Ten Minas Ministries

CARPE DIEM!

2011-10-04T10:53:00.002-05:00

“Dead Poets Society” was a lousy film. It blanketed itself in a cover of pretentiousness, claiming to deliver a positive message for our youth when in reality it was nothing more than a blatant attempt to proselytize its viewers into its existentialist worldview. John Keating (played by Robin Williams) sounded more like he belonged in the pulpit of a church that worships at the altar of Kierkegaard than leading a high school poetry class. Any value that could otherwise have been found in this film was completely destroyed by the existentialist worldview of its lead characters.

Now I must deliver a confession. That opening paragraph was solely designed to get your attention. In truth, I very much enjoyed “Dead Poets Society.” My sister-in-law’s cousin actually starred in the film (Robert Sean Leonard, currently playing Dr. James Wilson on “House”). I thought Robin Williams’ passionate performance was inspiring, and while I could challenge a number of his character’s philosophical conclusions, that did not prevent me from recognizing this as a high caliber movie with a number of positive messages behind it.

That brings me to the movie “Courageous” which opened in theaters this past weekend. It shocked many industry professionals by having a larger opening box office than any of the other films that were newly released on Friday (#4 overall) despite being shown in less than half the number of theaters as its nearest competitor. The basic premise of the film is a call to men to be better and more responsible fathers. Yet that message gets lost in some of the criticism that instead focuses almost exclusively on the Christian worldview of the main characters.

Much of the feedback for this movie has been positive, and many of the negative reviews have raised legitimate cinematic concerns such as their opinions on the quality of acting, the pace of the film and its overall running time. While I may have a different opinion on some of those issues, I cannot dispute that they are within the legitimate realm of a movie reviewer and I have no criticism of them. My point is more about reviewers (whether professional or laypeople making comments on IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, or some other site) who count the philosophical perspective from which the story is told as a mark against it.

Hollywood features routinely advocate a particular philosophical view. Sometimes it is blatant, as in “Dead Poets Society.” Other times it is more subtle, like the postmodern skepticism inherent in the conversation of the nature of a Big Mac in “Pulp Fiction.” The fact that philosophy is imparted through the arts is nothing new.

Yet we scarcely read a review of “Pulp Fiction” claiming that it could have made a more profound impact if only it had lain off the philosophical musings. People do not criticize Robin Williams’ performance because he sounded too much like an advocate for his character’s worldview. In these films and others, viewers appear to accept that the worldviews of the main characters are simply the perspective from which the story is told. “Slumdog Millionaire” focused on people from a Hindu background, but audiences did not allow that to detract from the powerful point of the story. “Eat, Pray, Love” was a tribute to New Agers, but it still brought in over $80 million domestically. Why do so many Americans seem willing to be entertained by a film that deals honestly with the lifestyle and opinions of existentialists, postmodernists, Hindus or New Agers, yet cannot get past characters who unabashedly discuss their Christianity?

Some people will react to this post by claiming there were other reasons to dislike “Courageous,” all of which are related to the overall quality of the film. Like I said earlier, if that is your honest opinion I will not dispute you. However, I believe we would be required to stick our hand in the sand to avoid admitting that much of the criticism that has been launched against “Courageous” has been because it allegedly sounds more like a message preached from a pulpit than a fictional story produced for our entertainment. To those critics I can only remind them of how audiences stood on their desks and cheered, “CARPE DIEM!”

The Dominance Form of Pascal's Wager

2011-08-16T21:13:00.001-05:00

Blaise Pascal was a 17th Century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist. He was also a Christian. At the time of his death, he was working on a treatise on Christian apologetics, but he had only gotten so far as to compile a series of notes. Still, these notes were published posthumously as his Pensees. Note 233 contained his famous wager:

But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; wherever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all...

There has been disagreement among philosophers as to how to properly interpret Pascal’s comments. Ian Hacking, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toronto, suggests that Pascal was making an argument from “dominance.” [1] According to Hacking, Pascal proposes a dichotomy between the potential effects of wagering on God’s existence versus wagering against it. If God does not exist, then neither belief nor unbelief bears any potential bad effects. However, if God exists then wagering for him brings salvation whereas wagering against him entails damnation. Because salvation is certainly superior to damnation, people should wager on God’s existence. The “wager ‘God is’ dominates the wager ‘he is not.’”[2]

However, if this is indeed what Pascal meant, then he smuggles in some hidden assumptions. “Belief in God,” for example, does not by definition entail salvation nor does unbelief by definition bring about damnation. Mere belief in a “god,” without more, does not logically mandate salvation. It is only because of the connection between belief and salvation borne through Christian theology that Pascal draws this conclusion. The dominance form of the wager, therefore, is really contrasting “belief in the Christian God” versus “no God.” Seen this way there are clearly other alternatives, such as the Islamic “Allah” or any god from the Hindu pantheon. Thus, the wager does not exhaust all possibilities.

Rephrasing the wager as “belief in the Christian God” versus “not believing in the Christian God” would at least exhaust all logical possibilities (the latter category encompassing both atheism and other divine beliefs), but the “Christian God” side of the wager no longer clearly dominates (based solely upon potential effects). For example, the Islamic “Allah” is now on the opposite side of the equation from the Christian “Yahweh.” Which side of wager dominates now clearly appears to depend upon which of these two alternatives is factually true, as both carry damnation for non-believers if they are correct.

Despite these deficiencies, the dominance form of the wager may still hold value to certain people depending on the options being explored. Ultimately, this formulation of the wager is an existential argument. It does not claim to prove the truth or falsehood of either alternative. It simply illustrates the existential benefits of belief in the Christian God versus the acceptance of atheism. If a person is examining only those two alternatives (because they have already discarded other worldviews), then the wager can have some efficacy in illustrating the dominance of the potential effects inherent in theism over those of atheism.

[1] Ian Hacking, “The Logic of Pascal’s Wager” in Philosophy of Religion: A Reader and Guide, ed. William Lane Craig (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2002), 17-24.

[2] Ian Hacking, “The Logic of Pascal’s Wager,” 21.

Are We Shying Away From Exclusivity?

2011-06-28T12:03:00.000-05:00

I was at an Episcopal funeral service recently and something puzzled me. The gospel reading was from John 14:1-6a. The puzzling part comes from the "a". For those of you who do not know, when you are citing to only the first part of a verse you denote that with an "a" following the verse number. Similarly, when citing only the last part of a verse, that is denoted with a "b." So this gospel reading stopped in the middle of verse 6.

Why is that particularly puzzling? Here is John 14:6: "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

The reading proudly declared that Jesus is "the way and the truth and the life," but stopped short of affirming "No one comes to the Father except through me." Over the past 24 hours I have pondered what possible reason there could have been for stopping right in the middle of this verse. Perhaps there is some innocent explanation. But given the trend in many churches today, I am left wondering.

Jesus clearly declared that His way was the only way. His was a claim of exclusivity. In our postmodern culture, many people find that to be offensive, so far too many churches have watered down the gospel and slip into a practical universalism. We all are simply expressing different paths up the same mountain, so to speak.

This may be a less offensive message, but it clearly is not what Jesus taught. Truth, by its very nature, is exclusive. This is one of the most vigorously resisted, yet easily proven propositions in the marketplace today. Simply put, to disagree is to argue "It is exclusively true that truth is not exclusive," obviously an unsupportable argument.

So Jesus' statement was a most reasonable one. The only pertinent inquiry is whether it was true.

This is why I am left sratching my head. I have tried to come up with some reason why the reading would have stopped right in the middle of such a prominent and important verse.

Inflation, Superstrings and Teleology

2011-06-25T18:30:00.000-05:00

Former atheist Antony Flew abandoned his atheism and now believes in God. When he wrote about the reason why he suffered this reversal of philosophy he largely attributed it to the teleological argument; i.e., the observation that many of the properties of the universe appear to be so finely tuned that even miniscule modifications in one would render life as we know it impossible. For example, “if the strong force coupling constant, which determines the strength of the strong force that binds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus, were slightly less, the electrical repulsion between protons would cause all atoms except hydrogen to break apart, thus eliminating the possibility of complex life forms such as ourselves; in contrast, if this constant were slightly greater, all the hydrogen would have been burned to helium, thus causing stars to burn too quickly for life to evolve” (Robin Collins, “Design and the Many-Worlds Hypothesis” in Philosophy of Religion: A Reader and Guide, ed. William Lane Craig, 2002). This is but one of countless examples, including the cosmological constant, electromagnetism, the gravitational force, the neutron-proton mass difference, the mass of the electron and many others.

In any other arena, when we witness the type of precision we observe in the laws of the universe we immediately conclude it is the result of intelligence. Nobody looks at a personal computer and believes it arose from blind chance. There are too many complex interactions involved. An intelligent mind must have been behind it. Of course, this line of thinking would lead to the conclusion that an intelligent mind is also behind the precision in the universe. That conclusion is obviously unsatisfactory to naturalists, so they argue that the appearance of design is actually illusionary. One approach to this argument is to claim that ours is not the only universe. There are in fact countless universes, each one containing physical laws that vary slightly from the others. In the vast majority of these universes life is impossible, but we happen to live in the one in which the laws lined up properly so that we came into being.

There are many multiple universe theories, but perhaps the most promising are those involving an inflation field and superstring theory. This is how it works. Our universe allegedly began from an extremely small region of space that underwent enormous expansion as a result of an inflation field. That field imparted a very large energy density to the space as it expanded. The expansion in turn caused the temperature of space to decrease. As the temperature dropped, new universes were formed much like water droplets form when water vapor expands and cools.

If true, this would account for the creation of multiple universes, but not for the variation in physical laws from one universe to the next. For that, we have to turn to superstring theory. According to this theory, all matter is ultimately made up of strings of energy that are vibrating in 10 or 11 dimensions of space-time. 6 or 7 of those dimensions are so compacted as to be unobservable. The shape of those dimensions, however, dictates the vibration of the strings, which in turn affects the masses of fundamental particles and the resulting forces between them. If, as the inflationary theory suggests, the universe began in a state of extremely high energy, these dimensions would go through rapid variations in shape, causing different masses of fundamental particles and varying physical laws from one baby universe to the next.

These theories are truly fascinating. At present there is (to my knowledge) no experimental data to support any of them, but that does not mean we should not explore them and see where they lead. After all, how will we ever know if a new idea is true if we discard it before even exposing it to critical evaluation?

Some atheists point to inflationary/superstring theories and claim that they defeat the teleological argument because, if true, they demonstrate that a designer is not necessary to explain the apparent fine-tuning of the universe. But is this true? What the skeptic raising this argument fails to realize is that even if the “universe-generator” proposed by their theory explains the fine-tuning in our individual universe, the fine-tuning in the universe-generator itself still presents them with the same explanatory problem.

In order for this theory to be true, “there must be one or more mechanisms that: (1) cause the expansion of a small region of space into a very large region; (2) in the process allow for the generation of the very large amount of mass-energy needed for a universe containing matter instead of merely empty space; and (3) allow for the conversion of the mass-energy of inflated space to the sort of mass-energy we find in our universe.” Collins, 135. The inflation field satisfies the first need. The second comes from Einstein’s theory of General Relativity that showed that space expands at an enormous rate. The third requirement is met because as space expands, the amount of energy in space also enormously increases, giving us the energy needed to form the type of matter needed for our universe.

So we have the inflation field and General Relativity working in harmony together to run this universe-making machine. Without either one, the machine does not work. You also need all the intricacies of string theory to be true. Why should high energy cause the compacted dimensions to vary in shape in the manner necessary to alter the vibration of the strings? Certain background laws of physics must also operate for string theory to hold true. They cannot vary from one universe to the other; otherwise string theory, itself the alleged mechanism for bringing about the variation, would cease to operate. Why should these background laws be such as they are?

The problem is that the skeptic explains one level of fine-tuning by proffering another level of fine-tuning that must be explained. Some critics would claim that this is simply a matter of inserting a “God of the gaps.” “Sure,” they respond, “we may not know how the fine-tuning of the universe-generating machine is to be explained as of today, but that does not mean we should resort to inserting the existence of God. If superstring theory has taught us anything it is that we may be able to explain apparent design through purely naturalistic means without the need to resort to a designer. Given time, we will come up with a naturalistic explanation for superstrings as well.”

Actually, what superstring theory teaches us is that we may be able to explain apparent design through a method that is equally complex and also creates the appearance of design. This too begs for an explanation. But then that new explanation would also need to be explained, and the next, and the next and so on, ad infinitum. By constantly explaining things by means of answers that themselves require an explanation for their existence, the skeptic has invited an eternal regression of explanations. In order for a causal chain to reach an ending, it must have a beginning. In other words, the skeptic claims “a” caused “b” which caused our current state “c.” As a practical matter they work backwards, observing “c” and trying to come up with an explanation for it, “b.” When it is pointed out to them that “b” appears to require its own explanation they come up with the new explanation “a.” But what are we to do if “a” also seems to require it’s own explanation? In order for the causal chain to ever reach “c,” there must be some initial, self-explanatory, self-existent cause that started the chain moving in the forward direction. There must be an initial cause.

As long as the naturalist’s explanations continue to appear to require design, we must eventually arrive at the existence of a designer. Inflationary and superstring theories do not alter this conclusion. They simply move it back one level.

Some may object that God Himself requires an explanation for His existence. First, this is contrary to the very definition of God, who is a self-existent being. Leaving that aside, however, only things that exist within time require a cause. If something exists outside of time it does not change, and therefore never goes from a state of non-existence to one of existence. Therefore it does not require a cause. Theism teaches that God created time and therefore is not subject to it. Inflation theory, however, requires the “cooling” of the universe in order for these baby universes to be created. This requires the existence of time in whatever state in which these universes are created. Therefore, inflationary theory itself requires an explanation.

In conclusion, I personally am fascinated by inflationary and superstring theories and find their potential interrelationship to be a very promising notion for how the laws of our universe could be so finely tuned (assuming multiple universes exist; an assumption that is unnecessary given theism, but certainly not in any way damaging to theism). However, the skeptic who claims that these theories, if true, would eliminate the logical need for a designer have not fully explored their logical implications. In reality, we are no closer to removing the need for a designer than we were when we began.

Does God Stay Silent to Drive us to our Knees?

2011-06-01T11:16:00.000-05:00

I was listening to a sermon the other day in which the pastor was talking about suffering, and he made an observation that I thought was worth sharing. I apologize, but I started listening in the middle of the sermon, so I don't know the name of the pastor. It was a radio program and about the best I can do to give credit where credit is due is to admit that the thoughts I am about to share are not my own.

The pastor told the story of someone caught in an addictive behavior who prayed nightly to God to remove the temptation of this addiction. But for years the inner inclinations remained. Most of us ask why God remains silent in the face of such persistent prayer. A key question that many of us overlook when asking this question, though, is whether we would really be as persistent in our prayer life if we did not have that constant thorn in our side. Struggle has a way of driving us to God and forcing us to recognize our inability to overcome everything this world throws at us on our own. When all is going well, we do not often acknowledge our need to rely upon God. This could result in far more disasterous (and eternal) consequences that far outweigh the temporary suffering we face in this world. So perhaps God allows some suffering to continue precisely because He knows that without it a person will never come to see their need for Him and never come to true faith.

It is a sad truth that even the most devoted Christians do not pray as often as they probably should. Our own difficulties, however, are usually what drives us to our knees. How would our prayer life be if God removed all pain from our lives? What would our relationship with Him look like if we never spoke? Perhaps God knows that for certain people, if He granted their prayer requests too soon, they would never pray again, and the relationship would be lost.

I admit to not having reflected too deeply on this pastor's comments just yet, but they piqued my interest enough that I thought they were worth sharing in case anyone else wanted to contribute their thoughts.

God bless.

Can a Christian be in the World but not of the World?

2011-05-10T09:39:00.002-05:00

"I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel." 1 Corinthians 9:19-23

"Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever." 1 John 2:15-17.

Is there a tension between these verses? The passage in 1 Corinthians seems to be telling us to blend in with the world in order to win them for Christ whereas 1 John appears to tell us to maintain a separation.
In reality, there is no tension. Notice that 1 John does not say to completely cut yourself off from the world but rather not to "love" the things of the world (such as lust and pride). Even Jesus became part of the world so that he could experience what tempts us ("For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin"; Hebrews 4:15). When we say Christians are to be "in the world, not of the world," that does not mean that you must segregate yourself from your surrounding culture. In order to properly reach people where they are, you must understand that culture, but be disciplined enough to pull back if you start to be tempted by "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life."

Be the seed that fell on good soil (Luke 8:8, 15). If you know that your heart lies with God, then you can "become all things to all people" without "loving the world." God bless.

ON THE HOT SEAT

2011-05-09T09:42:00.000-05:00

A unique open forum opportunity for junior high and high school students. Come, bring your friends and your questions. Apologist Ken Coughlan will be answering questions about the Christian faith in a live question / answer session. This is your chance to ask your questions and get face-to-face answers, no matter what worldview you come from: Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, New Age, Atheist, Agnostic or any other. Free admission. No advance reservation necessary. Call us for more details (410/935-0701).

Sunday, May 15, 2011
9:15 am-10:15 am
2nd Floor of the Monroe Building
Grove Church
50 East Bel Air Ave.
Aberdeen, Maryland

Little Stockey and the Miracle of Christmas

2011-05-04T14:38:00.000-05:00

I just read a fantastic children's book about Christmas that I wanted to strongly recommend to any of my Christian readers out there. The name of the book is "Little Stockey and the Miracle of Christmas" by Gale Nemec.

Little Stockey is the smallest in his owner's collection of Christmas stockings. 11 months out of the year he waits patiently (or not so patiently) in a box in the attic, just itching to get out and celebrate the Christmas season. He has become accustomed to his low spot on the bannister, with the higher spots reserved for the larger stockings. But for some reason this year his owner leaves all the other stockings in the box, hanging only little Stockey and giving him the place of greatest honor on the very top of the bannister!

At first Little Stockey is thrilled by his new position, but over time he becomes lonely. He cannot understand why his owner, spending Christmas alone, is not also lonely. But she says that she is never alone, especially at Christmas. It takes a special visitor to accompany Little Stockey on an exciting journey for him to come to realize what Christmas is really all about and why, thanks to the gift we were given on Christmas Day, we are never alone.

The book is not yet available in stores, but you can purchase it for only $10.00 (plus shipping and tax) at the following website.

http://childrensstorieswithmizznemec.com/

Ten Minas Ministries is not affiliated with Gale Nemec. This is just an effort to spread the word about a good resource for our children. God bless.

Substance and Imperative in the Moral Law

2011-03-31T20:33:00.000-05:00

Every moral law has two components: substance and imperative. The substance is the nature of the moral quality involved (i.e., goodness, nobility, courage, etc.). The imperative is the obligation to exemplify that quality. Even if a moral theory could explain the origin of a quality, it still falls short unless it also encompasses the imperative. The mere existence of a quality does not obligate people to emulate it. Therefore, an adequate moral theory must explain not only the substance of morality, but also why people are under any imperative to act in accordance with that substance.

