would stop the bill from passing the Senate, indicated that he would vote FOR the bill, I all but screamed! Despite what’s been said, the language of the bill he agreed on will NOT, in truth, prevent such funding. If every Republican amendment proposed to CLEARLY outlaw any tax dollars going to abortion services was defeated by the Democrats, do you really believe the final language of the bill was going to do that? (By the way, over 70% of Americans polled do NOT want tax payer funds going to abortion, with over 50% now opposed to abortion on demand.) The Senator knows this. And so, what really caused him to give in – his state was promised an exemption from Medicare taxes that will result from the bill. In other words, he was bought off. Just as I am sure all the other so-called “pro-life” democrats who voted for the bill also did. (Even the mainstream media that can be counted on to support policies promoted by the Democrats were forced to report on what favors many of the not so liberal Senators were given in exchange for their votes.) After Senator Nelson's utter failure to stand on principle and to sell-out the unborn, I believe every person in Congress who says they are "pro-life" should put an asterisk by their name so that we know that it doesn't mean their convictions cannot be bought at the right price.

*** I was stunned that the Senate Democratic leader Reid actually said that there was nothing unusual about this, that these were just “compromises” that are part of negotiations! I was surprised his nose didn’t take on a Pinnochio-size length as he spoke. As someone said when they called into a radio talk show: “The Democrats slogan is: If you have trouble passing a bill, lie, lie, again.” I would change that to say, …lie, bribe, and steal some more.” (Every time they add something to a bill, they increase our national debt and STEAL from future generations.) The real clincher that this wasn’t a compromise was the not-often quoted statement by one of the Democrats that the President got 95% of what he wanted. (This is the President who has made some clear promises to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of abortions.) Wow, he compromised on 5%.

*** When their victory in passing the bill was assured, I was struck by the Senators who were self-congratulatory to gloating. It didn’t seem to matter to them that over 2/3 of Americans polled said that they are not in favor of the Senate’s bill. It seems that they are more interested in getting their way, that they are more interested in what they think is best rather than what the American people want. They call their bill “historic” and any combination of the Senate and House bill probably will be. But not historic in that it will accomplish good but bring great evil to this country. Ever since the election, people have gotten to like the use of that word so much they forget that many things in history were very destructive. Calling something “historic” doesn’t guarantee it will be something good. *** I was so upset by Senator Nelson’s sell-out that I decided against finding some way to share all this the next day because it would not be in keeping with this Christmas season. But I’m still very upset, and if you are pro-life and you care about what the Democrats reform will actually cost this country and future generations, I hope you’re upset. I hope you’ll join me in praying that somehow, as they try to mesh the Senate bill with the House bill, there will be enough problems to derail this very dangerous bill.

3. The President’s First Year in Office: ***During an interview with Oprah, one of his wealthiest supporters, the President was asked what grade would he give himself. While the grade most Americans polled gave the President was a “D,” he said he gave himself a “B+.” It tells you why teachers never ask students what grade they think they deserve. I would give him a “D-.” At least he is sending most of the troops our commander in Afghanistan requested, though it’s not clear to me (and I’m sure most Americans) why it took him 3 months to decide and why he didn’t anticipate such a request long before it was made. And praise God, he FAILED to persuade the Olympic committee to hold the 2016 in Chicago, which would have bankrupt the city that was already dealing with a deficit. (Montreal, Canada, which held the winter Olympics in the ‘70’s only recently paid off its debt from that Olympics!) And double praise, that he did NOT commit America to any binding and debt-incurring commitments at the Copenhagen Climate Conference. I give him low marks for plunging us into so much debt with the stimulus bill, the attempted (praying it still fails) Health Care Reform bill, his attempted energy (cap and trade) bill, his sending US dollars worldwide to provide for abortions during his first few weeks in office, for his approving more federal dollars to go to unnecessary research into EMBRYONIC stem cell research, and his having the federal government assume control of the financial and auto industries. I’m sure there are other things I’ve forgotten in this “historic” year but these were the ones that upset me the most.

