The Environmental Protection Agency recently unveiled an online tool that is supposed to help local officials see the dangers of climate change in their community. The Climate Change Adaptation Resource Center provides a map that warns of the danger of climate change to each of the eight regions of the United States.

These dire warnings were too much for Dr. William M. Briggs who has been questioning many of the claims of climate change activists. In his column, he reminds us what really is happening in these states that are supposed to be reeling from the negative effects of climate change.

Yes, the climate has changed since 1980. Corn production in Michigan back then was about 7.5 billion bushels. By 2015, it has increased to 14 billion bushels. He then humorously notes that the “EPA warns that climate change in corn-growing Michigan could exacerbate the risk of increased production. Farmers might run out of bushels if the correlation persists.”

The EPA also warns of the impact of climate change in Iowa. Once again, we find that there have been bumper crops of corn, soybean, and other foodstuffs. “This is causing prices for food to drop. Climate change is thus bad news for those wanting higher prices.”

He says he can probably do this for every state, but I think you get the idea. If we are headed for a weather-induced Armageddon, the current facts don’t seem to support these dire warnings.

He also reminds us that back in 1936 there was an anomalous heat wave that killed over 12,00 Americans. But that was when there was a lot less carbon dioxide than we have now. Or how about 1886 when the U.S. was hit by more hurricanes than in any year following it. Again, there was less carbon dioxide back then.

The EPA is warning us of potential disasters in the future, but a look at current history and past history suggests that perhaps their predictions are too extreme.

The crime rate is up in many cities, so maybe its time to consider a solution rarely suggested. Let’s see what faith-based organizations and people of faith can do. The evidence is that they can reduce the crime rate and the recidivism rate in our prisons. This is the argument Baylor University criminologist Byron Johnson makes in his book, More God, Less Crime.

Sadly most social scientists and even criminologists seem reluctant to make the connection between faith and the impact religious perspectives could have on America’s crime problem. Dr. Johnson believes that a faith-based ministry or message doesn’t resonate with most social scientists. Many are even hostile to religion as demonstrated by the opening chapter in his book entitled, “The Last Acceptable Prejudice.”

Dr. Johnson also says that faith-based organizations are merely tolerated within the criminal justice system. In some places, they are seen as valuable and even helpful. In other jurisdictions, they are viewed with suspicion. This is unfortunate since the criminal justice system is facing cutbacks and shrinking budgets. Prison ministries like Bill Glass, Prison Fellowship, and Kairos Prison Ministry can provide people and programs that can make a difference. Faith-based organizations of all kinds can provide volunteers and educators to help with programs in life skills and adult education.

The book is full of positive examples of what can happen when Christians get involved in their local community. He tells the story of “The Boston Miracle” where police and pastors worked together to break the stranglehold gangs had in the community. He also talks about the mission of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise and violence-free zones. And he even gives practical advice on the important issue of prisoner reentry and aftercare.

Most importantly, he provides a review of the literature so that churches and faith-based organizations can show skeptics that the title of the book is true: More God, Less Crime.

For the last few decades, politicians and high-tech companies have been talking about the digital divide. They wanted to make sure that poor and underprivileged students had access to the same digital devices as wealthier ones.

I have always felt there was a bigger issue that fewer people were talking about. Fortunately, Naomi Schaefer Riley addresses this in her New York Times op-ed on “America’s Real Digital Divide.” She warns that, “If you think middle-class children are being harmed by too much screen time, just consider how much greater the damage is to minority and disadvantaged kids, who spend much more time in front of screens.”

One study, for example, found that minority children watch 50 percent more TV than their white peers. They use computers for up to one and a half hours longer each day. And the amount of time black and Hispanic children spend in front of any screen is substantially longer each day than for white children.

Another study found that every additional hour of TV increased a child’s odds of attention problems by about 10 percent. “Kids who watched three hours a day were 30 percent more like to have attention trouble than those who watched none.”

The push from politicians and educators has been to bridge the digital divide and get computers and other technology into the classrooms. Apparently, minority students already have access to technology. One Pew Research report documented that African American teenagers are more likely to own a smartphone than any other group of teenagers in America.

Put simply, the problem today is not a lack of technology in the schools, in the homes, and in the hands of young people. The problem is too much technology. They are spending a significant number of hours every day in front of a TV screen, a video game screen, a computer screen, and a smartphone screen.

If you think about it, your life is the culmination of lots and lots of decisions. Jim Clifton, CEO of Gallup, argues that people make 10,000 to 20,000 small decisions every day. If you multiply this by the U.S. population you end up with one quadrillion decisions. This is one of the points Jeff Myers makes in his book, Understanding the Culture.

The legacy your leave is the sum of all of these decisions. Many are inconsequential. Others determine the future direction of your life. Some don’t seem important at the time, but they turn out to be some of the most significant decisions you ever made.

How should we make decisions? First, we should consult the Bible. We can know God’s will in our lives through the Bible since it is full of specific commands and principles. Second, we should pray. We can discern God’s will through prayer. Philippians 4:6 says: “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.”

Third, consult your conscience. If your conscience troubles you (Romans 14), then that is reason enough to stop and not proceed. Acts 24:16 says: “Christians should strive to have a good conscience before God and man.” By the way, a clear conscience isn’t always a justification for proceeding. The Bible teaches that, “The heart is deceitful above all things” (Jeremiah 17:9). We can easily deceive ourselves into sin.

Finally, seek counsel. Proverbs 15:22 says: “Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.” Wisdom comes from many counselors. Share your decision with other godly men and women. Their collective response will often provide God’s direction in a matter.

As Christians we should strive to make wise and godly decisions about our life. How we make decisions will affect the rest of our life and leave a legacy of faith for others to follow.

Khaldoun Sweis admits that reaching your secular friends with the gospel is difficult, but there are things we can do to be more effective. He and I have worked together at the International Society of Christian Apologetics, so I was excited to see many commentators like Ed Stetzer and Eric Metaxas quoting him.

Khaldoun says we make a mistake “when we ignore the trends and zeitgeist of the times, and we make grave mistakes when we try to stereotype people into this or that category.” Sometimes the best starting point is to ask a question. When someone tells him they don’t believe in God, he will ask, “What god do you not believe in?” He says that nine times out of ten, it is usually a god that we Christians don’t believe in.

He has three principles we should adopt so that we will be more effective in reaching our secular friends. First, we must ENGAGE. He says we should sit at the table where we can have the attention of our secular friends. Connect with them by getting involved with Apple computers, with Congress, or with sports. We will be more effective if we sit at their table where most decisions are made for government, culture, media, and education.

Second, we must ENQUIRE. That means we need to turn the table to listening and asking good questions. The Bible admonishes us to “let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt” (Colossians 4:6).

He tells of a student who told him he did not believe in anything that is not physical. Khaldoun asked him if his idea was physical. After all, not believing in anything that is non-physical is a non-physical idea.

Third, we should EDIFY. That means we need to reach across the table and learn to love people redemptively. The gospel is ultimately about relationships, and we can demonstrate the truth of the gospel through love.

These principles will help you more effectively reach your secular friends.