Most theories cannot justify the imperative without begging the question and (at least implicitly) using an imperative in their reasoning. For example, evolutionary theories claim the moral action is the one that preserves society. However, “This will preserve society cannot lead to do this except by the mediation of society ought to be preserved,” [1] which is circular reasoning. Aristotelian theories argue that the moral action is found in the mean between two extremes. [2] But again, there can be no obligation to perform the action found in the mean unless we assume an imperative that we ought to model the mean.

This is one of the advantages of divine command theories. Properly formulated, these theories provide an explanation for both the substance and imperative of moral obligations. Their substance is found in God’s character. When an individual person is described as “honest” or “empathetic” those are general descriptions at best. After all, nobody perfectly exemplifies these character traits all the time, but they may be more present in some people than in others. These same qualities, however, exist perfectly in God. He is always honest and empathetic. To say that someone is honest is to say that they act in a way that is similar to the quality in God’s character that is described as “honesty.” God’s character is the source for moral descriptions. It provides the substance. A description of the substance is as far as most moral theories can travel. But divine command theory also includes a description of the imperative. We are obligated to model our behavior after those traits in God’s character because he has commanded us to do so. Therefore, divine command theories address both substance and imperative.

If the imperative of moral rules lies in God’s commands, a critic could justifiably ask why people should obey them. Just because someone orders you to do something does not mean you should do it. If Aristotelian ethics fail to explain why people should behave according to the mean between extremes, do divine command ethics have the same shortcoming? Instead of failing to justify why people should obey the mean, they fail to explain why people should obey God.

I have begun to formulate a possible answer. First, the very nature of a command raises an issue of obedience. The intention of a command is for it to be obeyed. The same cannot be said, for example, of a mean. There is no intelligence behind a mean expecting obedience. Therefore the mere fact that a mean exists does not raise the question of taking action in compliance with that mean.

At the very least, then, basing an ethic in commands legitimizes an imperative whereas other ethical theories do not. However, not all commands are to be obeyed. The command of a would-be murderer to assist in a killing is properly disregarded. So while it is true that only a command can legitimize an imperative, the question remains of why God’s commands are of the nature that they should be obeyed.

My preliminary answer to this dilemma lies in the fall. All humankind was made in the image of God. The positive attributes of their character were passed on from God in a similar fashion as a parent passes on genetic qualities to biological children. The fall, however, tore several holes in the character of the human race. People may have only been “good” in a finite sense prior to the fall, but afterward they became dramatically less so. Yet the image of God did not abandon humanity altogether. Programmed into humanity’s very being is an irresistible longing to return to that original state. It is a goal that people cannot help but desire, even if they cannot adequately recognize or articulate it. Humankind knows something is missing, although they may not know what it is. A gap longs to be filled, and a gap in moral character is no different. God’s commands tell people how to fill that gap as much as is possible in this fallen state and therefore satisfy this longing. If they recognized that God’s commands pointed toward this goal for which they irresistibly strive, the conclusion that God’s commands should be followed would be equally irresistible. In this sense, “should” is not a moral imperative, but rather a necessary presupposition based upon a fallen nature.

[1] C.S. Lewis, “The Abolition of Man,” in The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics, ed. Joseph Rutt (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2002), 477 (emphasis in original).

[2] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 5th ed. (London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co, 1893), 37-38.

Do You Have a Hole in Your Heart?

2011-03-30T11:00:00.000-05:00

To really understand what it means to have a hole in your heart you have to go through it, or at least watch as someone you have known for a very long time and about whom you care very deeply goes through it. You see, I am not just talking about the everyday “I don’t want to wake up this Monday morning and go into work” kind of dissatisfaction with life. The feeling I am talking about is much deeper, much more pervasive and far more debilitating.

Many people experience an existential crisis in their lives that is hard to put into words. If they were to open up to you about it (which in my experience, most will not) probably the best articulation they would come up with is “something is missing” or “something just doesn’t feel right.” It is a general profound dissatisfaction with their lives, not just for one day or surrounding one activity, but around their entire lives. There is a hole in their hearts and it becomes their top priority to find a way to fill it.

Usually, these folks try to fill that hole with something that can never do the trick. Some people use drugs. Some alcohol. Others (especially those of us that are reaching the “middle aged” category) try to recapture that feeling of youthful exuberance they had when they were younger. They may re-enter the club scene, change their hair color or wardrobe or get new tattoos or piercings. The problem is that none of these things last. Drugs and alcohol wear off, causing that heart hole to reappear and leaving you constantly looking for more until you slip into addiction and all sorts of destructive behaviors. And no matter how hard you try, the hourglass of time will always be urging you onward. Change your outward appearance as much as you like, but ultimately all you are doing to stifling your own development. Besides, we all tend to remember the past with rose-colored glasses. If we were to be honest with ourselves, things weren’t all peaches and cream in our youth either. Satisfaction isn’t to be found there for the crises we face today.

Probably the number one realization that most people going through this process need to come to is how selfish their behavior is. That is not a very politically correct thing to say. After all, many times the reason these crises began in the first place was something that was beyond the person’s control and for which they had no blame. That being said, one true measure of a person’s integrity is how they respond to adversity. We can empathize with someone who has been dealt a nasty hand. But there is a right way and a wrong way to face these struggles. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I am reminded of a story I read on the web recently (I apologize, I do not remember the source) of a woman who came to the conclusion after having two children (both of whom were around elementary/middle school age) that motherhood just wasn’t for her. So she upped and moved away, leaving her now estranged husband to handle the family. She would visit the kids occasionally, but went on and on about how much better her relationship was with her children now that they did not have to deal with each other every day. Maybe she liked it better, but I wonder what those kids would say if they really expressed the inner longings of their hearts. I don’t know what caused this woman to get to that point in her personal crisis. But I am reasonably confident that she did not take the high road in her hasty exit. At their core, her actions were selfish.

That’s a hard lesson to swallow, because when someone has been emotionally beaten down, it is often the result of them never speaking up for themselves and thinking of their own well being. But to respond to such a situation by jumping to the opposite extreme and thinking only of oneself can be just as destructive.

Most people going through this type of crisis don’t think anything is wrong. More specifically, they think plenty is wrong, but always with other people. They will surround themselves with others who are going through similar phases in their lives so that they can all affirm each other that they are right and the rest of the world is wrong. This just makes it far more difficult to break the cycle. Often we have to break with these unhealthy self-affirming relationships before we can really start to bounce back from the self-destructive path we have set for ourselves. Ultimately, relationships between two people who are both in these circumstances will fail. After all, they may think they share something in common, but ultimately each person is primarily concerned with their own well being, not that of their partners in arms. Remember, this behavior is fundamentally self-centered. How long do you think it will take before the desires of two selfish people come into conflict? It is going to happen. The only question is, “When?” How supportive do you think the relationship will be then?

One of the saddest things about someone trying to recapture their youth is how much they are missing. Each stage in our lives comes with its own blessings. I met my wife in 1991 at a fraternity party at the University of Delaware. Back in those days we used to go out to parties, late night movies, or just cruise around town. We were married in 1994 and lived in an apartment within walking distance of a Multiplex movie theater. The party scene slowly vanished and was replaced by walks to matinees (that was all we could afford) and weekly game nights with my eldest brother and his newlywed wife (they are also still together, I am happy to report). We moved to Jamestown, Virginia in 1995 when I started law school at William & Mary. Money was really tight then because I wasn’t earning an income (at least not for the first year). Date nights now were “fancy” dinners made in our own kitchen and served at our tiny kitchen table. If it was a “feast,” we might even have raised the drop down portion of the table to increase our dining space from what seemed like the size of a matchbox to a breadbox. We had taken a Shakespeare class together and Williamsburg had an excellent (and inexpensive) Shakespeare Festival that put on two plays each year. That pretty much encompassed our nights out. If we actually had saved enough cash to buy dinner, it was pizza from a small take out place called the “Jamestown Pie Company,” some of the best pizza I have had to this day.

After law school, we became a two income family again and didn’t know what to do with all this extra money. So naturally we did what any young immature couple would do…we spent it. We started going to musicals in downtown Norfolk and even occasionally shopping at MacArthur Center, the new upscale mall a few blocks from my office. We learned some valuable lessons in those days about responsible stewardship of our finances.

Then in 2002 our world was rocked. My daughter was born. All of a sudden we had a new priority in our lives. I had been taking Masters’ level classes in criminal justice at Old Dominion University but that had to stop. I couldn’t be out of the house all day and several nights each week with a newborn at home. I had to give a lot up when my daughter was born, but let me tell you, I wouldn’t trade it for the world. I got far more back, from the star struck gazes when she would look at Chuck E. Cheese or Mickey Mouse to the time spent pushing her on a swing or playing the part of the prince taking my little princess to the ball. Then God did it for me all again, with a more rambunctious twist, in 2007 when my son was born. Now I am a horse to be ridden or a wrestling partner who always seems to wind up on the losing end of the match.

What is the point of this brief biography? Is it because I thought you were really all that interested in my life story? No. In fact I have often joked with my wife that even if I became incredibly famous, my biography would be one of the worst selling books ever because my life has been so dull. The point is this: When I was in college I got to go out to parties every weekend, but I didn’t get to enjoy those quiet dinners with my new wife around that tiny table in law school. I didn’t know the joys of a new marriage. But during those law school days I also thought that more money was the solution to many of my problems. It wasn’t until I entered the professional workforce that I learned proper stewardship and that true happiness cannot be bought. Now I look at my children, and if you were to ask me if I ever dream of going back to those college partying days I would respond, “What, and give up all of this?” Each stage in our lives carries its own blessings. If you insist on trying to live in a bygone era, you are going to miss all the blessings meant for the age in which you now live.

So if recapturing your youth, drugs or alcohol isn’t the answer to filling that hole, what is? In order to answer that question, we first need to know what’s wrong with all the other answers so we have an idea what the right kind of answer should look like. The main problem with all these false solutions is that they provide at best fleeting comfort and often result in sending you spiraling further down your destructive path. What do I mean that they are “fleeting?” The effects of drugs or alcohol eventually wear off. Even if you convince yourself that everything is better while you are under their influence, what do you do once the high ends? That hole reappears and you are left trying to fill it again. It is a never ending cycle. The same is true of trying to recapture your youth. Inevitably you will come face to face with a sobering reminder that you will never truly be that young again.

How are they “destructive?” The answer should be obvious with drugs and alcohol. Relying upon them for comfort leads to dependency and addiction, until you lose the ability to function. Trying to live in the past can have a very similar effect, even if it is not as obvious. Like it or not, as we get older we have responsibilities. People depend upon us, whether it be a spouse, children, co-workers or friends. Remember what I said before, this type of behavior ends up being selfish. Someone who wants to recapture the wonder of their youth through living their old lifestyle will do it at the expense of everyone around them. You will be going out to bars with your self-affirming friends rather than on dates with your spouse. You will be out so late at night that you are sleeping throughout the afternoon when you children are secretly longing to spend quality time with you. Not that they will say so to your face, but the impact on your relationship will show over time as your kids no longer believe you will be there for them when they need you and begin sharing the most important things in their lives with others, sometimes with people who start them down their own self-destructive paths. If a friend does not affirm your behavior you convince yourself that they are not a true friend. And before long the obsession with your new lifestyle costs you your focus at work. In what seems like the blink of an eye, your selfish response to something tragic in your life has led to even more tragedy. You turn around and see you have lost your spouse, children, friends or job.

Whatever the proper way is to fill the hole, it can’t be fleeting and it can’t be destructive. In my opinion the only thing that fits the bill is God. First, he is the God of all comfort. He never promises that pain will not enter our lives, but he can be the friend you need when you feel compelled to vent your frustrations. We tend to convince ourselves that if only we could know the reason why pain has entered our lives then we would find the strength to persevere. Frustration inevitably sets in when we can’t find the reason we are looking for. Job also wanted to know the reason for his suffering. But before it was done, he learned that he didn’t necessarily need to know what the reason was as long as he knew that a reason existed. He could be assured that there was a reason for his pain because he knew that God loved him and could be trusted. God wouldn’t let this happen without cause. Therefore, even though Job didn’t get the answers he thought he needed, he found comfort in trust; trust in God’s love.

But even more so, God can give meaning to every aspect of your life. His word tells us to do everything we do as if it is for the glory of God. In other words, worship is a lifestyle, not something you do for an hour or so on Sunday mornings. You wake up to face the world for the glory of God. You eat your meals for the glory of God. You go to work for the glory of God. You raise your children for the glory of God. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. He never changes. He never leaves. Therefore you can always find meaning in worship. If you fill your hole with the worship of your Creator, you will never have to fill it again.

Do you have a hole in your heart? What have you tried to fill it with? How is that working for you? God bless.

Ken

WHY I AM OPPOSED TO SAME SEX MARRIAGE

2011-02-26T17:49:00.002-05:00

I confess that the title to this post was meant to be blunt, but please don’t think it was intended to be rude. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is an unfortunate tendency in our culture today for people to be drawn to the sensational and controversial. So I avoided the temptation to go with a more philosophical title in hopes that by being straightforward and blunt I would draw more people in. If you are reading this, hopefully it means I succeeded in that small task. I encourage you to keep reading, at which point it is my hope that you will see I hold those who disagree with me in the greatest respect and do my best to sympathize with the situation in which you find yourselves (while never claiming to fully understand because I confess to not being subject to same gender temptations myself).

This topic is of particular importance to me personally. The denomination with which I am affiliated (PCUSA) is currently being torn apart by debates over same sex marriage. Maryland, the State in which Ten Minas Ministries is based, is currently holding debates in their legislature about whether to permit same sex marriage (the bill has already passed the Senate, and is likely headed to a referendum before the voters). But most importantly, I have had many dear friends throughout my life (including some currently) who are in same sex relationships and who firmly believe in their right to be married. I do not approach this topic lightly because I know the potential hurt that my position may cause them.

Please do not misunderstand me. I really do not hold myself out as any particular expert on the subject, nor do I think my own opinion is so drastically important that everyone should stop whatever he or she is doing to listen. No, I am just one voice in the cacophony and I am perfectly comfortable with that. But America’s democracy is built on the premise that each person has the right to contribute to the cacophonous marketplace, so I am just going to take what small forum I have available to me in order to make my contribution.

I. The Proper Tone of the Conversation

For starters, you should know the tone I am hoping this post will take. It is not my intention to launch into any ad hominem attacks. I have seen both sides of the debate approach it from that type of an angle and I firmly believe that those voices do nothing but inhibit the free marketplace; they do not make any meaningful contributions to it. I wrote a post a few months ago about a protester carrying a poster with two hangman’s nooses on it saying “God’s solution to gay marriage.” This morning I read about Delegate Luiz Simmons of Montgomery County, Maryland poking fun at his Republican colleagues by saying he’d reviewed the witness list for the panel hearing and “God has not signed up either for or against” the proposed legislation. Both sides are guilty of “debating” the issue without actually saying anything of substance. My goal is to do my best to avoid any such attacks. If I fail in your eyes, I can only ask your forgiveness in advance. I will be the first to admit that I am far from perfect.

I also want you to understand what kind of discussion this will be. I am a Christian. That much is obvious. I am the President of a Christian apologetics ministry. I am also well aware that for that reason alone many people will disregard my opinion outright. I can only beg your indulgence and ask you to stick with me for a while. Hopefully I can convince you that the mere fact that I am a Christian should not per se discredit my position. I hope that you will give me a fair hearing, just as I will do my best to give you a fair hearing if you choose to voice your concerns in a comment (I confess to being a bit nervous about where this will lead, but part of the reason I am writing this as a blog post rather than simply an article is to allow those who agree or disagree with me to add their voice to this small corner of society’s cacophony as well).

As a Christian, I am prepared to defend the position against same sex marriage from a purely scriptural perspective. In fact, I have done so. If anyone is interested in hearing my thoughts in that regard, I invite you to listen to two podcasts on the TMM website titled, “What Does the Bible Say About Homosexual Marriage?” and “What Does the Bible Say About Homosexual Behavior?” But that is not the approach I will be taking here. After all, this post is not strictly addressed to Christians, but to society as a whole. The apostle Paul told the church in Corinth, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?” (1 Corinthians 5:12). Paul was not saying that we should not speak up for what we believe to be right, but rather making a rather obvious observation. Why should those outside the church care what the scriptures say on a topic if they do not accept the Bible as authoritative in the first place? I fully appreciate that many people reading this post may think the Bible is nothing more than myth and fantasy. That is a discussion we can have on another day. But for the purposes of the defense I will make of my position, I do not expect you to give one ounce of credence to the Bible.

Of course, I also must be completely honest with you. I am a Christian, and I do accept the authority of scripture. Therefore, a complete answer of “Why I am opposed to same sex marriage” would have to include as one of its grounds that it is forbidden by God. Again, I confess to my biases and will not shy away from them. But if God really is the creator of the universe, and if the Bible really is His word, then shouldn’t we expect that there will be some relation between the two? In other words, if I believe same sex marriage is wrong based upon scripture (God’s special revelation), then shouldn’t the natural world (God’s general revelation) support this position as well? I am not saying that all the claims of the Bible should be provable from nature alone, but at a minimum we would not expect God’s two revelations to contradict each other. In reality, I believe the non-scriptural case weighs against same sex unions, and I will now turn to explaining why.

II. Sex and Marriage

The first step in understanding my position is to overcome our social taboos. Nobody seems to want to talk about sex in public settings. Walk into any debate on this subject in a lecture hall, legislative committee, or elsewhere, and you will hear people talking about love, commitment, God, family values and children, but hardly ever sexual intercourse. I apologize in advance if it makes you uncomfortable to hear so frank a discussion about sexual relations, but I assure you that it is necessary.

I am speaking purely from a secular perspective about marriage. After all, as I said before I am not presenting a scriptural defense (but if I was then the evidence is overwhelming that a Christian definition of marriage is only between a man and a woman). But what about civil marriage? Should a court clerk, judge or justice of the peace be allowed to perform a same sex union? Assuming that the separation of church and state prevents any religious considerations from entering the equation (I do not concede this was the original intention of the Constitution, but that is neither here nor there for the purposes of my point), then the question really becomes one of morality. After all, that is what our laws are all about. They legislate morality. I will come back to this point shortly, but for now I want to make sure you understand that there is an inseparable link, even on a civil level, between marriage and sexual relations.

Take the Commonwealth of Virginia as an example. Are you aware that a civil marriage can be annulled even after the ceremony if sexual intercourse has not yet taken place? The withholding of intercourse is also considered to be grounds for divorce. Even on a purely secular level, marriage includes in its definition the official government sanction of sexual relations. When the government permits two people to marry, it is granting its official blessing for the two of them to engage in sex. That is the point at which I address my question. Is it morally right for our government to condone sexual relations between two people of the same gender? If so, then I see no secular reason to prohibit these marriages. If not, then I do not see how they can be condoned.

III. The Burden of Proof

Everyone is biased. Let me say that again so that it sinks in, everyone is biased. I bring a bias to every issue. So do you. But there are “biases” and then there are “Biases.” The lowercase kinds of biases are not necessarily a bad thing if the biases themselves are warranted. They come from our worldview. If your worldview is justifiable, then the biases it brings will be as well. The uppercase varieties are the ones that make us examine an issue with our emotions instead of our brains. I admit to my bias. I am a lawyer. I have been a lawyer for almost 13 years, which means I have a certain way of looking at things. It is not necessarily a good or a bad way. It is just a typical “lawyerly” way.