*** I could not believe it when the President actually accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. (Did you know he was nominated just 2 weeks after he was sworn in?) He originally said that he didn’t know what he had done to be awarded the prize (as did almost 80% of the American people) and the Nobel committee itself said that it was given for what they HOPED he would do as a result of his overtures to Muslims and others hostile to American policies. (As some have said, it’s like he got a prize just for not being George Bush, who Europeans so dislike.) At least he is said to have given the $1 million plus prize money to charity, though what charity that is has not been disclosed. (Planned Parenthood, ACORN?) And, while on the subject, did you also know that the Nobel Prize was NOT given to Mahatma Gandhi, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (for his part in leading the fight in WWII), nor President Ronald Reagan (whom most credit with helping to end the scourge of Soviet communism and the threat of nuclear war).

#47 - What You Haven’t Heard From Environmentalists (3)– THREE (parts one and two were postings on this blog #27 and #28)

On Monday, thousands gathered in Copenhagen, Denmark, for an international conference on climate change over the next two weeks. While those in attendance believe that the science of global warming (or climate change) is “settled,” there are tens of thousands of noted scientists who disagree, something I’m quite sure you’ve not heard about if you’ve been listening to the usual media outlets.

While the biased nature of news reporting was not enough to find disturbing, several weeks ago the world learned that scientists themselves were guilty of bias in THEIR reporting. “On November 23rd, someone hacked a server used by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, and disseminated more than a thousand e-mails and other documents. Climate change skeptics charge that the e-mails show collusion by climate scientists to skew scientific information in favor of manmade global warming. The leaked documents “show that prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of manmade global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data, plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing, and concealed apparently buggy computer code from being disclosed under the Freedom of Information law,” CBS News reported. One climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research was quoted as saying: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” ’ – from Newsmax.com, Dec. 7

To give some balance to the reporting that you will likely hear in the next two weeks coming out of the conference in Copenhagen, I will present here on each posting under the title “What You Haven’t Heard from Environmentalist” several past articles by Chuck Colson and others addressing the climate change/global warming THEORIES we often hear.

Before I present some articles, I’d like to share several quotes I found at: GlobalWarmingHoax.com:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical. “The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

"Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.


Global Warming and the Media By Chuck Colson 2/3/2009, Breakpoint.org
Give Us All the Facts

You may have noticed that some of President Obama’s most ardent supporters speak of him in almost messianic terms. But there’s one public figure who apparently means it literally: James Hansen of NASA. Hansen, who is the “father” of the global warming movement, recently told the U.K. Guardian that the new President “has only four years to save the world.” Unless we implement drastic measures like a “moratorium on new power plants that burn coal” and a hefty “carbon tax,” we face an apocalyptic future—“global flooding, wide-spread species loss and major disruptions of weather patterns.”

Of course, Hansen’s warnings made headlines around the world. Not only because “doom and gloom” sells, but because the mainstream media treats any claim about man-made global warming with the utmost credulity. Thus, last summer, when a “researcher” claimed that global warming might lead to more violent earthquakes, news outlets trumpeted the story. In their haste, they neither asked how warmer temperatures can cause earthquakes nor checked the researcher’s credentials. These included previous pieces on something called the “Thiaoouba Prophecy” and reading auras. Really. The story was quickly deleted from the outlets’ websites without retraction or comment.

Less comical but no less telling are the stories about the “disappearing” Arctic ice. A year ago, we were told that the Arctic had reached a “tipping point” and that Arctic ice could be “completely” gone, with dire consequences for polar bears and Santa Claus, within five years. What you probably haven’t heard is that, by October, that same Arctic ice covered 29 percent more area than it did the year before and that by the end of the year, it was approaching its greatest mass since 1979. And it’s still growing. There are countless other examples of where real-world facts conflict with global warming theory, not the least of which is that the Earth has been cooling since at least 2003 and arguably since 1998.