When I begin looking at a problem, the first question I ask myself is, “Which side has the burden of proof?” Pretend you are sitting on a jury in a case where the Plaintiff is claiming the Defendant punched him in the face. At the end of the evidence you are called upon to make a decision about who wins and who loses. Unfortunately, after listening to all the evidence, you come to the honest opinion that it is evenly split. The evidence on one side is just as strong as that on the other, and you really do not know what happened. You don’t have the option of declaring a tie. Somebody has to win. How do you decide? The legal system makes that decision for you by giving one side the “burden of proof.” That means that one party has the job to convince you, by whatever slim margin, that he or she is right. If they don’t convince you, either because the evidence for the other party is stronger or because it is evenly split, the other side wins. In a civil case the Plaintiff has this burden. The tiebreaker goes to the Defendant.

Because this is my background, I tend to use the same approach when examining social issues. As a voter, I will soon be asked whether to accept same sex marriage in Maryland. The first step in my mind then, before I look at a single piece of evidence, is to decide who has the burden of proof. You may feel differently, but for biological reasons alone I feel this burden must be assigned to those in favor of same sex unions.

One thing that I believe must be conceded by people on both sides of this issue is that when it comes to intercourse there is a certain biological compatibility between opposite sex couples that is not present with members of the same sex. There are parts of the male and female bodies that are designed (whether you believe that design is the result of a divine being, natural selection, or anything else) to go together (forgive me as I try to address the necessary issues without becoming too crass in the effort). Our bodies are such that heterosexual intercourse elicits certain physiological reactions that at best must be artificially created in certain same sex activities. Furthermore, heterosexual relations appear to find further support in the simple fact that they serve a biological purpose that homosexual relations do not. Even if you deny the existence of a supreme being, even natural selection has clearly created beings that rely upon sexual intercourse for procreation and survival of the species.

Before we proceed any further, it is important for you to understand what I am (and am not) relying upon these biological factors to show. I am not using them to make an affirmative case against the morality of same sex intercourse (which as I said before is the deciding factor in whether to condone same sex civil marriages). Rather, I am looking to decide where to assign the burden of proof. In doing so I search for common ground. On what can both sides agree? I believe that any fair observer simply must concede these facts to be true. If we cannot even agree on this much, then I see no point in going further. To deny these very basic facts about the human anatomy is to guarantee that you will never be open to any argument.

The only purpose for which I use these facts is to decide which side has the burden of proof. Because these agreed upon facts seem to favor heterosexual relations, I assign that burden to those advocating a form of relations that runs against the biological stream, so to speak. Please also understand that this does not mean advocates for same sex marriage cannot meet that burden. Plaintiffs win cases in court every day even though they have this same burden. It is a tiebreaker, nothing more. If same sex proponents can tip the scales ever so slightly in their favor they would still win the day.

IV. Is Morality Objective?

I have made several comments thus far about “morality.” Specifically, I have claimed that whether our government should permit same sex intercourse via marriage is a moral question. But doesn’t this beg an even larger question: What is morality? Some people believe there are objective moral laws that apply equally to everyone regardless of what we may personally believe. The Holocaust was objectively wrong. Its rightness or wrongness is not open for debate, not a matter of personal opinion. Other people firmly believe that morality is purely subjective. There are no absolute moral rules. Societies decide for themselves what is moral and what is not with no higher authority than the will of the people.

The answer to this question would take far more space than is practical, but I also do not believe we need to answer it for our current purposes. Remember what we are talking about. This conversation is about whether the civil law should permit same sex unions. In order to have a civil law in the first place, there are certain assumptions that we simply must accept, one of which is objective morality.

The civil law is by definition an objective standard that applies to everyone. Murder is not legal for one person but illegal for another (leaving fairness in the application of our laws aside and speaking purely from a philosophy of laws perspective). On what basis do we formulate these laws? Clearly at least certain laws are intended to prescribe morality. Why is rape illegal? Because it is a moral violation of the victim in the highest degree. We do not ban rape on purely pragmatic grounds. Regardless of the consequences, rape is a violation of someone’s personal rights. On this point I think people on both sides of the aisle of this debate should agree. People have inalienable rights. The Declaration of Independence says so and I fully embrace that concept. Of course, these rights are not absolute. We have a right to freedom, but it is not freedom to do anything. Our freedom does not extend to that class of activities that the civil law has declared to be immoral.

So in formulating laws we look to a standard by which to judge right and wrong. It makes no sense to say that the standard to which we look is subjective. That would be equivalent to saying, “morality is purely subjective but we are going to enforce it objectively.” That is a contradictory statement. Besides, our legal system does not look like one that accepts subjective morality. If it did, we would expect to see laws that say the same action would be illegal for those people who accept the immorality (or illegality) of their actions but not for those who do not. Imagine trying to get a conviction in that system of justice! The fact that we pass laws with moral principles that apply equally to all demonstrates that our justice system is based upon the assumption that morality applies equally to all. Therefore, regardless of what you may personally believe about morality, if we are confining our discussion to the question of the civil law, we must work within the philosophical framework of that system, which means we must (at least for the sake of discussion) accept that morality is objective.

V. The Sacredness of Gender

So far I have assigned the burden of proof to those in favor of same sex marriage and demonstrated that if we are talking about a legal course of action, we cannot escape the dilemma by saying, “What is right for you may not be right for me, so why can’t you just let me live my life in peace?” That statement assumes a subjective morality which the legal system simply cannot accept and still expect to function. Whether we like it or not, we must assume that there is a “right” answer and a “wrong” answer to this question and do our best to figure out which is which.

So that I cannot be accused of simply putting forth a defensive effort, allow me to place some evidence on the side of the scale opposed to same sex unions. Granted, based on what I said before I believe those opposed to same sex marriage have the tiebreaker, but this does not mean they cannot offer their own evidence. Please permit me to articulate one argument.

Many people favoring same sex unions like to draw a parallel between their cause and the civil rights movement. They point out that African Americans were being denied basic rights and claim that the same is being done to them today. At first blush it is admittedly an attractive argument. I certainly am not in favor of treating people unfairly? Who would be?

But there are a few distinctions that must be taken into account, and in the end I believe the civil rights movement actually counts as evidence against same sex unions. First, on what basis are people being denied privileges? In the civil rights movement it was because of the color of their skin, clearly an irrelevant criteria. In the current debate, as I have framed it (which as far as I can tell is the only fair secular way for opponents of same sex marriage to frame the discussion) it is because of something people do; i.e., an activity in which they engage (same sex intercourse). While it is always improper to deny people privileges based upon whom they are (i.e., the color of their skin) it is not so obviously wrong to deny privileges to people based upon what they do. I will get to the alleged biological disposition for homosexual attraction shortly, but for my present purposes it is sufficient to point out that our entire legal system is about denying people life, liberty or property based upon something they did or promised to do. This does not answer the question for us, but it does point us back to our starting point that the real question we must ask ourselves is whether the activity of same sex intercourse is moral.

Here is the question I believe advocates for same sex unions must answer. The reason it is wrong to discriminate against someone because of race is because race is sacred (whether you wish to define that term by referring to a divine being or simply a non-divine moral right). We do not choose our race. It is part of who we are, and it is wrong to violate that. While proponents of same sex marriage often argue for a biological predisposition (more on this to come), it seems to me that they fail to acknowledge that people are also born with a certain physiological gender that should not be violated. Why is it that someone’s race is held sacred but physiological gender is de-sacralized? We are born into our gender in the same way as we are born into our race. If morality honors a person’s race then shouldn’t it also honor their gender? If there is moral value in race, then there is moral value in gender and any act in violation of that gender should be viewed with some level of suspicion.

Can gender be de-sacralized based upon the free choice of the individual? Perhaps. I am willing to concede that it is possible. But how would you react to an African-American insisting on using a separate bathroom because he does not think himself worthy to share a bathroom with Caucasians? Would you walk away believing that this is his right or would you try to convince him that his reasoning is faulty and he should not think of himself this way? I, for one, hold both race and gender to be sacred. While I will not prevent people from de-sacralizing either in themselves of their own free choice, I also cannot in good conscience celebrate the act of them doing so.

VI. What About Love?

At this point in time you are probably thinking of many arguments that far outweigh the weight I have just placed on my side of the scale. One leading argument is based upon love. After all, even if gender in general should not be violated, certainly the overpowering value of love far outweighs whatever value we assign to honoring gender.

This is the point on which I believe more confusion exists than any other, and it is largely the fault of those in the Christian church. Rather than acknowledging that same sex couples genuinely love each other, we deny that their feelings are real, as if we somehow became omnipotent and could see into their hearts and tell them what they are feeling. It always seems pointless to me when one person apologizes for what another person has done, but for what it is worth I apologize for this incredibly presumptuous reaction that has been advanced by many in the name of Christ. Since when is Christianity about denying love? Far from it! I will never deny the genuineness of the feelings felt by people in same sex relationships.

It is here, though, that I feel the English language fails us. Many terms in English have nuances of meaning. “Love” is one of those terms. Greek is a far better language to illustrate my point. Four different words for “love” in Greek are agape, eros, philia and storge. “Agape” refers to a deep, true, self-sacrificing love. “Eros” is sensual. “Philia” is a friendship type of love. “Storge” is a natural affection, like that of a parent for a child. I “love” many other men in my life. When we are talking about whether same sex intercourse is morally condoned, we are not speaking of agape, philia or storge love, but rather the eros variety. Yet when people say that this type of marriage should be permitted because the couple “loves” each other, in context they are generally referring to agape. The reason it is allegedly such a crime to deny marriage to these couples is because they share such a deep devotion to each other. But if the real question is whether intercourse should be allowed, this is missing the point. Granted, it is an easy mistake to make because our English language does not make these fine distinctions. We use the word “love” for each, so we can miss the fact that we are using “love” equivocally rather than univocally.

You do not need to be married to share agape love with someone and I would never dream of telling someone they do not truly feel that way for another person in their heart. But we need to avoid the temptation to become sidetracked. If the proponent is seeking to put weights on one side of the scale, evidence that does not address the issue at hand has no value in the balance. I grant that agape love has enormous value, and possibly could outweigh what I have placed on the other side of the scale if it was relevant. Unfortunately, comparing the value of agape, which is not denied by disallowing same sex marriage, to the value of the sacredness of gender is comparing apples and oranges.

Only a balance of gender and eros would be relevant. Eros though, at least in its physical expression, is not per se entitled to nearly the same value as agape. Eros has a history of having both beneficial and detrimental expressions. While eros can be beautiful, it can also have negative expression as when it is responsible for adultery or underage pregnancies. Agape is always good. Eros can be good or bad and therefore cannot per se be entitled to the same value. When placed on the scale in isolation, then, I do not believe eros can justify de-sacralizing gender.

VII. What About a Biological Predisposition?

This leads to another common argument, that people are born with a certain sexual disposition. It is a genetic, not a learned behavior. I confess to not having researched this issue as thoroughly as I could. Some people swear the evidence clearly shows a genetic connection whereas others feel equally strongly the other way.

The reason I have not looked into this question more deeply, though, is not because of laziness on my part. Rather it is because I do not see how the answer would make a difference either way.

We are examining whether certain actions are moral, not feelings. In other words, the key question is not whether it is moral to have feelings of attraction toward members of the same sex but rather whether it is moral to act on those feelings. What is morality if not a set of rules to tell us when we cannot do something we may genuinely feel a very strong desire to do? If we did not desire to do something then we would not need morality to tell us not to do it. We would not have any desire to do it in the first place.

Thus, even assuming people have a sincere biological attraction to members of the same sex, that does not bring us any closer to resolving the moral question of whether it is right to physically act on that attraction.

VIII. On What Basis Could Same Gender Sex Be Moral?

My point in the last two sections has simply been to illustrate that two of the arguments often raised in support of same sex marriage actually miss the point. Of course, that does not mean that it cannot be justified on other grounds. There are many competing objective moral theories (because the legal system must assume an objective ethic, we do not need to concern ourselves with subjective theories). Perhaps one of them could support same sex unions. In reality, though, I find it difficult to justify the practice under any objective moral theory.

Even though I personally hold to a form of divine command theory (which is a theory of objective ethics), I am excluding that as a possibility for what should seem obvious reasons. Most divine command theorists would likely claim that there is just such a command against same gender sexual relations.

A strong utilitarian argument could be made for same sex unions. After all, in Utilitarianism the “moral” is the act that produces the greatest happiness measured against the least suffering. The participants in same sex relations, acting on their feelings of eros, undoubtedly experience some degree of happiness. As long as these activities take place in private the rest of the world remains ignorant to their occurrence and therefore sustains no negative consequences. What is wrong with justifying same sex intercourse on utilitarian grounds?

Simply put, since when is happiness the sole determining factor of morality? If we really think about the consequences of a utilitarian ethic most people would likely be offended by it. For example, if a person ridicules a dear friend behind his or her back, the unsuspecting victim experiences no unhappiness over the incident whereas the perpetrator derives some level of happiness. If the total measure of happiness versus unhappiness were the sole measure of virtue, then this ridiculing would appear to be a virtuous act. The definition of “good,” however, appears to include concepts other than merely happiness, such as friendship and loyalty. Utilitarianism appears to have a backwards understanding of the role happiness plays. Happiness is not something that is good for its own sake. Instead, happiness is a response we have to other things that we recognize as goods, independently and in their own right. So perhaps the happiness versus unhappiness ratio does favor the private expression of same sex intercourse, but that does not make it moral.

What about a Kantian ethic? Does the categorical imperative favor same sex unions? The categorical imperative says to always act in such a way that your maxim could be taken as a universal law. Could we will that people universally be permitted to engage in same sex intercourse, even if privately expressed? Given the important biological purposes served by heterosexual intercourse to the survival of the species, I do not see how this could be willed as a universal rule.

Aristotle gives us another option. He claimed the moral action is found in the mean between two extremes. Between slovenliness and extreme vanity we find a healthy level of humility. The problem is that it is difficult to see how same sex intercourse could be viewed as any kind of a mean. If this is the mean, what are the extremes? Aristotle conceded that some things (he gave the example of suicide) are not subject to his golden mean analysis and are therefore wrong in themselves. Is same sex intercourse of this character? I do not pretend to know. But at best we must remain agnostic as to how to apply an Aristotelian ethic to the question at hand, and if the proponent of these unions has the burden of proof then an Aristotelian ethic cannot break the tie.

IX. What About Civil Unions?

So in the end I come to the conclusion that those favoring same sex intercourse have not met their burden of convincing me that such activities are moral. If those activities are not moral, then neither is same sex marriage that explicitly condones such behavior.

But what about civil unions? Is it possible to have a “middle ground” where these couples can enjoy some form of official recognition without condoning sex? Perhaps, but I am skeptical. I am lawyer so I am naturally suspicious of people’s motives. Why does someone want a law recognizing civil unions? Is it really because they believe we should create a new category of government recognition or is just a back door attempt at moving one step closer to full recognition of marriage?

But it is at least theoretically possible to create a civil union law that overcomes the objections I have raised in this post. I only question the need for it. Unmarried people can already enjoy many of the alleged benefits of civil unions. Unmarried people can share a joint bank account. Living wills and medical powers of attorney can grant the power to make medical decisions. It is true that unmarried couples do not get the same income tax advantages, but perhaps that should cause us to question why we give these tax advantages to married couples, not to expand them even further.

So I am open to a discussion about civil unions, but I confess to going into that discussion with some serious reservations.

X. Let He Who is Without Sin…

In the end, I remain unconvinced that same sex marriage, in all its implications, is moral. I do not agree with that lifestyle. That being said, I will not deny you the right to live that lifestyle if you choose, but I simply cannot celebrate or condone it. I also think many Christians forget that even though we believe homosexuality to be a sin, it is far from the only sin in the Bible. Yet for some reason we elevate this sin above all others, especially above those we have committed ourselves. We should address this question with respect, not hostility. I ask all Christians to reflect on sins they have committed in their life and ask how they would feel if someone addressed that sin in them in the same manner in which they address the issue of same sex marriage. Would you like being demonized? Then do not demonize your opponent. Do you appreciate being insulted and ridiculed? Then why should we treat others this way?

It was my sincere desire in writing this post that I would demonstrate the possibility of having an intelligent conversation about these issues without being rude or letting emotional outbursts take over. If in your mind I failed in this task, I offer my sincere apologies and ask simply that you not measure Christ by the mistakes made by this one far from perfect disciple of His.

Thank you for bearing with me through my long and rambling contribution to the cacophony. God bless.

Ken Coughlan

Pushing the Moral Envelope

2011-02-15T14:45:00.002-05:00

"In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, 'Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!'" John 2:14-16

Not all anger is an immoral anger. There is such a thing as righteous anger. What determines whether anger is justified is its motivation. Is it merely an emotional lashing out or is it a response to extreme immorality? We are correct to be angry at the atrocities committed by the likes of Adolf Hitler or Charles Manson.

1 Peter 3:15 tells us to interact with the world using "gentleness and respect," and this is true. But sometimes we take this command too far and slip into a culturally induced attitude that any confrontation is wrong. We often fear confrontation so much that we are afraid to stand up for what is right. If we were honest with ourselves, we would probably have to admit that we are using God's Word as an excuse to avoid a conflict that we know is necessary but do not want to have.

If someone is abusing other people, whether physically or emotionally, it is our call as Christians to step up and say something about it. We can do this with gentleness and respect, but those terms do not require us to just sit back silently and let it happen. If someone lives their life by constantly pushing the moral envelope without anyone ever telling them "no," they will continue to push more and more until they blaze a trail of broken hearts and damaged people in their wake.

Are Christians Losing the Battle of Perception?

2011-02-02T11:56:00.001-05:00

Abortion. Same sex marriage. The Death Penalty. These are some of the issues in which people’s religious convictions are often cited as part of the foundation underlying their beliefs. Opinions are not necessarily solely based upon religious beliefs, but those beliefs are at least one contributing factor.

I have argued before that there is a growing sentiment in America that religious opinions are irrelevant and should not be raised in the public arena. I don’t claim that it is a universal phenomenon; just that it is an increasing trend. Sometimes critics have responded to me by claiming it is really just a matter of whose ox is being gored; i.e., the reason I perceive this to be true is because I am a Christian. If I were of a non-religious stripe I would probably feel that religious views are being given too much credence.

There is undoubtedly a seed of truth in this. To some extent we all tend to view the world through our own set of tinted glasses. I do not accept the school of thought that holds this makes any objectivity impossible, but it would be naïve to ignore the role that our own presuppositions play. But to claim that this adequately responds to my point is to commit the genetic fallacy, believing that explaining how a belief is formed somehow addresses the underlying truth of that belief. It is certainly possible to arrive at the right conclusion for all the wrong reasons. Even if I came to believe in this growing trend because I was overly influenced by my own worldview, it still begs the question of whether there is any evidence for this trend independent of my personal views.

A thorough defense of my position would take far more space than a blog allows. Besides, I am not claiming that religious views are universally rejected, so preparing a detailed defense would result in an impossible task of line drawing (i.e., how many instances are sufficient to amount to a “growing trend,” etc.). Ultimately, I admit that this is largely a matter of perception and could probably never be proven conclusively. However, I think that there is enough evidence to make it a reasonable perception to hold.

The example that came to mind this morning involved those issues mentioned above. When a religious group or individual argues against abortion, for example, at some point in the conversation someone inevitably says that religious people have “no right to impose their beliefs on the rest of society” (where this “right” could possibly come from in a purely Naturalistic universe is a question for another day). The mere fact that part of the foundation for an individual’s position comes from an alleged divine source leads to the presumption that this person is seeking to “impose” religious beliefs. In and of itself that is taken as one reason to reject their opinion.

Now change the example to another issue, income tax rates. Democrats generally favor higher tax rates for wealthier Americans than Republicans. When a Republican argues in favor of lower tax rates, do Democrats reply by saying they are seeking to “impose” their political beliefs upon everyone (or vice versa when Democrats argue for lower rates)? The opposing party may reply with their own economic theory or even meaningless rhetoric designed to provoke an emotional response (all too common in the political arena). But the concept of “imposition” never enters the discussion.

Why is it that claims grounded in religious themes are considered an “imposition” whereas those in political or other arenas are not? Granted, there may be extremely hostile vitriol launched from one side to the other in political debates, but it is rarely if ever claimed that the mere advancing of a contrary opinion is an immoral attempt to impose unwanted beliefs upon others. That response appears to be reserved for religious claims.

I suspect I have the answer to this question. It is admittedly only a theory based upon personal observation. Feel free to accept or reject it as you see fit. But I believe it fits the facts. American society is increasingly operating under the assumption that all religious beliefs are false. Who would not react angrily if someone was actively trying to inculcate you with a belief system we all know to be false? Economic issues are still considered fair game for debate. Intelligent people may disagree on the best course of action to jump start the economy. We still tend to “take sides” and defend our team as passionately as we would our local NFL squad in the Super Bowl. But deep down we still believe that the general population believes the answer to economic questions is not obvious. Religion is being phased out of the marketplace of ideas precisely because there is a growing perception that religious beliefs are based in feelings, not truth. People belong to their religious denomination because it makes them feel good, not because they really believe its claims to be true. Religion, therefore, is ultimately a matter of personal preference, not truth. Therefore, allowing this type of opinion into the discussion is an attempt to impose your personal preferences upon me.

This is the mission of apologetics. It is the calling of all Christians under 1 Peter 3:15 to show the world that there are solid reasons underlying our faith (“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”). Our problem is not just that society believes Christianity to be without reasons. It is deeper than that. They think that even Christians do not believe we have good reasons for our belief.

What is your church doing to prepare the body of Christ to give a reason, explaining that Christianity is not merely some existential belief system that we accept because of how it makes us feel but rather objective and historical truth? Christianity is justified because it is true. In fact, Christ Himself is “the truth” (John 14:6). If I am right about this growing trend, it demonstrates a way in which our churches are failing. We rightly preach the “what” of Christianity, but how often do we take the time to teach the “why?”

Is Natural Law Descriptive or Prescriptive in Immanuel Kant's Practical Reason?

2011-01-20T10:02:00.002-05:00

When it comes to ethics, Immanuel Kant is most well known for his formulation of the "categorical imperative." In short, this rule states that we should act in such a way that our actions would be in accordance with a principle that would suffice as a universal law. Kant arrives at this rule after a lengthy argument, but the purposes of this post really is limited to his distinction between the "form" and "matter" of a universal law.

The "form" of a universal law is generally what it sounds like, the basic form of the law that makes it universal by nature. The "matter" is the specific object of that law. "Forms," according to Kant, are arrived at through pure practical reason. "Matters," on the other hand, are discerned through the human senses.

From these premises Kant argues that in order for a person's will to be truly "free," it must be determined on the basis of the form of universal law (which he concludes to be the categorical imperative through an argument not relevant here), not the matter. Natural laws, so Kant urges, are only discernable by using the human senses (something Kant calls "appearances"), therefore they are not the subject of pure reason and belong to the category of "matter." If the human will were determined by the operation of natural laws then it would not be truly free (i.e., the result of the will would be mechanically determined by the operation of those laws). This allegedly would not be a problem if the will could be determined by universal laws that can be cognized through pure reason without appealing to anything perceived via the senses. By being determined by the form of universal law as opposed to the matter of the natural law (which is only perceived through the senses), the will avoids the danger of losing its freedom. Therefore, a will that is determined by the form of a universal law is free whereas one determined by the matter is not.

Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason claims to demonstrate that just such a universal law is practical in the form of the categorical imperative. Therefore, a free will is one that is determined by the categorical imperative (which Kant says is synonymous with the moral law). Kant believes we must assume the moral law exists. But if so, this carries with it the entailment that free will also exists. Because we must assume the moral law exists, we similarly must assume the existence of freedom.

In many respects I agree with Kant. For example, as I have argued elsewhere I agree that we must assume the existence of free will before any rational discussion can begin. While I also have several issues with Kant's argument, the point of this post is to focus on only one subpart. Specifically, in working his way toward the conclusion of free will, Kant claims that the determining basis of anything that is determined in accordance with the natural law must lie amongst things that are objects of the senses. However, Kant appears to be smuggling in two mutually exclusive perspectives on the laws of nature in order to support his argument. The laws of nature may be viewed either as descriptive, meaning the statement of a “law” is merely a description of what we have generally observed to happen in the past with no guarantee that this will continue to hold true in the future, or prescriptive, meaning they are fixed rules like the laws of logic and will continue to operate into the future regardless of whether we have ever perceived them to operate in the past. In order for the laws of nature to mechanically determine a will it appears to me that they must be prescriptive, meaning they operate whether we perceive them or not. But in order for the natural law to belong to the category of “appearances” (i.e., objects of the senses, a necessary premise in Kant’s argument for the freedom of a will determined by universal legislation) it must be only descriptive. In one breath Kant wants the laws to be prescriptive so they can determine a will but in the next he needs them to be descriptive so that they are only appearances and cannot be the subject of pure theoretical reason.

It seems to me that Immanuel Kant attempts to have his cake and eat it too.

FROM THE OUTSIDE LOOKING IN

2011-01-19T11:11:00.001-05:00

There is an unfortunate human tendency to assume that we have all the necessary knowledge to render an opinion on a subject, even when we don’t. On my way into the office this morning I was listening to a presentation by Ravi Zacharias in which he was discussing whether people actually live consistently with their worldview (for the vast majority the answer is “no”). Most people act one way but preach something else entirely, without ever pausing to think whether their actions are consistent with what they claim to believe. That is a subject for another day (and another post), but it gave me some food for thought as I looked through the news this morning. Just as people often fail to stop and reflect on their own actions before rendering an opinion, people also jump to conclusions about someone else’s actions without truly examining whether they really have all the necessary information to form a judgment. Where there are gaps in our knowledge, we just fill them in with unwarranted assumptions that will inevitably lead us to the conclusion we have already decided we want to reach.

There is a story on Yahoo! News this morning about the new Alabama Governor Robert Bentley and some comments he made soon after his inauguration. He went through the official inauguration ceremony at the state capitol then moved on to Dexter Avenue King Memorial Church, a Christian congregation. While speaking at the church, Governor Bentley said, “Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother.” Also, “If the Holy Spirit lives in you that makes you my brothers and sisters. Anyone who has not accepted Jesus, I want to be your brothers and sisters, too.”

Needless to say, the outrage then commenced. Bill Nigut, president of the Anti-Defamation League was shocked. “His comments are not only offensive, but also raise serious questions as to whether non-Christians can expect to receive equal treatment during his tenure as governor.” Nigut also said that if the Governor was advocating for Christian conversion, “he is dancing dangerously close to a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids government from promoting the establishment of any religion.”

First of all, please understand that this is not a political speech. I am admittedly far less involved in the political marketplace than I probably should be as a responsible citizen and prior to today I had never even heard of Robert Bentley. I could not even tell you the political party with which he affiliates himself (I could, of course, hazard a guess, but alas that would be inappropriate without actual knowledge).

My point here is that sometimes I think Americans spend their day to day lives looking for an excuse to be outraged, and if they find something that almost fits the bill, they’ll fill in whatever holes are necessary to enable their blood to boil. It puzzles me why so many people seem to live for animosity.

Preliminarily, while Mr. Nigut is eager to cite the Establishment Clause, he needs to remember the Free Exercise Clause as well. The Constitution equally protects the right of any citizen to freely exercise their religion, and they don’t lose that right when they accept public office. As far as I can tell from the Yahoo! News article, this was a speech at a private church to a Christian audience, not a political speech on the floor of the governor’s mansion. The mere fact that Mr. Bentley has been elected Governor does not require him to forfeit his right as a private citizen to speak on his Christian faith in a church setting.

But leaving the Constitution aside, was Governor Bentley really implying that he would treat his Christian constituents more favorably than non-Christians? What did he mean when he said those who accepted Jesus Christ as their savior were his “brothers and sisters?”

We live in a pluralistic society. That (in and of itself) is not a bad thing. But many of the worldviews that are gaining steam have a different idea of “brothers and sisters” than what Governor Bentley was discussing, and that idea has permeated our culture. New Age beliefs claim that we are all connected. “All is energy and all is connected. We all live, move and have our being both inside the Quantum Ocean and the Mind of God, at the same time.” In this sense we are all brothers and sisters. Postmodernism tells us that there is no objective truth. What one person believes to be true is no more “right” than another. All beliefs are on equal footing and “tolerance” demands that we hold all people’s worldviews to be equally valid. The subtle influence of these (and other) worldviews has instilled an assumption in our culture that “brothers and sisters” must refer to everyone. We should all be living in harmony. Our entire society should live together as brothers and sisters.

Expressed as that general principle, Christian doctrine would not disagree, and I doubt Governor Bentley would either. But is that really the sense in which he was using the phrase “brothers and sisters?” Viewed from this global perspective, it looks like Governor Bentley was making a conscious effort to exclude all non-Christians from the brotherhood and sisterhood of humanity. People who bring this universal family mentality to the table (and who then seek to impose it upon Governor Bentley, assuming this is what he must have intended in his comments) are outraged that the Governor does not believe he owes the same legal or moral obligations to those who do not share his belief system.

But what these critics fail to acknowledge is that the Governor was a Christian man speaking to a Christian audience. When a Christian heard his comments in context, what would they likely hear?

There is a close bond between family members. No, we do not always get along like we should, but the old axiom “blood is thicker than water” at least tells us the ideal. At a minimum, we share a biological connection to our family members that we do not share with others, but in a healthy family the connection extends to an emotional level as well. Christianity teaches that when you accept Jesus as your savior, you are also adopted into an extended family. The church is charged with looking after you just as a healthy family ordinarily would. For those of us with strong family bonds, this extends our bonds even more broadly. For those who grew up without such bonds, it provides encouragement that they can still enjoy that familial relationship. “In Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.” Romans 12:5.

I have two brothers. Is it offensive for me to tell them that they are my brothers or to tell anyone else that they are not? Of course not, so long as I am speaking of the biological connection that we share. Similarly, so long as Governor Bentley is speaking of the familial-type connection shared by fellow Christians, it should not cause offense for him to say that those who accept Jesus are his brothers and sisters whereas those who do not are not. Only by refusing to accept the context in which his comments were intended and imposing someone else’s definitions upon his statement can we give ourselves a reason to feel offended.

Clearly in this context Governor Bentley was speaking of his brothers and sisters in Christ. He was speaking to a Christian audience who, if they were the least bit versed in Christian teaching, would understand his comments in that manner. He even qualified his comments with the express condition that makes someone a brother or sister in Christ, acceptance of Jesus as savior.

To suggest that the Governor was somehow excluding non-Christians from the global community, or suggesting that he did not owe a moral responsibility toward them also ignores Christian teaching.

“Jesus said: ‘A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

“‘Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?’ The expert in the law replied, ‘The one who had mercy on him.’ Jesus told him, ‘Go and do likewise.’”
Luke 10:30-37.

Christ clearly commands us to be a neighbor to everyone, regardless of whether they share our religious beliefs. Again, those who step up to criticize the Governor are erecting a straw man, deciding in advance what his beliefs must be without putting forth the effort to investigate what he really believes. Christians are guilty of this too. All too often we assume to speak for Muslims, Jews, Atheists or even our fellow Christians from other denominations by evaluating their statements from the perspective of our own preconceptions. Before anyone condemns the opinions of another, we should always be wary when we are on the outside looking in.

THANK YOU FOR 5 YEARS OF SUPPORT

2011-01-17T11:13:00.003-05:00

Today marks the five year anniversary of Ten Minas Ministries and I would personally like to thank each and every person who has supported us over the years, contributed their thoughts to our blog (whether they agreed with me or not) and especially those who have graced TMM with their prayers and constructive criticism.

We were originally incorporated as a Maryland non-profit on January 17, 2006. When TMM first began, we really were struggling for direction. We had a website without much content other than the "Argument for Christianity" series of articles (articles that I keep meaning to revisit and update, but alas other obligations keep getting in the way). The "Ten Minas Talent Pool" came and went. It was an effort to match up volunteers with particular skills with people in need who would benefit from those skills. Unfortunately, it never gained enough steam to support itself, but it did get TMM its first radio exposure through an interview on a Baltimore Christian radio station.

After the Talent Pool we moved on to the Disaster Relief Project and helped raise money to rebuild a home in Gulfport, Mississippi that was ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. We also started "Preparing Your Answer," the series of podcasts on apologetic and theological issues. The "Ten Minas Ministries Prayer Network" brought together prayer requests from people around the world with any "prayer warriors" who visited the website and saw their requests.

As time went on, TMM began to focus more specifically on apologetics. Theology still served as an important foundation (after all, how can you defend something without first knowing what it is you are defending?), but it became clear that my forte and interests really went in the direction of helping Christians prepare their answers to a skeptical world. I have spoken to the people in the pews, taught in a classroom format (contact TMM if you would like me to come to yoru church) and have had countless valuable interactions on the TMM blog with believers and non-believers alike. I know I have benefitted from the experiences (even the more frustrating ones) and I hope my partners in dialogue can say the same.

If I have learned anything over the past five years, it is that apologetics cannot be approached like a legal argument in a courtroom. When you are speaking to someone who disagrees with you about the most fundamental questions of our existence, there is no judge in a black robe who will speak up at the end of our discussion and tell one if us that we are wrong (at least not in this life). The moment I look at a debate as an opportunity to "tear down" my opponent is the moment I lose sight of the whole purpose. My companion in the discussion is not only my ideological opposition, he or she is also the person I am trying to convince. I am not here to win points. I am here to encourage open and honest discussion. If anyone is interested in having that kind of talk, I invite you to join in the conversation as we hopefully continue for at least another five years.

God belss you all.

Ken Coughlan, President
Ten Minas Ministries

Who Are You Thankful To?

2010-11-24T11:00:00.009-05:00

"Rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus." 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18.

I had a discussion with my 8 year old daughter recently about true blessings. I won't go into the specifics, but it generally concerned her acting as if we "owed" her something after we had already given her quite a few extras and she really wasn't appreciating them. She was expecting things rather than being grateful for what she had already been given. I talked to her about something we'd spoken about before. We talked about the many blessings in her life and how when we become accustomed to something we tend to take it for granted. Saying the words that there are people living in horrifying poverty just doesn't seem to sink in if we don't actually see these people every day or live in those circumstances ourselves. We tend to forget just how blessed we really are. My point is simply that most of us should not have trouble thinking of something to be thankful for this Thanksgiving.

But I admit to sometimes struggling when I look at verses like the one from 1 Thessalonians and hear God telling us to rejoice and give thanks in all circumstances. I am more than willing to concede that I, living in the financially blessed American middle class, should be able to do so and when I don't it is the result of my own personal failing. But then I look at people like those in these pictures and ask, "What about them? How are they supposed to rejoice and be thankful?"

And yet many people living in poverty exhibit far greater appreciation for what little they have than those of us who possess far more, at least materially. Michael Ramsden, an apologist with Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, once commented that he believed one problem in the world is not that we have nothing to be thankful for, but we have no one to be thankful to. I think this is a profound conundrum on Thanksgiving for many people. I read a Facebook comment earlier today in which someone said that Thanksgiving was their favorite holiday because it is for "everyone," regardless of what religion you belong to or where you were born. There is a seed of truth in that, but there is a problem as well.

Who are you grateful to? Oh, I don't mean for the obvious things. Two dear friends of mine just gave me tickets to the Baltimore Ravens game this weekend (my wife has never been to an NFL game). In that situation I know who to thank. But what about the air I breathe? What about the fact that we live on a planet that has the right environmental factors to produce crops? I'm not talking about the surface details like football tickets. I'm talking about the fact that our most fundamental needs for survival are capable of being met. Yes, I am grateful to the farmers who bring us food. But if the Earth was not configured the way it is, it would not matter how much effort was put forth by the farmer, we could not produce crops. Who do you thank for those things?

These are the needs that are more foundational than anything else. If they aren't met, nothing else matters. Yet on this holiday when we are thanking people for football tickets, familial companionship, our job, or those lovely floats going past Macy's, who do we thank for the foundational things?

I thank God. In the theistic worldview, there is an ultimate source for these blessings. Even more so, in Christianity that source is a Person capable of being thanked. It makes no sense to thank some ill defined concept of "Nature" or "Mother Earth." Unless the bestower of these blessings has a will and chose to bless you with them, there is nothing to thank.

So I ask you to reflect this Thanksgiving not just on what you have to be thankful for (if we really think about it, there should be plenty of those things) but on who you are thankful to. If you find yourself struggling to find an answer, drop me a line. God bless you all and happy Thanksgiving.

Reason and the Supernatural

2010-11-20T22:36:00.000-05:00

In his book Miracles, C.S. Lewis provides a fascinating argument on how our use of reason points to the existence of the supernatural. To understand the supernatural, though, we must first define what we mean by the “natural.” According to Lewis, “The Natural is what springs up, or comes forth, or arrives, or goes on, of its own accord: the given, what is there already: the spontaneous, the unintended, the unsolicited.”[1] The Naturalist assumes that this is all there is. However, if “any one thing exists which is of such a kind that we see in advance the impossibility of ever giving it [a naturalistic] explanation, then Naturalism would be in ruins.”[2] According to Lewis, our use of reason is just such a thing that defies naturalistic explanation.[3]

Reason implies inference. If we directly witness a phenomenon through our senses then we do not conclude it’s truth based upon reason but rather through our immediate observation. If however, we use our powers of inference to draw additional conclusions based upon the things that we have witnessed with our senses, then we have resorted to reason. If I conclude that the sun rose this morning because I witnessed it, I have not arrived at that conclusion through reason. However, if I infer that the sun must have risen this morning because it has risen every other morning during my lifetime, even though I have not left my house and have not personally witnessed the sun today, then I have reached my conclusion through reason.

Naturalists advance their arguments through the use of reason. They present various evidences and infer that Nature is all there is. But if Nature is “the whole show,” then everything, our reasoning abilities included, must have developed of their own accord. This begs the question of whether a naturalistic explanation for our reasoning abilities can be found.