As the chairman of the International Geological Congress has asked, “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?” Those of us shivering this winter have been asking the same question. It’s possible that he and other critics are wrong, of course. What is certain is that we are not getting anything resembling a complete presentation of the facts. The media reports the dire claims, and by the time the claims have been debunked, they have already moved onto the next one. Given the level of dissent and skepticism on the subject, we ought not to let ourselves be panicked and stampeded into taking drastic and costly measures. Nor should we allow the claims about “scientific consensus” to cow us. First, remember, there is no such consensus; and, second, scientists are just as prone to peer pressure and groupthink as everybody else.

This is a major issue. The costs here are immense, not only in terms of dollars, but in terms of human flourishing. I recommend we take a biblical perspective on environmental stewardship. The Acton Institute has produced just such a booklet—a wonderful tool. Come to BreakPoint.org or call in, and we’ll tell you how to get it.

For Further Reading and Information
Read the Acton Institute’s Environmental Stewardship in the Judeo-Christian Tradition.
“Arctic Ice Could Be Gone in Five Years,” Telegraph (UK), 12 December 2007.
“Arctic Ice Melting ‘Faster Than Predicted’,” Telegraph (UK), 24 April 2008.
Dennis Avery, “The Worst Climate Predictions of 2008,” Canada Free Press, 28 December 2008.
“Arctic Sea Ice Now 28.7% Higher than This Date Last Year - Still Rallying,” Watts Up With That?, 15 October 2008.
Regis Nicoll, “Climate Change Science: Long on Faith, Short on Fact,” BreakPoint Online, 5 December 2008.
“Stimulus through Contraception?: Fewer Kids to Feed,” BreakPoint Commentary, 2 February 2009.
“Just Do It: Good Stewardship and Global Warming,” BreakPoint Commentary, 2 November 2007.

The EPA's Assault On Carbon Dioxide (Forbes.com Commentary, 4/12/09) - Richard A. Epstein

The passing of the environmental torch between the Bush and Obama administrations became ever more evident last week when EPA head Lisa Jackson announced that carbon dioxide is now an official pollutant. Not just any pollutant, mind you, but one that moves in the fast company of methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride--all notoriously bad stuff.
For years, the Bush EPA refused to mount even a partial attack on carbon dioxide. In part, its opposition rested on the uncertain science about CO2's uncertain contribution to global warming. In part it rested on the view that the patchwork programs of the Clean Air Act (CAA) did not afford a sensible platform on which to launch such a huge and risky initiative.

Traditional administrative law principles seemed to give the EPA lots of leeway in backing off carbon dioxide. Courts routinely block agencies from implementing programs that go beyond their statutory marching orders. But courts are most reluctant to coax any agency to devote its limited resources to a program it doesn't want to undertake. It is too risky to let different courts order a single agency to march off in different directions. And it is nearly impossible for any court to monitor agency progress on a project that it doesn't want to carry out.
For these reasons, it was a surprise when, in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court pulled that trigger in Massachusetts v. EPA. That decision ordered the EPA to investigate whether it should classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant under section §7251(a)(1) of the CAA, which says that the administrator shall "prescribe by regulation standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."

Justice Stevens held that the EPA's only wiggle room under this statutory command was to decide whether carbon dioxide either caused or contributed to air pollution in ways that endangered public health. Otherwise it had no discretion to back off. And it is hard to deny that carbon dioxide might contribute something to global warming. Nonetheless, most people find it a bit odd to take after poor CO2 as a pollutant when its presence in the atmosphere is a necessary element to sustain life on earth. The rub is that too much carbon dioxide might choke the environment--assuming we could find that tipping point, which looks more uncertain with each passing day.

The science isn't what's troubling with the EPA's recent decision. That honor belongs to targeting new sources of pollution under the CAA, from tail pipes, or for that matter, coal plants. Congress chose to regulate new sources under the CAA in the naïve belief that old ones would quickly fade away. But that grandfathering decision induced people to keep older, more deadly, cars on the road--and power plants stay on line--far longer than they should.New technology produces better pollution controls than old ones--period. For automobiles, the EPA estimates that new cars today emit on average somewhere between 10% and 25% the amount of pollutants that new cars did in 1970 when the EPA became law. The worst new car is better than the best of the old cars, whose inferior pollutant systems only deteriorate with age. Suppose it were 100% sound for the EPA to attack carbon dioxide, then the available strategies under the CAA are the worst possible way to encourage the shift to safer technologies.