According to natural selection, useful traits are preserved. The ability to use inference to point toward truth (as opposed to flawed inferences that point to falsehood) is useful. Therefore, people with the habit of drawing objectively truthful inferences would be at a competitive advantage and this trait would be passed on to their offspring. This is a particularly important point for naturalists. They must concede that objective truth exists in order to avoid finding themselves in an un-affirmable contradiction (by claiming the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth). Explaining how we came to develop our habits of inference is hardly reassuring if those inferences do not point to the objective truth that naturalists and super-naturalists both acknowledge exists. Thus naturalists must justify within their worldview not only that we use inference but also that our inferences are reliable.

But the statement, “inferences that point to objective truth are useful” is itself an inference. The naturalist may collect evidences of how these types of inferences have proven to be useful in the past, but the supposition that they will continue to be so and will therefore generally be preserved is an inference. How are we to know that this inference is true? Should we come to that conclusion because it is useful? That is begging the question. We can only conclude that our reasoning abilities point to ontological truth by using our reasoning abilities. That is circular reasoning. After all, if our reasoning abilities actually pointed to falsehood, we may be absolutely convinced that they point to ontological truth but we would be unfortunately mistaken. Unless we first presuppose the value of our reasoning we can never prove that we have the ability to know ontological truth. All truth ends up being unknowable. This brings the naturalist back to the same problem of un-affirmability, being forced into the position of “knowing” that all truth is unknowable.

Naturalists may respond that they are willing to presuppose the value of reason. But this is precisely what they must not do if they are to be consistent with their worldview. Their basic premise is that all things can be explained by naturalistic means. But by presupposing reason, they are now claiming that all things other than reason itself can be explained by naturalistic means. If we grant any exception then there must be at least one thing outside the natural. Therefore, our ability to reason through inference shows that at least for this one thing, the supernatural must exist.

[1] Lewis, “Miracles,” 214 (emphasis in original).

[2] Lewis, “Miracles,” 217.

[3] The ensuing explanation is a summary of Lewis’ argument in his chapter titled “The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism” in the book Miracles along with a few of my own elaborations. Lewis, “Miracles,” 217-23.

The Inherent Value of Free Will

2010-11-11T16:20:00.000-05:00

I am in the process of writing a more detailed evaluation of C.S. Lewis’ theodicy in The Problem of Pain and will post it on the website as soon as it is available. But I wanted to share one brief criticism I have of Lewis (and anyone who knows me knows that I have been highly influenced by Lewis in my own apologetic methods, so please do not take any criticisms I launch his way lightly). Lewis brilliantly combines elements of free will, natural law and soul-making theodicies in his book. However, one argument he raises is that God allows some pain to enter into our lives as a teaching tool. Basically, Lewis’ premise is that true happiness lies only in a relationship with God. Imperfect humans insist upon looking for happiness in earthly things, but these inevitably disappoint. Before we will ever find true happiness, we must completely surrender our will to God and turn it over to Him. This, however, is far from an easy process. At one point Lewis even compares it to a form of death, and it naturally involves pain. Because we have free will, we must be free to refuse to surrender our will to God. In fact, because our will is fallen, we will refuse to surrender it without God’s help. So God allows some pain in our lives so we will learn not to depend upon earthly things but instead to rely upon Him. Our free will is what permits us to make this choice. One way of viewing Lewis’ argument may be that God allows those earthly things to disappoint us.

I do not necessarily have a problem with this argument per se. My criticism is that Lewis overlooks an enormous gap in his theodicy and has left himself open to a pretty strong objection. Why should God permit us to have free will in the first place? Granted, we can only decide to surrender our will to God if we have free will. But if we did not have free will, humanity never could have chosen to fall either. If none of us had free will, we could not refuse to subject our will to God. We would have no will to surrender. Freedom, then, is a means to an end. It is a necessary means in order to achieve the end of surrender. But if surrender is not necessary, why have freedom?

Take the example of Adam and Eve. Lewis says we cannot surrender our wills to God because they are fallen. But before Adam and Eve’s sin their wills were not fallen. Yet God also granted them freedom. Adam chose what to name the animals. They both freely chose to eat the forbidden fruit. If freedom opened the door to rebellion, and it was not necessary in order for Adam and Eve to choose surrender (because their wills were not yet fallen), why give them freedom in the first place?

My point is simple: a free will theodicy cannot place the value of freedom solely in being a means to an end. Freedom must have inherent value in itself, regardless of whether it in turn is a means to achieve some other desirable end. If freedom is inherently valuable, then some degree of pain will be permissible in order to preserve that value. Lewis fails to acknowledge the inherent value in freedom and in doing so leaves himself open to the question of why God should have granted us freedom in the first place.

Little Green Men?

2010-09-30T09:25:00.005-05:00

Yahoo! News published an article today announcing that astronomers have discovered a planet approximately 120 trillion miles away that is "just like Earth." It is situated in what is called the "Goldilocks" zone, making it not too cold nor too hot, so it could contain liquid water. It is also neither too big nor too small for the proper surface, gravity and atmosphere to accomodate life.

If the conclusions stopped there, I would agree that this is a very exciting discovery. What disappointed me about the article, though, was the unwarranted speculation. I think this serves as a warning against the human nature to get overly excited about what we want to be true and start making all sorts of suggestions that go far beyond what is warranted by the evidence.

Penn State University's Jim Kasting said this planet is a "pretty prime candidate" for harboring life. It seems a bit premature to make statements like that. For example, the planet is so close to its sun that it orbits every 37 days. Therefore, it cannot have Earth's cycle of seasons as we orbit over a period of 365 days with one half tilted closer to the sun during part of the year, then tilted away during the other. The seasons are crucial to plant growth. With such a short year, I, for one, am skeptical whether any substantial plant life could exist on this planet.

The planet also does not rotate very much, so that one side is almost always bright, the other always dark. Temperatures on the planet range from up to 160 degrees farenheit on the bright side down to 25 degrees below zero on the cold side. Certainly, any area of the planet that is exposed to these temperature extremes is not conducive to any form of life of which we are aware. The article somewhat acknowledged this by saying that it would be "shirt-sleeve weather" in the "land of constant sunrise." What it glossed over, however, is that this would leave a much narrower habitable zone than we have on Earth. Besides, constant short-sleeve weather is not ideal for life either. If the climate always remained constant, you could not have the regular seasonal cycles that I mentioned above that are necessary for many forms of life.

Perhaps the most bold proclamation comes near the end of the article. Without even knowing whether liquid water actually exists on this planet, Steven Vogt of the University of California at Santa Cruz declares that "because conditions are ideal for liquid water, and because there always seems to be life on Earth where there is water, ... 'chances for life on this planet are 100 percent.'" Understand that Vogt is not talking necessarily about little green men, but at least single cell bacteria.

Vogt's statement could serve as a prime example for introductory logic students about common logical errors that people make. First of all, just because "conditions are ideal for liquid water" does not necessarily mean that water will exist. Consider the Large Hadron Collider, the particle accelerator that lies beneath the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva. Inside that collider, scientists have used large magnets to set up ideal conditions for particle beams to collide. Yet anyone who operates the collider could tell you that it often requires a good deal of patience before anything happens. Merely having ideal conditions for a collision does not necessarily mean that a collision will occur.

The bigger logical issue lies in the syllogism Vogt advances. It could be expressed in logical terms as follows:

P1: Conditions on this "Goldilocks" planet are ideal for liquid water.
P2: Wherever there is water on Earth there is also life.
C: Therefore, there is a 100% chance of life on the "Goldilocks" planet.

I already discussed the problems with premise 1. Ideal conditions for a result do not guarantee the actuality of that result. But even assuming premises 1 and 2 are both true, does that support the conclusion?

There are many hidden assumptions in Vogt's argument. First, he assumes that the alleged relationship between water and life on Earth will be mirrored on the "Goldilocks" planet. The mere fact that two things are correlated here does not mean, absent additional evidence, that they will necessarily be correlated elsewhere. Many other factors could come into play. But more importantly, Vogt's argument provides an excellent opportunity to illustrate to students of logic the danger of confusing correlation with causation.

"Correlation" refers to an observed relationship between phenomena. "Causation" refers to a cause-effect relationship between the two phenomena. However, a logical fallacy occurs when you confuse correlation with causation.

Take the following example. Suppose a researcher notices that in the same months that ice cream sales are at their highest, so are the number of deaths by drowning. When ice cream sales go down, drowning deaths likewise decrease. There is a definite correlation between these two phenomena. Is the researcher therefore warranted in concluding that eating ice cream causes us to drown? Leaving aside the obvious joke about waiting at least one hour before you swim, the researcher who rushed to this conclusion would be overlooking the obvious possibility that there is no direct causation between these two phenomena, but instead that they are both caused by some other 3rd factor, in this case the warm summer temperatures. More people buy ice cream in warmer weather than when it is colder outside. Likewise, warm weather inspires more people to swim, which in turn leads to more instances of drowning. The mere fact that we observed a correlation between ice cream sales and drowning does not mean that one caused the other.

Vogt made the same elementary logical mistake. He observed that there appears to be a correlation on Earth between the presence of water and the presence of life. But that does not mean that the presence of water causes the presence of life. In fact, there currently is no single theory of the origin of life that is accepted by even a simple majority of scientists in the field. Biologists, frankly, have no clue how the very first life occurred on Earth. Vogt's implication that the mere presence of water easily leads to the development of life is simplistic at best. Is water necessary? Most likely. Is it sufficient? Far from it. The number of other factors that go into building even the most basic single-cell organisms are mind-boggling.

The article concludes with Vogt stating, "It's pretty hard to stop life once you give it the right conditions." I understand that news agencies love the sensational. If you have two options to choose from, one that makes the story look novel and exciting and another that is more reserved, the exciting one generates more readers. And Vogt seems to have provided Yahoo! with that sensationalism. But the statement that "it's pretty hard to stop life once you give it the right conditions" is so far outside the warrant of the evidence that I can only encourage anyone to slow down, don't believe everything you hear, and evaluate the evidence for yourself. Life is actually remarkably easy to stop, even once it has begun. Just ask the dinosaurs or any of the species that have disappeared into extinction. But in the end Vogt doesn't even know how it began in the first place, let alone how difficult it is to keep it going.

This new discovery is exciting. But the evidence is a far reach from being able to support a "100% chance of life" on the "Goldilocks" planet. Let's not rush to judgment. Take it slow. Follow where the evidence leads, and try as hard as you can not to take that one extra step beyond what is justified. Otherwise you will end up stepping onto the wrong path, and before you know it you will be so lost in the woods that you won't be able to find your way back.

God bless.

Free Will, Sovereignty and Reformed Apologetics

2010-09-15T18:54:00.005-05:00

"Reformed apologetics" refers generally to a category of Christian apologists who cast extreme doubt upon the ability of non-Christians to objectively evaluate the evidence for Christianity without being unduly influenced by their fallen nature, including fallen reasoning abilities. Two of the most prominent apologists in this camp are Cornelius Van Til and Alvin Plantinga.

Reformed apologists criticize classical and evidentialist approaches because both attempt to find a common ground with non-Christians as the starting point for their arguments. They are “actually seeking a method that assumes man’s self-sufficiency to arrive at truth” [Kenneth D. Boa and Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith (Colorado Springs: Paternoster, 2006), 260]. Someone following the reformed approach would say, “I cannot approach data objectively because my perception is distorted by sin and prejudice” [William Dryness, Christian Apologetics in a World Community (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983), 59]. Because sin so distorts people’s reasoning abilities, there can be no logical common ground between the Christian and non-Christian on which to build an apologetic.

Within the reformed camp there are some slight differences of opinion about how best to give a reason for our faith to non-believers in light of their fallen state. Alvin Plantinga argues that belief in God is properly basic, similar to our belief in the existence of other minds [Boa and Bowman, Faith Has Its Reasons, 248-51]. Neither can be objectively proven but they are necessary presuppositions in order for us to function. Cornelius Van Til argues that we must presuppose a transcendent God in order to make sense of reality, but all non-Christian worldviews fail to accomplish this goal [Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics. 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003), 36-37].

While reformed perspectives, to their credit, demand that we focus on the presuppositions non-Christians bring to our discussions, when taken too far they remove our free will in order to remain consistent with their own premises. Cornelius Van Til explains his position as follows:

"If obedient to the will of God, man would be accomplishing genuine results. The controlling and directing power of his will would be the will of God. It would be by his own will, however, that he would reach the goal that God has set for him. If disobedient to the will of God he would be going counter to the expressed will of God for him. Yet he would not be able to frustrate the plan of God either as a whole or in any detail. Man as a creature cannot will anything either by way of obedience or by way of disobedience except in a relation of subordination to the plan of God."
[Van Til, Christian Apologetics, 36].

But Van Til’s position ultimately results in no free will. His illustration implicitly includes three options. If a person wills that which is consistent with both God’s will and God’s plan, then God allows the action to take place. If a person wills something that is inconsistent with God’s will but still consistent with God’s plan then God also allows that action. But if a person wills something that is inconsistent with both God’s will and God’s plan then God does not permit the action to take place. In fact, God overrides the individual’s will so that the person is utterly incapable of willing such an act in the first place. Ultimately, the individual is only “free” to choose that which God plans for the person to choose.

Van Til sacrifices free will in his attempt to preserve God’s sovereignty. These two concepts can be reconciled, however, if the mode of existence for the creator is transcendent to that of his temporal creation. Humankind lives a temporal existence, traveling through linear time, perceiving that future events are determined by our free choices. But as the creator of all things, God is also the creator of time. Therefore, he exists beyond time. As Norman Geisler explains,

"as an eternal Being God does not really fore-know anything. He is eternal and, as such, He simply knows in one eternal Now everything there is to know. God sees all of time – past, present, and future – from His lofty perch of eternity; whereas human beings looking through the tunnel vision of time can see only the present."
[Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2002), 1:583 (emphasis in original)].

While the reformed approach includes the important insight to be aware of non-Christian presuppositions, it takes too restrictive a view of humankind’s will; a view that Norman Geisler demonstrates is not necessary in order to preserve the sovereignty of God.

Where's the Gentleness and Respect?

2010-09-07T09:12:00.003-05:00

Time and time again when I am speaking to someone about the truth of Christianity, one of two objections almost inevitably arises. The first is how a loving and omnipotent God could allow pain and suffering in the world. I have explored that topic elsewhere and we'll have to reserve any revisitation for another day. The second objection is how Christians, who supposedly exemplify Christ's love to the world, throughout history have been directly responsible for so much hatred, pain and bloodshed.

It truly amazes me how many so called Christians will pick and choose what they like from the scriptures while ignoring passages that clearly and unequivocally condemn their actions. Specifically, I am writing today about the plans by "Dove World Outreach Center" in Gainesville, Florida to commemorate the 9th anniversary of 9/11 by holding and encouraging "International Burn a Quran Day."

AOL News story

I obviously do not believe the Quran is true. I also take issue with many Muslim groups who refuse to allow anyone the privilege of exposing it to intellectual criticism. But that does not mean we should be burning it.

This calls for a dose of common sense. We are called to answer the non-Christian world with "gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15). Put the shoe on the other foot. How would members of the Dove World Outreach Center react to a call to hold an "International Burn a Bible Day?" Would they feel respected by those calling for such an event? Would they be angry, furious even? Then how do they expect Muslims to react, and how do they honestly believe they are fulfilling God's command to interact with gentleness and respect? Please allow me to be abudantly clear to these alleged Christians. You may think you are acting for God. You are not. In fact, what you are doing is the exact opposite of what He has commanded. This is a horrible idea and you are showing an utter disregard for your Creator by doing this. You owe the entire world an apology, including your fellow Christians who, thanks to you, will now be associated with the actions of about 50 people who are willfully defiant of the Word they claim to hold so dear.

It does not avail anything to claim that Islam is a violent religion and that more drastic measures than usual must be taken. First, what are you doing, exactly, to disprove Islam? Nothing. You are figuratively spitting in their faces, which will only serve to provoke animosity toward the gospel.

Second, Peter did not allow any exceptions to the command to show gentleness and respect. In fact, the entire point of the command is that the worse a non-Christian reacts, the better you appear to the world around you because you continue to be courteous.

Finally, before you are too quick to label all Muslims as violent, remember that if the actions of certain sets of believers were sufficient to label an entire worldview, there would be plenty of evidence to attach the same label to Christianity:

Army of God
Concerned Christians
Scott Roeder
Hutaree

Following the "logic" of the Dove World Outreach Center, these incidents should justify encouraging a world wide burning of Bibles.

This is precisely why we are not to interact with the world through antagonism, provocation and violence. If you want to disagree with Islam, do so by explaining to the world why it's doctrines do not hold up to logical or existential scrutiny. But in taking actions like this Quran burning, you are turning people away from Christ, not bringing them closer to Him.

INTO THE LOOKING GLASS

2010-08-03T15:24:00.001-05:00

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." 1 Peter 3:15-16 (NIV).

It will surprise no one to see this passage leading off a blog entry written by a Christian apologist. Sometimes I think that memorization of this verse should be mandatory for anyone entering into the apologetic realm. In truth, there is probably nary a Christian defender who hasn’t quoted it from time to time. We are more than eager to give our “answer” to you, sometimes even when you are not asking; even if it means raising our voice to speak over the top of you just to make sure we get out everything we (in our infinite wisdom) believe you simply must hear.

No, apologetics is not always done with “gentleness and respect.” Sometimes, those who speak maliciously of us are perfectly justified in doing so. But the problem is not limited to only the formal apologists. Too many Christians fail to understand that they are routinely giving answers in their every day lives. They may not realize it, but the world is watching. Sometimes questions are never explicitly asked, they are only formulated in the mind. Then the astute observer watches the behavior of the Christian masses and arrives at a conclusion without ever uttering a word.

So Christians, be on your guard. “Gentleness and respect” should define your entire lifestyle, not just your word choice in particular conversations with non-believers. This begs the question, are we as a group living our lives this way, such that anyone who speaks maliciously against us would be ashamed because of our good behavior?

Author Anne Rice is best known for her series of vampire novels, the most famous of which was made into the Tom Cruise/Brad Pitt film, “Interview With the Vampire.” In 1998 she re-joined the Catholic Church that she abandoned in her youth and turned her writings over to the Christian genre. But last month, the following entry appeared on her Facebook page:

"For those who care, and I understand if you don't: Today I quit being a Christian. I'm out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being 'Christian' or to being part of Christianity. It's simply impossible for me to 'belong' to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else."

Quarrelsome? Hostile? Disputatious? Infamous? Many Christians upon hearing those adjectives would immediately begin presenting their defense. That’s not Christianity! Christianity is defined by love. In fact, the gospel points us to the ultimate definition of love in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ! We may start citing evidence about how the laws of the universe show God’s love for us and how He demonstrated this love by sending His son to die on the cross. All the while we are devoting our attention to disproving these descriptions rather than asking the more important question: Why were they attached to us in the first place?

The easy answer is “sin.” Human nature is to deflect any wrongdoing as far away from ourselves as possible, and Christians are no different. If someone is speaking poorly of us, it must be because they are still trapped in their sinful nature and are fighting against the gospel tooth and nail. And that is true, to a certain extent. But usually we carry that excuse way too far.

We love the sin excuse because it enables us to avoid the uncomfortable task of having to peer into the looking glass. If the problem is in “them” then we never need to look inside ourselves.

Dorian Gray sold his soul so that every sin he committed in his life would show upon the portrait he concealed from view rather than upon his perfectly young face. The horrid appearance taken on by the portrait over the years haunted him. It tore at his conscience until he finally decided to destroy it, destroying himself in the process. After all, the portrait was the true Dorian, not the façade that walked the streets each day.

How many of us are Dorian Grays? To what ends would we travel to avoid having to face our own sins? As Christians we like to believe that we have already come to terms with our sinful natures. After all, isn’t that what happened when we accepted the gospel in the first place?

Our nature? Perhaps. But we still have a difficult time accepting individual sins. Is it possible that we are called quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious and infamous because we have engaged in conduct deserving of those titles?

In an interview, Anne Rice said that the last straw in her decision to leave the Catholic Church was the realization of the lengths that the church would go to in order to oppose same-sex marriage. Her comments are not reserved to the Catholic Church. She takes the Christian community as a whole to task. So have we as Christians done anything in connection with this issue to earn the labels she attached?

I believe homosexual activity is immoral and unbiblical. Anyone who has perused the resources on the Ten Minas website can explore my reasons for coming to this conclusion, but it stands on both secular and biblical grounds. But I am also not above accepting some blame for how this issue is handled.

I recently saw a picture of a Christian at a rally against homosexual marriage carrying a sign with a picture of two hangman’s nooses bearing the title “The Solution to Same Sex Marriage.” Where was the gentleness and respect in that?

Too often Christians forget who the real enemy is. Non-Christians are not your opponent. They are the people you are trying to rescue. Yet we treat them as our mortal enemies, launching venom and hatred instead of love and understanding.

We use the tag line, “Love the person, hate the sin,” but nobody has ever been converted by a slogan. We need to stop thinking we can address the world in two second sound bites and instead reflect upon how we sound to others.

I have heard Christians tell homosexuals that they do not really feel sexual attraction for members of the same sex. It is a learned behavior, not a biological drive. It seems that many of us are afraid that if we concede they just might legitimately be feeling what they claim to feel, that would somehow show that God “messed up” in His design.

Did God “mess up” because the rest of us feel the urge to sin? We are more than willing to chalk our own sinfulness up to the fall of humankind but for some reason will not grant that same privilege to homosexual dispositions. That sin must be the result of a conscious choice, not a fallen nature! Why? I cannot presume to know what others are thinking, but I would venture a guess it is because of our own prejudices and fear. God is not in danger of imperfection just because homosexual attraction is sincere. We need to get over our personal trepidation and accept this.

We also need to get past the fear that accepting the sincerity of the biological attraction somehow concedes that it is moral. I would never dream of telling a practicing homosexual that they do not genuinely feel attraction for a member of their same sex. Nor would I dream of denying that they love their partners with a romantic love. How presumptuous would I be to do so? Am I God? Can I see into their heart? Who am I to stand in such a holier than thou position and tell them what they are and are not feeling? Yet this is what Christians do every day, and we wonder why we are called “hostile.”

In the end it does not matter. I am more than willing to concede their love is real. The question is not whether their feeling is true (since when is Christianity about discouraging love?). It is about whether certain actions are moral, and a sincere, biologically driven desire to engage in a certain activity does not make it correct. After all, what is morality if not a set of rules that tell us when we should avoid behaviors that we sincerely desire to engage in? If morality only banned activities that nobody wanted to do, there would be no need for morality.

Ultimately, it should make little difference to the Christian whether the homosexual drive is a biological predisposition or a conscious choice. Yet we expend countless efforts telling people that they do not even know what is going on inside their own hearts. Can you imagine anything more offensive than that? What right do we have to complain when people refuse to accept the gospel when we begin by telling them that we know them better than they know themselves?

We preach that homosexuals cannot make good parents. After all, they set a poor example by actively promoting a sinful lifestyle and passing that worldview on to their children. Yet Christians who oppose any drinking of alcohol whatsoever do not form political action groups to oppose adoption by a social drinker. We do not advocate taking away the children of Hindu families because they teach their children idolatry. I would guess that most Christians would find such practices horrid. But we tell homosexuals that they are unfit parents and do not see the double standard that we set.

Love the sinner, hate the sin? When someone hears from us, “You don’t really love your partner and you have no business raising your child” they don’t feel loved. We are attaching the sin to the sinner and hating both. In our zeal to reject the sin, we do not acknowledge how ridiculous some of our tactics have become. Besides, why do we expect a non-Christian to care what the Bible says about his or her behavior anyway? Our priority for them should be to present the gospel and introduce them to Christ. Correcting sin within the church is our priority, but trying to correct it outside the church without the gospel is a futile effort.

This is only one of many examples I could give, but it is the one that appears to have driven Anne Rice away. We hate homosexuals, don’t believe that women are intelligent enough to make their own decisions about their bodies and refuse to let any card-carrying Democrat into the pews. Are these accurate perceptions? They shouldn’t be, and there certainly are solid moral truths underlying some of them that we must learn to respectfully express. But perhaps, just perhaps, we are more responsible for earning these labels than many of us would like to admit.

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE

2010-07-02T11:10:00.001-05:00

The phrase “the truth will set you free” has so worked its way into our collective consciousness that it can be applied to any number of scenarios. Psychoanalyst Anne Miller has written a book titled “The Truth Will Set You Free” about facing and overcoming early psychological traumas. Artist Owen Maseko opened an exhibition this year about human rights abuses in Zimbabwe called “The Truth Will Set You Free.” On August 10, 2009, the New Health Dialogue Blog used “The Truth Will Set You Free” in the title of a blog entry about President Obama’s health care reform initiative. But how many people know the origin of this adage?

Like many of today’s common phrases, it originally appeared in the Bible. This particular aphorism comes from a saying of Jesus in the gospel of John. Chapter 8, verses 31 and 32 read as follows:

"To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, 'If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.'"

Nowadays people will use this common phrase and imply that the “truth” it refers to is whatever agenda they are seeking to advance at the time. In reality, the “truth” it is speaking of is the message of Jesus – the gospel of salvation. Christ taught that we are all slaves to sin. We love sin so much that we cannot possibly lay it down of our own accord. Many people believe that Christianity actually enslaves, not frees people. But that is because they do not see sin as something to be avoided.

Think of a drug addict who is offered the opportunity to enter into a 30 day residential rehab program. If they do not want to escape their addiction, they will resist entering the program with every fiber of their being. Why would they want to undertake something that will restrict their “freedom” to use drugs to their heart’s content. But if they see their addiction as a set of shackles that is tying them down from which they desperately want to escape, all of a sudden that rehab program looks like a ticket to freedom.

The gospel is no different. Salvation through Jesus Christ frees us from our addiction to sin. That doesn’t mean we will never sin, but we will recognize sin for what it is, loathe it, and live our lives as recovering sinners, just as a recovering alcoholic is never “cured,” but always on the alert to avoid temptation. But one thing we are completely free from is the judgment against our sin by God. When the Father looks upon us in judgment at the end of days, He will see Jesus’ perfection rather than our imperfection for anyone who has accepted Christ as his or her Lord and Savior.

This weekend Americans will celebrate their Independence Day. We rejoice in the freedoms we enjoy, hopefully cognizant of others in the world who are not so fortunate and honoring those who have sacrificed to give us this opportunity. When American Christians remember our secular freedoms on Sunday, I encourage you to also remember the freedom you have in Christ Jesus. Our country has set us free. Let us be glad of that. But the truth of Jesus Christ has given us far greater freedom than anything we could be granted by human authority. Honor your country, your leaders, and those in military service. Worship the Lord your God.

Silence

2010-06-21T10:08:00.001-05:00

We have just posted the text from a powerful sermon on the TMM website dealing with the possessed man of the Gerasenes. It tells the story from a perspective you likely have never considered before. Special thanks to Interim Pastor Ken Osborne of Grove Church for giving us permission to post his words so you all can benefit from them. I cannot encourage you enough to read this message. It will move you to new heights in our calling to bring Christ's love to the world:

SILENCE

The Idolatry of Autonomy

2010-06-14T22:03:00.002-05:00

I was reading an article today by the Rev. J. Bennett Guess, an openly gay minister, in which he was arguing that "Much of the church continues to bury its head in homophobic sand." To some extent I agree with him. Much of the way evangelical Christianity has treated homosexuals deserves the disgust that it incites. I believe that homosexual practices are sinful, but that does not mean we should be committing violent acts against them or calling them derogatory names rather than reaching out in love with the gospel of Jesus Christ. I know of a recent incident in which a middle school child was hit several times between classes because he is being raised by a homosexual couple at home. Regardless of how you feel about the issue, please tell me what that child did to deserve a beating. We cannot be afraid to give God's answer to anyone who asks of Him, but we must do so with gentleness and respect.

That being said, the point of this post is not to raise the issue of homosexual morality, at least not specifically. One particular comment by the Rev. Guess caught my eye. Toward the end of his article he said, "Maybe it's stubbornness or a calling on my part but, as a gay person, I refuse to let religion lay claim to naming what's holy and what's not, without insisting that I -- and those of my kind -- have some say in writing the definitions." Writing the definitions of what is holy and what is not. When exactly did we as a society move so far from the truth that we actually began to believe that this was a proper endeavor for fallen humanity? No man, woman, child or man-made "religion" defines what is holy. Only God defines what is holy.

I am convinced that this is the single largest obstacle to many people coming to faith in Christ...they want to be completely autonomous rather than acknowledge their subservience to a transcendent God. We want to be able to define for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. Of course, we do not only want to create these definitions for ourselves, but we want others to be bound by them too. After all, we expect others o live up to our sense of morality.

God told Adam and Eve that they had full reign over the Garden of Eden with one narrow exception, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Yet when the serpent promised them that eating of the tree would make them "Like God," they both partook and suffered the consequence. The chief sin from the very beginning was trying to replace God's authority with human autonomy. We want to put ourselves in place of God. That is what Adam and Eve did and it is precisely what Rev. Guess is asking to do in the realm of defining holiness.

Humility requires us to acknowledge that it is not all about us. There is a power greater than ourselves to whom we are subject. That power defines holiness, morality and truth. We must be willing to bow to that authority's determinations, even if we want something different. God bless.

Memorial Day

2010-05-31T09:32:00.001-05:00

"Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
...And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!"

That is the little known fourth stanza of "The Star Spangled Banner" by Francis Scott Key, the poem that became our National Anthem. On this Memorial Day, please pray for everyone who defends freedom. My father lost his entire flight crew in Vietnam. Every year on this day I thank God that he was spared and also thank Him for the sacrifice those men made.

Slowing down on the blogs

2010-05-31T08:59:00.003-05:00

You may have noticed that I have not been posting to the blog as often as I used to. For that I apologize. The reason is that I simply do not have as much time as I used to, but for good reason. In addition to trying to be a good husband, a father to two children, my obligations to my local church and my "day job," I have recently enrolled in seminary. I am not going along the path to become a pastor. Actually, I am pursuing a Master of Arts degree in Christian Philosophy and Apologetics. My calling is to be a teacher and an apologist, not a pastor. Fortunately, there are plenty of writing assignments while pursuing this degree, so perhaps I will post portions of them from time to time along with other periodic reflections. Stay tuned. In the meantime, I do try to make regular posts on the TMM Facebook page, so click on the link to the right if you want to stay up to date on all things concerning this ministry!

Some Things Never Change

2010-04-27T08:31:00.002-05:00

April 18, 2010:
“Tale-Yax was walking behind a man and a woman on 144th Street in the Jamaica section of Queens around 6 a.m. April 18 when the couple got into a fight that became physical, according to police, who pieced together what happened from surveillance footage and interviews with area residents.

“Tale-Yax was stabbed several times when he intervened to help the woman, NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said. She and the other man fled in different directions, and Tale-Yax pursued the man before collapsing. Authorities are searching for the man and woman.”

“The homeless man lay face down, unmoving, on the sidewalk outside an apartment building, blood from knife wounds pooling underneath his body.

“One person passed by in the early morning. Then another, and another. Video footage from a surveillance camera shows at least seven people going by, some turning their heads to look, others stopping to gawk. One even lifted the homeless man's body, exposing what appeared to be blood on the sidewalk underneath him, before walking away.

“It wasn't until after the 31-year-old Guatemalan immigrant had been lying there for nearly an hour that emergency workers arrived, and by then, it was too late.”

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_dying_and_ignored

Approximately 30 AD:
In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"

The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."

Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."

Luke 10:30-37

--------------------------------------

I wish I could remember who said it, but there is a quote that says something along the lines of the following:

“The fallenness of man is at once the most independently verifiable fact and yet the most willfully resisted truth.”

As this story shows us, some things never change. I wonder how many people who are lambasting those who walked by would actually have done any differently if they were in that position. We all like to think we would do better, but usually when we are put to the test, we fail.

In this case, I guarantee you that most of the people who walked by convinced themselves that this person was simply drunk, or had chosen that place to fall asleep and therefore did nothing. In fact they are probably still justifying their actions to themselves this morning. The fallen human soul has an incredible ability to justify some of the most atrocious acts we carry out, acts that we would condemn if we saw them in others.

Everything about this story is tragic. But the sad ending is that most people reading this story will condemn the actions of the passers by without realizing that this is but one more example of mankind’s fallen nature, and this event really should cause them to look inside themselves. People don’t like self-reflection, at least not when it leads to self-condemnation. But that is often the first step in the Christian gospel.

Crossing the Boundary Stones

2010-04-26T10:31:00.003-05:00

“And here at the outset I must deal with an unpleasant business. It seems to the layman that in the Church of England we often hear from our priests’ doctrine which is not Anglican Christianity. It may depart from Anglican Christianity in either of two ways: 1) It may be so ‘broad’ or ‘liberal’ or ‘modern’ that it in fact excludes any real Supernaturalism and thus ceases to be Christian at all. 2) It may, on the other hand, be Roman. It is not, of course, for me to define to you what Anglican Christianity is – I am your pupil, not your teacher. But I insist that wherever you draw the lines, bounding lines must exist, beyond which your doctrine will cease either to be Anglican or to be Christian: and I suggest also that the lines come a great deal sooner than many modern priests think. I think it is your duty to fix the lines clearly in your own minds: and if you wish to go beyond them you must change your profession.”
(C. S. Lewis, Christian Apologetics in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics)

This advice applies far broader than just the Anglican Church. What makes you a "Christian"? In order for that word to have any meaning there must be boundary lines that define it. If a Christian is "x", then by definition that means he or she is not "not x." Truth is by definition exclusive. We must heed Paul's warnings in Ephesians to maintain unity, but the quest for unity cannot go so far as to make us universalist. Many of Christ's claims were exclusive. He is the way, the truth and the life, not a way, a truth and a life. We must be unified within certain boundaries, but a boundary-less Christianity is no Christianity at all.

There are pastors in Christian denominations today who deny the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, the exclusiveness of Jesus' atoning death or even the existence of a real, personal God. Echoing C.S. Lewis, I ask these pastors why they maintain their affiliation with Christianity? There are organizations (such as the Unitarian Universalists) who would openly welcome their theology. Why continue to affiliate yourself with an organization whose precepts you do not accept instead of joining one with which you do?

Unfortunately, too many Christian denominations are tolerating this type of behavior. In our effort for unity we refuse to hold people accountable when they step over those boundary stones. We can have an open and honest discussion of what those boundaries should be. But the postmodern approach taken by many Christians today is simply to let everyone define their own boundaries, until we end up with a hodge podge group of people all claiming unity but with no uniformity whatsoever.

What makes someone American? They must have been born in the United States or gone through the citizenship process. What makes someone a lawyer? They must have gone through law school, passed the bar exam and been licensed by their state. What makes someone a member of a fraternity? They must have gone through the pledge process and been accepted into the group by the brotherhood. What makes someone a Christian? Do we have an answer? Every label requires a definition. Why are we so afraid to talk about the definition of Christianity?

This isn't insensitivity. It is common sense. I am not saying that you must believe the precepts of Christianity. What you choose to believe is up to you (although you must also accept the consequences of your choice). Believe what you want. I will defend your right to your honestly held beliefs. I may disagree with you and would love to have the opportunity to discuss it, but I am not going to force you into anything against your will. But I am saying that if you want to call yourself "Christian," then you are declaring that you accept at least the basic precepts that the term is supposed to evoke. If Christianity has no boundaries then it is only a synonym for "humanity." It seems that many "Christian" churches today want to be the Church of Humanity rather than the Church of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps you think this is desirable. Perhaps you believe that anyone who calls themself "Christian" should be entitled to use that label. But as I mentioned before it is unbiblical. It also makes true evangelism impossible. How do you tell someone about Christ? Which Christ? If we cannot even agree on the answer to that basic question then we cannot agree on our message. This leads to confusion and eventually the death of your group identity.

Jesus welcomed sinners, but he still required that they come to Him on God's terms, not theirs. As his emmissaries, we must do the same. Where will you set the boundaries?

The New Age Dilemma

2010-04-15T10:04:00.002-05:00

For anyone who does not know, "New Age" refers to a loosly structured collection of beliefs that finds its roots in many of the doctrines of eastern religions such as Hinduism or Buddhism. It also has a pantheistic or panentheistic focus. I do not intend to go into a prolonged discussion of the many nuances of the New Age, but a few summary points are needed in order to understand the points I would like to make.

"New Age" is a broad term that can refer to many different beliefs systems that share a general common foundation but may differ on quite a few particulars. Basically, they adopt the eastern belief that "all is one." When you look at another individual you believe that there are two persons there. There is an "I" and a "you." In reality, according to New Agers, all of reality is only "one." This whole perception of differences between you and another person or you and a tree or anything else in the universe is really an illusion. In reality we are all part of this one unified divine nature. Through various techniques we can escape this illusion of individuality. Most New Agers believe in some form of reincarnation, such that this escape from individuality can come over several lifetimes. Also, a new age of enlightenment is coming, sometimes referred to as the "Age of Aquarius" (hence the title "New Age").

That is a very broad outline of a diverse system, but it will do to illustrate two points I would like to make.

The first point deals with a logical test for truth called the test of "undeniability." Basically, this test says that if it is impossible to deny something, then it must be true. The classic example is the denial of your own existence. Think of the freshman philosophy student who asks his professor, "How do I know that I exist?" The classic response from the professor is, "And whom shall I say is asking?" You cannot make the statement "I do not exist" without using the word "I." But the moment you say "I" in formulating your question, you are assuming there is an "I" asking the question. You assume your own existence in your attempt to deny it. Therefore, your existence is undeniable and must be true.

A slight twist to this analysis applies to the New Age. New Agers deny that they are individuals, instead believing that everyone is part of of the same unified whole. The deny the "I"/"you" dichotomy. But again, in saying "I am part of a unified one" the New Ager is assuming that there is an individual "I" making the statement. Even if we were to rephrase the statement as "I believe there are no individuals but rather just one unified whole" the statement still assumes the existence of an "I." New Age beliefs fail the test of undeniability. They attempt to deny something, not realizing that in their attempt they are affirming the very thing they are trying to deny. This is a fundamental problem with New Age philosophy at its core. The same could be said for other eastern religions that invoke the same concept.