No sane libertarian favors death by asphyxiation. The reason we need something like the EPA is because ordinary private lawsuits cannot keep pace with pollution that comes from so many sources and harms so many people. But the legitimacy of ends does not excuse sloppiness on means. First, "do no harm," remains good social policy. The EPA needs to hold off its regulatory offensive against carbon dioxide until it gets statutory authority to tax or regulate those older sources that do most of the damage. And then it has to consider whether a comprehensive attack on CO2 is worth the candle.

Richard A. Epstein is the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law, The University of Chicago, the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, and a visiting professor at New York University Law School.


Don’t Waste Time Cutting Emissions
By BJORN LOMBORG, Op-Ed Contributor, April 25, 2009,

WE are often told that tackling global warming should be the defining task of our age — that we must cut emissions immediately and drastically. But people are not buying the idea that, unless we act, the planet is doomed. Several recent polls have revealed Americans’ growing skepticism. Solving global warming has become their lowest policy priority, according to a new Pew survey. Moreover, strategies to reduce carbon have failed. Meeting in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, politicians from wealthy countries promised to cut emissions by 2000, but did no such thing. In Kyoto in 1997, leaders promised even stricter reductions by 2010, yet emissions have kept increasing unabated. Still, the leaders plan to meet in Copenhagen this December to agree to even more of the same — drastic reductions in emissions that no one will live up to. Another decade will be wasted.

Fortunately, there is a better option: to make low-carbon alternatives like solar and wind energy competitive with old carbon sources. This requires much more spending on research and development of low-carbon energy technology. We might have assumed that investment in this research would have increased when the Kyoto Protocol made fossil fuel use more expensive, but it has not. Economic estimates that assign value to the long-term benefits that would come from reducing warming — things like fewer deaths from heat and less flooding — show that every dollar invested in quickly making low-carbon energy cheaper can do $16 worth of good. If the Kyoto agreement were fully obeyed through 2099, it would cut temperatures by only 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit. Each dollar would do only about 30 cents worth of good.
The Copenhagen agreement should instead call for every country to spend one-twentieth of a percent of its gross domestic product on low-carbon energy research and development. That would increase the amount of such spending 15-fold to $30 billion, yet the total cost would be only a sixth of the estimated $180 billion worth of lost growth that would result from the Kyoto restrictions.

Kyoto-style emissions cuts can only ever be an expensive distraction from the real business of weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. The fact is, carbon remains the only way for developing countries to work their way out of poverty. Coal burning provides half of the world’s electricity, and fully 80 percent of it in China and India, where laborers now enjoy a quality of life that their parents could barely imagine.
No green energy source is inexpensive enough to replace coal now. Given substantially more research, however, green energy could be cheaper than fossil fuels by mid-century. Sadly, the old-style agreement planned for Copenhagen this December will have a negligible effect on temperatures. This renders meaningless any declarations of “success” that might be made after the conference. We must challenge the orthodoxy of Kyoto and create a smarter, more realistic strategy.

Bjorn Lomborg is the director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center at Copenhagen Business School and the author of “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming.”