A second problem stems from the pantheistic aspects of New Age beliefs. It is not just that all is one, but that "one" is divine. Therefore, if all is "one" and "one" is divine, then all is divine. In more lay terms, everyone and everything is God.

In this respect New Agers deny that they are atheistic. They may have a different concept of God than theists, but they still believe in God. Logically, though, their position amounts to atheism. Atheists deny the existence of God because they do not believe the evidence supports that there is a transcendent being; i.e., a being that exists above the rest of us. The theist would say that reality is like two floors in a building. We live on the first floor and God lives above us on the second. The atheist denies that there is a second floor. The ground level is all there is.

Now look at the logical ramifications of the New Age position. They claim that there is this higher level to reality called the "divine." But by making everyone part of that divine, they elevate all of reality to that higher level. In essence they take everything from the first floor and move it up to the second. But in the end all of reality still exists on only one level. There is no transcendent God because no aspect of reality transcends any other. Logically speaking, then, New Age belief is the equivalent of atheism. This is not a realization that most New Agers would accept, but it is the logical outworking of their philosophy. In their quest for spirituality they actually deny the very thing they claim to be seeking.

Far more could be said abotu New Agers than is included in this short post, but ultimately their other beliefs make little difference if the foundation upon which they are built collapses. The New Age movement is growing in America today. Therefore, Christians must make an effort to understand its beliefs and logically evaluate its position. God bless.

The Big Bang Machine

2010-03-30T10:24:00.002-05:00

I just read an interesting article about the world's largest particle accelerator/atom smasher underneath the Swiss-French border at Geneva. At 17 miles long this thing is a monster. Essentially scientists smash proton beams together at really high velocities then watch to see what happens.

Some people fear that these scientists could create a black hole and suck the entire Earth into it. I can't say one way or another how likely that possibility is, so I will just continue to pray that it doesn't happen.

A couple of things interested me about this article. First was that the link to the article from Yahoo! called the accelerator a "Big Bang Machine." That line made me wonder if scientists were trying to create a machine that would simulate the Big Bang itself; i.e., a machine that attempts to create time, space and matter. Now that would be interesting.

Of course, when I clicked on the link and saw the article I learned that they were talking about the particle accelerator that I already knew about. If you read carefully you will see that scientists are attempting to simulate "conditions nearing those after the Big Bang" (emphasis added), not the Big Bang itself. Still exciting stuff, but kind of a let down after the expectations engendered by the "Big Bang Machine" title.

Still, the article was fascinating. Scientists are trying to discover why anti-matter exists and whether they can find evidence for the theoretical Higgs boson, a particle that gives mass to other particles. The problem with particle physics, though, is that the movement of particles is unpredictable. Scientists can only speak in terms of probabilities when it comes to the motion/velocity of particles. So actually coordinating the collision of particles is pretty tough. Particles don't necessarily do what we want them to do.

These scientists overcame this problem by using "powerful superconducting magnets to force the two beams to cross, creating collisions and showers of particles." When I read this, two things came to mind:

(1) This seems to support the conclusion that even at the quantum level events are "caused." In other words, the scientists caused particles to move in the direction they wanted by using the magnets. It is still a matter of probability, but there does appear to be a cause/effect relationship. This seems to run afoul of people who argue that the universe does not require a cause by resorting to the fact that the initial moments of the universe were governed by quantum mechanics rather than Newtonian mechanics. Even in quantum mechanics events are still caused. I admittedly may be overreaching what the evidence from the magnets supports, here, as the article only contained limited information, but it was my intial impression. More specifics as to the methodology used by the scientists would confirm whether they actually helped cause a collision.

(2) If scientists needed a 17 mile long accelerator to get the beams "up to speed" and had to use powerful magnets to force them to travel in the correct direction, I was wondering what caused these particles to collide immediately after the Big Bang when the universe wasn't 17 miles long and large magnets didn't exist. Again, the article has very little information. The only thing I can think of is that the magnets simulate the effect of gravity upon the particles after the Big Bang. Because the universe was so compact the attraction of gravity was as strong as if the particles had been accelerated over 17 miles. Also, because the universe was so small it limited the space for the particles to escape each other thereby making collisions more likely. But I would be interested in talking to someone who knows more about particle accelerators and how they work to explore this in more detail.

Examine the Temple of Your Heart

2010-03-29T09:43:00.002-05:00

Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. "It is written," he said to them, "'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'" Matthew 21:12-13

The temple complex was supposed to be dedicated to the worship of God, but the money changers were using it to engage in commerce. Too often we take was is supposed to be dedicated to God and allow it to be dominated instead by the desires and lusts of mankind.

The Christian's heart is the temple of the Holy Spirit. It is supposed to be dedicated to God. What type of things are you allowing to enter in? Jesus calls mere thoughts sinful because He knows that we indulge in thoughts. It is not just that we see an attractive person walk by. Where do you allow your mind to wander afterwards? It is not just seeing your neighbor's new 30 foot boat. What fantasies do you allow yourself to indulge in afterwards?

Is God still first in your heart or do you allow lust, the love of money, or any other non-Biblical desire to take His place?

The Roman Catholic Bank Account

2010-03-28T21:09:00.002-05:00

A few months ago I was listening to a homily during a Roman Catholic Mass. For the uninitiated "homily" is the name that Roman Catholics use to refer to a sermon. The priest was explaining an analogy he heard as a child that was used to help explain theology. The person who told him this analogy said that salvation is like a bank account. When God gives us saving grace, he makes an initial deposit into that account. Throughout the rest of our lives we either make deposits or withdrawals from that bank account based upon what we do with our lives. Venial sins are only small withdrawals. Mortal sins close the account completely leaving a zero balance. If we have a sufficient balance when we die then we get to go to Heaven. If not, we go to Hell.

If you were to peruse the Internet for Protestants talking about Roman Catholicism you would probably come across many similar analogies describing Catholic theology. Most Protestants describe Catholicism as "faith plus works." For them, this priest's analogy sums up Catholic theology very well. So the next words out of this priest's mouth may shock them. After describing this analogy he said, "That is bad theology."

That's right, this priest denied the "faith plus works" analogy. Some of you may react to this by saying, "This priest obviously was not preaching true Catholic theology. If he was, he would have embraced that analogy." But this is partially why I encourage people to learn about a position from someone advocating it, not just by listening to what its opponents have to say.

Imagine how frustrated you get when someone says that Protestants believe that once you accept Jesus as your savior, you are free to sin to your heart's content. You can live as indulgent of a lifestyle as you choose with no eternal repercussions, so go ahead and sin!

True, there are some people in this world who think like that, but they are not really saved. The vast majority of Protestant theologians would tell you that if you have truly accepted Christ then the Holy Spirit begins to change who you are. None of us will be perfect, but we are free FROM sin not free TO sin. Anyone who has the attitude that they are free to go on sinning is essentially spitting in Christ's face, defying His will for their life, and is not truly saved.

Imagine how you feel when people continuously repeat that Protestants believe you are free to sin as much as you want and therefore Protestantism is a morally repugnant theology. You probably want to scream, "That is just not true!" It is a straw man argument where someone makes up a caricature of their opponent's position that is not true then proceeds to tear apart this false version of the position, all the while telling people that the caricature is the opponent's true position. It can be extremely frustrating.

If you can identify with that, perhaps you can begin to understand how Roman Catholics feel when Protestants constantly describe their beliefs as "faith plus works." That may be what Catholicism looks like through a pair of Protestant glasses, but it is not how any Catholic theologian would describe their faith.

Before I go any further, let me be clear that I am not Catholic. I disagree with much of their theology. I believe their elevation of Tradition to the same level of authority as scripture is extremely dangerous. Papal infallibility is directly contradictory to Romans 3:10-18. The Immaculate Conception of Mary contradicts Luke 1:47 in which Mary says that she needs a savior. The perpetual virginity of Mary requires a real stretch in your interpretation of the many passages about Jesus' brothers and sisters and requires us to virtually ignore the word "until" in Matthew 1:25 (i.e., Joseph did not have union with Mary "until" Jesus was born). The doctrine of transubstantiation ignores Jesus referring to the wine as the "fruit of the vine" even AFTER he has referred to it as His blood. Finally, asking the saints to pray for us goes against God's command not to "consult the dead on behalf of the living" (Isaiah 8:19). These are only a few examples of my many differences with Catholic theology.

I am not Catholic and I sincerely doubt that anyone will ever convince me to become one. That being said, I disagree with many Protestant theologies as well. I remain unconvinced that R.C. Sproul's strict Calvinism can adequately explain the compatibility of a loving God and all the suffering in the world. I believe that the Episcopal structure of church government finds its origin in a power structure that began in the second century with Ignatius and was not the way the first century church was organized. I do not accept the Pentecostal view that speaking in tongues is the first gift of the Holy Spirit.

But I also do not believe that these differences of opinion should separate us. Salvation is the free gift of God. That is what grace is all about. We do not earn our salvation. God gives it to us. I believe this to be true. R.C. Sproul believes this to be true. Episcopals believe this to be true. Pentecostals believe this to be true. And believe it or not, Roman Catholics believe this to be true. If you accept salvation as God's free and undeserved gift, you are saved. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). If you believe this, you are saved. I believe that Roman Catholics believe this scripture to be true.

The misunderstanding lies in the phrase "not by works." Protestants look at all the rituals Catholics follow (such as Reconciliation, the Eucharist, etc.), hear Catholics say that these sacraments are means to receive God's grace and conclude that the Catholic believes that they must perform certain deeds in order to be saved. However, this is looking at Catholic theology through a Protestant lens. We use our Protestant understanding of "grace" and insert it into the Catholic teaching. Low and behold we conclude that the Catholic believes in (at least partially) salvation based upon works.

But we are saved by what is in our heart. If an individual's heart contains true faith then that individual is saved. But if this is true, shouldn't we ask what is in the Catholic's heart before we decide whether or not he or she is saved? This requires us to ask sincerely what THEY believe, not what we think they believe. This requires listening. Listen to what Catholics say they believe. Don't assume you know based upon your own interpretation of Catholic teachings.

Please allow me to illustrate. When Protestants hear that Catholics think they receive God's grace by participating in reconciliation, we hear, "By confessing their sins to a priest, Catholics believe that God grants them salvation." But this is not true.

Catholics believe in two different types of grace: saving grace and sanctifying grace. Again, I do not agree that scripture teaches this two tiered system of grace, but the purpose of our analysis is only to determine if Catholics believe that salvation is by God's free gift, however they believe the particulars work out.

When a person comes to accept that Jesus died on the cross for their sins, God grants that person saving grace. This is a one-time transaction. When this grace is given, the individual's sins are forgiven. The later sacraments do not grant saving grace. God freely gives saving grace to a person only once.

However, Catholics also believe in something called "sanctifying grace." Imagine if you wanted to live on Mars. You do not have the physical capabilities to do so. You would have to undergo a number of physiological changes in order to make this possible. Similarly, even after receiving saving grace humans lack the spiritual capability to exist in heaven. We need to undergo a number of spiritual changes in order to make this possible. The debt owed from our sins is no longer an obstacle to our entrance into heaven, but our lack of spiritual capability is. After we receive saving grace, God makes these spiritual changes in us through the free gift of sanctifying grace.

God grants sanctifying grace via the sacraments. Through this process we become more and more like Christ. This is very similar to the Protestant concept of sanctification. However, Catholics do not believe that you MUST participate in these sacraments in order to receive sanctifying grace. God does grant sanctifying grace through these sacraments, but sanctifying grace is God's free gift to grant to whomever He chooses however He chooses. This is what has led the Catholic Church in recent years to acknowledge that it is possible for those outside the Catholic Church to go to Heaven.

So whereas Protestants speak of salvation and sanctification, Catholics would speak of saving grace and sanctifying grace. The concepts, while not identical, are actually far more similar than most Protestants understand.

According to Catholic theology, people do not "earn" sanctifying grace. If a Protestant is feeling overwhelmed by the temptations of the world we pray for God's sanctification. We may find it in any number of places: a Bible passage, a prayer group, a particular sermon, etc. There is no end to the things that God may use to strengthen us. If a Catholic is feeling overwhelmed by the temptations of the world they partake of the sacraments. They believe that God sanctifies them through those activities. But this no more means that they are "working" for their salvation than a Protestant is earning his or her salvation by asking God to give them strength to be a true disciple of Christ.

While it is true that Catholics believe you can lose your salvation, so do many Protestants (Methodists, for example). What Catholics or Methodists call "losing your salvation" Presbyterians or most Baptists would say is someone who was never truly saved to begin with.

Personally, I find this to be a matter of perspective. I believe in the perseverance of the saints. This is because God is timeless. He created time and therefore exists outside of time (hence the Bible's description of God as "eternal"). It is nonsensical to say, from God's perspective, that someone "lost" his or her salvation. The events of 200 years ago are just as present to God as the events of 200 years into the future. God does not exist linearly, one day after another as we do. He exists simultaneously in all times. Therefore, God saves people in His ever-present "now." He does not wait to see if you maintain your faith because He does not "wait" for anything.

Catholics and Methodists think of God in linear terms. Their theology assumes that God exists in the same linear sense as we do, but this is a false assumption. In order to accommodate free will they believe we must be free to reject God. But if we exist within time and God exists outside of time, we are free to exercise our freedom within time while God is freely sovereign outside of it. There is no past, present or future to God. There is only His ever present "now."

However, while I believe this is an incorrect theology, I do not believe this difference of opinion disqualifies anyone from salvation. The key question for salvation according to Ephesians 2:8-9 is whether you trust God alone for your salvation and not your own strength. Despite the plethora of misconceptions that exist among Protestants about Roman Catholic theology, I believe (based upon Roman Catholic sources) that modern Catholics do trust solely in Jesus Christ for their salvation.

That being said, I think there are some dangerous things about Catholic theology. Your average person in the pew is not going to open up a theology textbook, and the structure of the Catholic system is ripe for misinterpretation. The average Catholic parishoner who hears that he or she should confess their sins to a priest may assume that this is something they must "do" in order to achieve salvation. Therefore, while I believe the official teaching of the Catholic Church is adequate to be classified as "Christian," it would not surprise me in the least if there are many parishoners who are trusting in their own strength. And as I said before, I do not believe that the Bible supports the notion that God grants sanctifying grace through the Catholic sacraments.

However, I believe it is a mistake for Protestants to exclude Roman Catholics from the broad pantheon of Christianity. I know that this will not make me particularly popular among my conservative Christian brethren. I can only encourage you to investigate Catholic Theology for yourselves using Catholic sources. I recommend "Theology for Beginners" by F.J. Sheed.

The average Protestant website will tell you that Catholics believe that faith in Christ is only the first step toward salvation. Beyond that, Catholics must earn their way into Heaven by their deeds. A careful examination of Catholic theology, however, shows that this is not true. It is perfectly understandable that the average Catholic grows increasingly frustrated by the Protestant apologist repeatedly caricaturizing their position as "faith plus works." They can only scream, "That is not true!" so many times before they throw up their hands in exasperation.

After the homily, I spoke to the priest who rejected the bank account analogy. I praised him for explaining Roman Catholic theology far better than most. I wished some of my fellow Protestants could have been sitting in the pews. Many misconceptions could have been cleared up. The priest said he believed that if the Catholic Church had sat down and talked to Martin Luther instead of demonizing him we might not be separated today. I don't know if he is right or not, but clearly the schism was handled poorly. Raw emotions run deep and I believe they may still be dividing us today. Many Protestants and Catholics do not want to admit that we may be part of the same body of Christ. This leads to them setting up straw man versions of each other's positions, probably genuinely believing the straw men to be true. But if we are ever to overcome these differences we must listen to each other.

I do not agree with Catholics, but I sympathize with them and I believe they are brothers and sisters in Christ. I will continue to discuss with any Catholic why I believe many of their practices are mistaken, but I fully expect to see them in the next life (without having to wait through purgatory).

God bless you all.

The Devil Strikes While the Defenses are Down

2010-03-15T16:24:00.001-05:00

Forgive me if this post if filled with typographical errors. I got about 5 hours of sleep Thursday night followed by about 2 1/2 on Friday. Then in what I am convinced was a twisted joke designed to torment me, daylight savings time began Saturday night meaning I lost an hour of sleep that night too. Finally, I was supposed to be in Salisbury, Maryland by 8:00 this morning (about a 2 1/2 hour trip) so I woke up at 4:30 am to get ready and get out the door.

To add insult to injury, at about 6:45 am I was driving through Dover, Delaware when the "Check Engine" light came on in my car and the engine started sputtering. This was not good news. I pulled into a drug store and checked the oil. It was a little low but nothing that should have caused the problems I was having. Nevertheless, I waited until the store opened (at 7:00), bought a few quarts and filled it up. With a "glass is half full" sense of optimism I turned the car back on hoping that the check engine light would now be off. No such luck.

Now I needed to find a service station and hope that my car made it there without the transmission falling out the bottom. I found a place about a mile up the road (thank goodness for GPS) and arrived right when they opened (7:30). Considering Dover is over a hour from Salisbury, making it to my destination by 8:00 was not going to happen.

I will gladly give a free plug here to Winner Ford in Dover. The folks that work there were extremely courteous. They agreed to take a look at the car (even though it was not a Ford) and eventually gave me the diagnosis. I need some new ignition coils along with a whole slew of other items (I checked with a mechanic friend of mine afterward and all their recommendations were on the up and up; insert another generous plug here about Winner Ford's honesty). The bad news was that they did not have the parts in stock (a problem I have had repeatedly with my make of car no matter what service station I go to). The earliest they could get them in is tomorrow morning. So my car had to spend the night in Delaware, about an hour and 20 minutes from home. Rental car here I come.

Lest you start to believe that the purpose of this post is just one long rant about what a bad last few days I have had, let me reassure you that there is a point and I will try to get to it. The point is that I am tired. I am really tired. When I got home my two year old son wanted to use me as a jungle gym. When he was done I didn't think I would even be able to get up off the floor for a month.

It is times like these that are the most dangerous. When we are weakest we are most subject to temptation. This can occur when we are tired, angry or any other time when our defenses are down. I often tell my clients when their deposition is taken to beware of a common trick some lawyers use. I have seen lawyers deliberately speak in a very belittling tone. It is not so much in what they say (because that would show up in the transcript) as in how they say it. A really good lawyer will have this down to an art. The lawyer on the other side knows that people do not think before they speak when they are angry so they deliberately try to make my clients mad in hopes that they will say something in anger that will doom their case.

The same is true for Satan and the temptations of this world. Beware of the times when you are very tired or angry because it is then that the temptation to sin is strongest. Discipline yourself. When you get into one of these states, make every effort to get God on your brain. Use whatever method works best for you. Pray. Sing a hymn. Listen to a good lecture or sermon.

However you need to do it, fix your sights on Jesus. An idle mind is the devil's playground, but with Jesus blocking the door to your house, Satan won't be able to get in.

God bless you all.

The Free Gift of Grace

2010-03-10T12:52:00.001-05:00

There is a story about a group of Christian scholars sitting in a room debating what distinguishes Christianity from all other world religions when C.S. Lewis walked into the room. When the question was posed to Lewis he gave a one word answer, “Grace.”