#46 - Letters to the Church THREE - The Manhattan Declaration

[from Stan: As I have stated previous, as Christian, I believe that we have a responsibility before God, as stewards of this great country that we are privileged to be citizens, to stand up when evil threatens it. Twenty years ago this past spring, I spent four days in jail with over 600 others for blocking an abortion clinic as an act of civil disobedience, something I did in response to a clear call from God. Last year, a pastor in Scandanavia was jailed for preaching about homosexuality according to the teaching of Scriptures under hate crimes legislation similar to that recently signed into law by our President. (I called this bill to your attention this spring. Knowing they could not have it passed any other way, the Democrats in Congress attached it to a defense appropriations bill to make it almost impossible for conservative Republicans to oppose it.) Recently in Florida, “Michelle Winkler's life as a school administrative assistant dramatically changed the day the ACLU brought CONTEMPT charges against her for asking her husband to pray over a meal at a privately-sponsored employee banquet being held in a neighboring county. The ACLU attorneys had the audacity to ask the court to force Michelle to pay them over $30,000 in attorney's fees!” (For more information on this, I encourage you to check out LiberyCounsel.org where I learned of this.)
The document was recently signed by Christians across denominational and political persuasions asks Christians to get serious about whether or not we will stand up against evil policies that are infecting our society. If you go the appropriate website, ManhattanDeclaratioin.org, you will find the entire document to read and sign. Although it came to 7 pages when I downloaded it, it is a document worth your time reading, having, and signing, which I encourage you and your friends to do. Friend, we must ask ourselves the question: If we say we really care about what is happening morally in our country, are we willing to stand up to say so, even if one day it might mean committing acts of civil disobedience as that pastor in Scandanavia and Christians persecuted throughout the world our doing every day for even more egregious wrongs? I believe that it is sin before God to do any less.]

Manhattan Declaration Hits Almost 200,000 Signatures by Kim Trobee, editor

Statement on Christian beliefs is a clarion call to reach out to the poor and suffering.

The Manhattan Declaration was unveiled at a press conference Nov. 20. Now, more than 200,000 people have signed the document that outlines Christian teaching on abortion, marriage and rights of conscience. Chuck Colson, founder of The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, said on his daily Breakpoint commentary that the declaration was a proclamation that Christians will protect the tenets of their faith.

"There, in front of all those cameras and lights, Christian leaders lovingly, winsomely and firmly took a stand," he said. "I will never forget the picture. I stood between Archbishop Wuerl of Washington and Cardinal Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia. I looked over at Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Jim Daly of Focus on the Family, and Ron Sider, president of Evangelicals for Social Action. It was a foretaste of what we're all going to see in heaven."
Other Christian leaders signing included Bishop Harry Jackson, senior pastor of Hope Christian Church, the Rev. Chad Hatfield, chancellor and CEO of St. Vladimir's Seminary, Robbie George, director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, and Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List.

Just four days after launching the Manhattan Declaration Web site, nearly 100,000 people had signed their support for the document, and that number continues to climb. Jim Daly, president and CEO of Focus on the Family, said it's the kind of communication that captures the spirit of the Christian faith. "Inviting and answering questions, engaging in civil discourse, acknowledging where we've fallen short and investing more energy in doing the right things for other to see," he said. "It's the language of cultural change." Opponents have called the document a political tool to resurrect the "religious right." Colson said that couldn't be further from the truth. "This document is a clarion call to reach out to the poor and the suffering," he said. "It is, in fact, a form of catechism for the foundational truths of the faith. It underscores human rights, and calls on everyone to protect human dignity at every stage of life. The Manhattan Declaration was written for the common good and for justice."


TAKE ACTION
Sign the Manhattan Declaration.

#45 - Alternatives To All That Christmas Shopping

[From Stan: You might consider using the present growing troubles of Tiger Woods as a conversation starter with non-Christian friends. First, ask them what would they consider the marks of a great life they would like to have. Then share with them how “Tiger Woods basically has (had?) it all: he’s a billionaire AND at a young age (financial security for life); he’s married to a beautiful model and has 3 healthy and beautiful children; he has world-wide fame and popularity; he gets to do for a living what he is gifted and obviously enjoys doing and is probably the best in the world at what he does. AND YET, with all that, he was dissatisfied enough to (it appears) commit adultery. He is just one of many stories of famous people (and Hollywood is full of them) who “had it all” and yet were not satisfied. Why do you think this is so?” To paraphrase C.S.Lewis, [if we are not satisfied with the things of this world, it probably means that we were meant to be fulfilled by life rooted in another world (Heaven or things of God).]… Of course, it goes without saying that we should all be praying of Tiger and his wife, that their marriage would be saved, but more importantly, that, as I suspect he and she are not believers in Christ, that they would come to know Him who ALONE fulfills any life as it was meant to be.]

Also, be sure to check out my special “Letter to the Christian Church posting this Sunday, Dec. 6.

Can Christmas Still Change the World? By Mark Earley, December 01, 2009 (from Breakpoint.com)Five pastors.

Five congregations. And one radically different approach to Christmas. What can we learn from it?

In 2006, pastors Rick McKinley, Chris Seay, and Greg Holder had a vision to revitalize the celebration of Christmas in their churches. They found two other like-minded pastors, and, together with their congregations, conspired to restore the meaning of Christmas. As Rick, Chris, and Greg explain in their book Advent Conspiracy, they all recognized and detested the rampant consumerism that turns the remembrance of Jesus’ birth into a cult of materialism. “Our story is consumption and consumerism...We worship less. We spend more. We give less. We struggle more.” That was their perspective. To address the problem, they challenged their congregations to spend less on themselves that Christmas so that they could spend more on others. As a result, this coalition of churches was able to raise around half a million dollars—enough to fund the digging of a high-capacity well in Nicaragua, and 13 deep wells in Liberia.

But these “Advent Conspirators” don’t simply tell us what they’ve accomplished. They challenge us to go and do likewise.At RethinkingChristmas.com, people who have joined the Advent Conspiracy share some practical suggestions on how to spend less money, yet give more love. One mother commented that she planned to make personalized cookbooks for her kids this Christmas. She scanned family recipes written in her handwriting and that of her mother’s, and placed them in a binder. That’s a gift that her children will treasure for years, and hopefully pass on to their children. While this may not have cost much, it involved a wealth of time—something far more meaningful. But our giving should not be limited to family and friends. This is the challenge of the Advent Conspiracy: “As poor people who have met with the righteous wealth of God, it is now our turn to model his generosity by sharing our wealth with those in need.” So far, many participants in the Advent Conspiracy movement have opted to give the money they raise each year to Living Water International, a Christian ministry dedicated to providing access to clean water to people around the world.

But whoever we give to, the point is to get beyond ourselves and love the unloved in the name of Christ. Rick, Greg, and Chris remind us of the blessings that result. As they write, “When we show up and love in the name of God, God shows up. That’s part of the mystery of partnering with Jesus in the work he is still doing.” During this past year of recession, it may be encouraging to remember that God doesn’t expect us to give what we don’t have. Those who have lost jobs may not be able to do much more than the poor widow in Luke 21. Though she only put in two small copper coins, Jesus commended her. While others gave out of their wealth, she gave out of her poverty and from her heart. So this year, as you remember how, long ago, God’s people longed for the coming of the Messiah, and as you look forward to Christ’s coming again, make a change in how you spend. Perhaps this Christmas can be the advent of a deeper faith for you and your family.

< P.S. from Stan: Besides checking out the website “Rethinking Christmas.com, consider doing away with Christmas shopping for the most part (except for children).Instead, may I encourage you to consider giving each person on your “list” a Christmas card telling them that in lieu of a gift, you are giving what you would have spent to a ministry that reaches out to people who are in need – one that gives gifts to children of those in prison, to a Christian pregnancy resource center, to World Vision or some other ministry that helps needy overseas, the Salvation Army, or Open Doors, that helps Christians in third world countries, especially former Muslims, who are persecuted for their faith. (If you need any other ideas or contact info, please let me know.

The reason for doing this is that many times during this time of year, we give with the expectation that we will receive something of possibly equal value in return. Most of us in this country have so much that, in lieu of this season celebrating the birth of Jesus, THE Gift that can never be returned in kind by the recipient, we should celebrate it by giving to those who we have no expectation of ever returning our gift in kind, those who are truly in need. Rather than going into debt (nuts!) and wearing ourselves out trying to find the perfect gift for someone who probably has the means anyway to get that item for themselves, we should think of those who cannot. I just think that doing this will make this season a whole lot less focused on buying stuff and just giving to those who really have needs for basic things.