I don’t know whether the story is true or not. But either way it is a profound answer. Only Christianity among all the world religions offers you eternal life as a free gift. You do not do anything to earn it. In fact, as an imperfect being you can never do enough to earn it. We do not “work” our way into the kingdom. God simply gives us the keys.

I am always perplexed by belief systems (such as Jehovah’s Witnesses) who claim to use the same scriptures as other Christian denominations. Even under the alternate “New World Translation” used by the Witnesses, there are some things about their theology that simply do not make sense.

Specifically, the Witnesses insert personal works into the salvation formula. Your eternal destiny is somehow tied into how good of a life you have lived here on Earth. This is admittedly a simplification and they would likely explain the salvation process in much more detail, going into how Jesus undid the effects of Adam’s sin, etc. But after they have gone into all this detail, the conclusion they arrive at still ends up based in your personal good deeds. The question is whether this conclusion is supported by their own scriptures.

A couple of passages from the Bible come to mind. In order to be as fair as possible to the Jehovah’s Witnesses (because they translate the scriptures differently) I have copied the two passages from the New World Translation so that it is clear that the translation does not alter the ultimate conclusion:

PASSAGE #1: Matthew 20:1-16
“For the kingdom of the heavens is like a man, a householder, who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vinyeard. When he had agreed with the workers for a de•nar´i•us a day, he sent them forth into his vineyard. Going out also about the third hour, he saw others standing unemployed in the marketplace; and to those he said, ‘YOU also, go into the vineyard, and whatever is just I will give YOU.’ So off they went. Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour and did likewise. Finally, about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing, and he said to them, ‘Why have YOU been standing here all day unemployed?’ They said to him, ‘Because nobody has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘YOU too go into the vineyard.’

“When it became evening, the master of the vineyard said to his man in charge, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, proceeding from the last to the first.’ When the eleventh-hour men came, they each received a de•nar´i•us. So, when the first came, they concluded they would receive more; but they also received pay at the rate of a de•nar´i•us. On receiving it they began to murmur against the householder and said, ‘These last put in one hour’s work; still you made them equal to us who bore the burden of the day and the burning heat!’ But in reply to one of them he said, ‘Fellow, I do you no wrong. You agreed with me for a de•nar´i•us, did you not? Take what is yours and go. I want to give to this last one the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I want with my own things? Or is your eye wicked because I am good?’ In this way the last ones will be first, and the first ones last.”

Passage #2: Luke 23:39-43
But one of the hung evildoers began to say abusively to him: “You are the Christ, are you not? Save yourself and us.” In reply the other rebuked him and said: “Do you not fear God at all, now that you are in the same judgment? And we, indeed, justly so, for we are receiving in full what we deserve for things we did; but this [man] did nothing out of the way.” And he went on to say: “Jesus, remember me when you get into your kingdom.” And he said to him: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.”

In these two passages we can see a descending scale. Jesus’ parable in Matthew speaks to God’s sovereignty. The denarius is a metaphor for the salvation granted to all who come to Christ (the householder). Regardless of when in your life you come to Christ or how much work you put in thereafter, all true believers are granted the same salvation.

The parable includes five groups of workers:

(1) Those who worked 12 hours
(2) Those who worked 9 hours
(3) Those who worked 6 hours
(4) Those who worked 3 hours
(5) Those who worked only 1 hour

All of these workers agreed to work for the householder. But despite the different amounts of work they each put in, all five groups received the same payment. The amount the received had nothing to do with the amount of work they put it. They all agreed to come to the vineyard and work it, but that alone was enough for the owner to graciously give them the reward.

The same is true of Christ. True believers agree to put their faith in Christ. Part of that means working for the kingdom. After all, Jesus is not only our Savior, He is also our Lord. When you accept Him as your Lord that means you are agreeing to do His will.

So when we become believers we agree to work the vineyard. But we have no idea how long we will be working. God may call some of us home after 30 years. For others perhaps it will only be 30 minutes. Jesus does not give us our “denarius” based upon the amount of work we put it but rather based solely on our acceptance of Him as both Savior and Lord.

Some people may object by pointing out that even those who came at the eleventh hour still put in one hour’s worth of work. But that is the point of the passage from Luke. The robber on the cross next to Christ admits that he did nothing in his life worthy of reward. Yet when he asked Jesus to remember him, he was asking the householder to enter the vineyard. Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” Jesus gave him his denarius.

This passage allows us to add a sixth category to the parable:

(6) Those who worked 0 hours

Yet even the robber in this sixth category was given his denarius.

The New World Translation attempts to alter the conclusion of my argument by inserting the comma after “today” rather than before it (so that Jesus is saying that he is telling the robber “today” rather than telling the robber that he will be in paradise “today”), but ultimately it does not matter. It makes little difference when the robber would enter paradise. What matters is when he died. He was in the process of being executed when Jesus said he would receive his denarius. The opportunity to do good work for the kingdom is gone. All he can do at this point is profess his faith. If his works were to be evaluated by God after his death, the balance sheet is certainly going to come out in favor of condemnation for this man. Yet Jesus invited him to paradise.

I have heard Jehovah’s Witnesses say that Jehovah will evaluate how they lived their life and decide their fate for the afterlife. Regardless of how you feel about any other issue the Witnesses raise, these two passages alone (which I have taken from their translation of the scriptures) should cause them to take a serious second look at their theology. When your eternal destiny is at stake, you must be very careful to ensure that your worldview is consistent with what you claim as its foundation.

Christ does not weigh your good deeds versus your bad deeds and decide whether you are worthy of salvation. Christ said this with His own tongue. The fact is that God is perfect. Unless you are perfect, any eternal communion with God would create a stain upon His holiness. ANY bad work, even one, is enough to disqualify you from eternity with God. Only by having Christ’s righteousness imputed to us can we have any hope of heaven. If you continue to depend upon your own righteousness, you will be in for a surprise when you stand before the judgment seat and learn that you are not as good of a person as you may like to believe. Accept God’s free gift in the spirit in which it is offered. Come to the throne in humility and with a trembling heart and you can be saved.

God bless.

Not just our Savior; He's also our Lord

2010-03-08T11:13:00.003-05:00

I just came across a fantastic (and brief) article on sanctification that I encourage all Christians to read. Jesus is not just our Savior. He is also our Lord. That means we are not just called to accept His sacrifice on our behalf. We are also expected to obey Him. Check out the article:

Commentary: Reality Check

New Pictures

2010-03-07T20:49:00.002-05:00

Check out the TMM Facebook page where we have just posted some new pictures of TMM President Ken Coughlan teaching a class on Einstein's General Relativity using some entertaining illustrations.

Refined by Fire

2010-03-04T10:24:00.002-05:00

"These have come so that your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed." 1 Peter 1:7.

Sometimes we feel abandoned by God when we are being refined by fire. But Peter encouraged first century Christians to embrace a positive truth that could help them endure. Nobody enjoys suffering when we are going through it. But while we are in the throes of despair, as long as we maintain our faith in Jesus, we can know that we have hope. If you endure strife with your faith intact, your perseverance can reassure you that your faith is true and that you have a glorious future awaiting you. Even if you are facing a type of suffering that will plague you for the remainder of this life, at least you know that there is an end in sight because this life is not all that there is. Without faith in Christ, suffering would truly be cause for despondency because life-long suffering would be existence-long suffering.

Thankfully, in Christ this is not the case. Most of the harships we face are temporary in nature. For some people, though, there is no end in sight within this earthly existence. Even these people, though, can find some degree of solace in Jesus, a solace that this world cannot offer them.

God bless you all.

Special Prayer Request

2010-02-05T16:33:00.002-05:00

Tom B. is my daughter's drama teacher. At her class this past weekend he asked me to get the word out and get as many people praying for him as possible. Last fall he had to have surgery to repair a torn rotator cuff. Apparently it has now re-torn. But in the process of some testing he was having for the re-tear, his doctors actually discovered that he has tumors on his lungs. He would greatly appreciate it if we could get as many people praying for him as possible, so I ask anyone reading this to please pray for Tom regularly. Put his name on your prayer lists at church and ask your friends to pray as well. E-mail, phone, do whatever you have to do. Just please get as many of God's children as possible praying for Tom.

Thank you all. And please check out the "Prayer Network" page on the Ten Minas website for more people who have asked for your prayers. God bless.

Skepticism's Naturalistic Bias

2010-02-03T19:20:00.005-05:00

The Skeptics Society is an organization that describes itself as "a scientific and educational organization of scholars, scientists, historians, magicians, professors and teachers, and anyone curious about controversial ideas, extraordinary claims, revolutionary ideas, and the promotion of science." Their purported mission is "to serve as an educational tool for those seeking clarification and viewpoints on those controversial ideas and claims." On their "About Us" page they attempt to clarify the definition of a "skeptic." According to the Society:

"...skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are 'skeptical,' we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe."

As far as this definition goes, I would label myself as a skeptic. After all I do not believe in the resurrection of Christ as a matter of blind dogma. I have evaluated the evidence and firmly believe that there is "compelling evidence" that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. I appreciate that such a claim requires extraordinary evidence. But as the Skeptics Society definition says, I do not go into the investigation "closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real" and I believe that compelling evidence demonstrates that this extraordinary claim is in fact true.

People who label themselves as "skeptics" (or "free thinkers," as the latest fad seems to be) like to think that they approach questions with true objectivity, not bringing their own presuppositions or biased worldview to bear on the question. In reality, I believe that so-called skeptics are just as influenced by biased presuppositions as they claim their opponents are. Specifically, their history betrays a naturalistic bias. They are not "closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real" so long as a naturalistic explanation for that phenomenon can be found. If the evidence points to a supernatural explanation, skeptics will discard it on that ground alone.

Take the following quote, also taken from the Skeptics Society's "About Us" page:

"Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement." (emphasis added)

According to this comment, skepticism limits itself to evaluating only "natural phenomena." If that were true, it would make perfect sense to limit your search to "naturalistic explanations." After all, the definition of a "natural phenomena" is something with a "naturalistic explanation."

But skeptics do not limit their opinions to natural phenomena. Take a few examples from the Skeptics Society's website.

Their home page has the following two quotes:

"Shermer exposes frauds and debunks paranormal quackery from acupuncture to out-of-body experiences, and more on his YouTube Channel!"

"In this 14-minute introduction to skepticism, Dr. Michael Shermer (Executive Director of the Skeptics Society) discusses why people believe weird things and elaborates on the power of belief systems."

Does this sound like Dr. Shermer (the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine) is limiting himself to explaining "natural phenomena"? Isn't "paranormal" by definition not "naturalistic"?

Their website also contains a book review of 36 Arguments for the Existence of God, a fictional story by Rebecca Newberger Goldstein which, contrary to the appearance of its title, actually uses fiction as an attempt to disprove the existence of God. Look at some of the comments that found their way into the review:

"As is suggested in Goldstein’s title, many individuals still turn to a work of fiction called the bible for their answers to life’s big questions."

"36 Arguments for the Existence of God not only delivers what the freethinking reader wants from a philosophical novel, but is a must-read for any skeptic who wishes to arm him/herself with thoughtful ammunition in the ongoing battle to end religious irrationality."

Again, isn't the existence of God a supernatural question?

Finally, Volume 15, Number 3 of Skeptic Magazine contains an article titled "Magic, Skepticism & Belief: An Empirical Study on What Magicians Believe About the Paranormal and letters titled "When Religions Go Bad", "Christianity and the Southern Cross" and "I Could Be Wrong About God, Could You?"

Please understand that I am not suggesting that people who label themselves skeptics should not chime in on these topics. Of course they should. The marketplace of ideas demands that competing viewpoints be given equal voice so that intelligent people can evaluate them on their merits. The problem is that skeptics worship at the altar of the scientific method and only open themselves up to naturalistic explanations. That is fine if you are limiting yourself to evaluating natural phenomena. But they do not limit their inquiry in this way. They equally delve into the realm of the supernatural, but they continue to limit themselves to naturalistic explanations.

This is an unjustified methodological limitation. If your goal is to discover truth you have to broaden your horizons to include both natural and supernatural potential explanations, all the while being true to the original definition of skepticism that "we must see compelling evidence before we believe." But nothing in the requirement for compelling evidence per se eliminates supernatural explanations. I understand that most skeptics probably believe that they are open to these possibilities, but their comments often betray the truth.

The Skeptics Society admits that a skeptic looks only for "naturalistic explanations." That in and of itself shows why their methodology is inadequate for opening yourself up to all possibilities of "truth." If you are not interested in learning the truth and would rather go through life wearing a set of naturalistic blinders, that is certainly your prerogative. But if so then understand that you will never be able to arrive at answers in arenas for which your methodology is ill-suited.

The Wonders of God's Creation

2010-01-13T10:39:00.004-05:00

My 7 year old daughter asked for a telescope for Christmas so she could see Mars and she got a pretty nice one. Ever since she received the telescope a few weeks ago, I think I've benefitted from her gift as much as she has.

First of all, she and I have spent time together exploring the heavens, and Daddy/daughter time is one of the most rewarding gifts a father can receive. But believe it or not, at 37 years old the only telescope I had ever looked through was a little hand held telescope (like the ones you see pirates use) that I had as a child. I could see things across the room, but certainly not across the cosmos.

So when we went out that first night and pointed that powerful telescope at the moon, I was awestruck. You'd think I was the child who came running down the stairs to see all the presents under the tree on Christmas morning. The beauty of the textures that we could see on the moon's surface were staggering. This was no longer the bland circle in the sky on which (if you looked at it the right way) you could try to convince yourself that you were seeing a face. This was a place with mountains and valleys, with huge craters and enormous shadows. It truly was amazing.

Then the other night we went out again. I went out alone at first because I was having trouble lining up the telescope to see Mars (I later learned that the laser pointer was not properlly aligned; its fixed now). Mars was easy enough to pick out of the sky with your naked eye. I found out where Mars was supposed to be by checking an online sky chart (at Sky & Telescope's website; I highly recommend it to any sky watchers because it can show you what the sky will look like in your particular location for any given hour). After that it was pretty easy. Mars is the bright red dot amongst all the white dots in the sky.

Lining it up in the telescope was a different matter. I quickly learned the trick of starting with lower magnification lenses and progressively swapping out for more powerful ones (without moving the telescope in the slightest). That's not as easy as it sounds, because if the planet is not perfectly centered then you may lose it completely when you put in a more powerful lense. Eventually, though, I got the hang of it and got a pretty darn close look at Mars. I called my daughter and wife outside and we all got to see our closest neighboring planet (also pretty tricky considering it is moving through the sky, and the closer you get the quicker it moves out of frame).

This whole experience has been invaluable to me. I wish I could convey in words just how amazing it has been. Those of us who spend time preaching about God, whether we be pastors, evangelists, apologists or theologians, can all say over and over again that we are surrounded by miracles every day. Do you really understand how miraculous that tree is next to you? But the reality is that when we see something day in and day out we take it for granted. It becomes part of our every day experience. It is familiar and familiarity does not inspire awe.

But when we see something that is unfamiliar and yet incredibly remarkable, that can restore that sense of awe in us. God is awe inspiring. He is so far above us in quality that no comparison can even be made. When faced with Him, we should have no choice but to drop to our knees at the sheer magnitude of His glory. But even though we are surrounded by His glorious creation every day, we tend to ignore it.

So I want to encourage each and every one of you to take some time to explore part of God's creation that you are not familiar with, whether it be the heavenly cosmos, the highest peaks or the deep blue seas. I'm not saying you have to take deep sea diving lessons and a field trip to the Mariana trench. I didn't have to travel to space to be inspired by it. Maybe you can go to an Aquarium at a time when its not so busy or look through photographs taken by someone who has been to the summit of Everest. But taking the time to appreciate the wonder of some of the less familiar parts of God's creation may help you, at least for that moment, recapture the wonder of God Himself. I have been blessed enough to get a taste of that feeling lately, and I pray that you can as well.

BALTIMORE PRESBYTERY SEEKS TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE

2009-11-20T17:41:00.000-05:00

At its 837th stated meeting on Thursday, November 19, 2009, the Baltimore Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church (USA) voted to forward an overture to the denomination’s General Assembly seeking to redefine marriage as between “two people” rather than “one man and one woman.” This is an identical overture to what the Presbytery sent to the General Assembly two years ago and will be considered by the General Assembly at its meeting in 2010. The overture passed by a vote of 75 in favor and 62 opposed.

The overture seeks to amend four different sections of the PC(USA)’s Book of Order under the Directory for Worship. Six different passages in those sections refer to a “man” and a “woman,” all of which would be changed to either “two people” or “couple.” Prior to the meeting, the sessions from 13 churches in the Presbytery submitted an “Affirmation” stating their reasons for opposing the overture and affirming their theological position that marriage is reserved for one man and one woman. At the beginning of the meeting, a delegate from the floor asked Stated Clerk Vaughn Brown whether the Affirmation would be included in the minutes. Brown responded that because the Affirmation did not require any action to be taken, it would not be included. Opponents of the overture may have felt some degree of optimism when a motion to compel the Clerk to include the Affirmation in the minutes was passed by a voice vote. However, this vote did not foreshadow things to come.

When the time came to debate the overture, delegates on both sides of the issue made their points over a cacophony of rumbles of thunder as the heavens opened up from above. At times it appeared that the power could cut out at any moment.

When the debate was over, Jim Horn, pastor of Havre de Grace Presbyterian Church, raised a point of order. Specifically, he asked moderator Millie Krieder to declare the overture to be out of order, in part because the proposed changes could expose ministers to civil penalties by authorizing marriages that were illegal in most states (the Book of Order applies to all churches in the denomination, regardless of where they are located). Krieder cut Horn off before he could finish his comments, apparently misunderstanding that he was raising a point of order as to whether the overture should even be permitted to proceed to a vote in the first place, not debating its merits (the Presbytery had previously voted to limit comments during the debate to 2 minutes per participant, but no such limitation applied to points of order).

In the end, the vote was taken by ballot, but the results were not disclosed until approximately two hours later. In an outcome that surprised no one, the body voted to send the overture to the General Assembly.

COMMENTARY:
I was present at this meeting as a voting delegate from Grove Presbyterian Church in Aberdeen, and am truly saddened by the outcome. My grief does not come so much from my theological disagreement (for anyone who has been around TMM long enough, you know that I am opposed to same-sex marriage). Rather, the total lack of love for the denomination upset me. I have grown up in this denomination. I have great love for it. I was one of the speakers given two minutes in the spotlight to express my position on the overture at this meeting. But instead of presenting my theological position (many others had already expressed those views admirably), I spoke to the timing.

The PC(USA) is a wounded denomination. Churches are leaving in profound numbers. Disputes are arising in the courts over who has the right to churches’ property. Even in the churches that remain it seems like battle lines are being drawn. If you come across a wounded soldier on a battlefield, your response to him will demonstrate how you feel about him. If you regard him as your enemy, his wounded condition will give you an opportunity to attack. You will pounce on him while he is weak. This approach makes perfect sense if your goal is to kill this soldier. But if you love him, you will nurture him. You will bandage his wounds and give him time to heal.

The PC(USA) needs healing. Literally, we have just come out of a nationwide vote of all the Presbyteries over very similar issues to what the Baltimore Presbytery is seeking to raise now (in that case it dealt with the ability to ordain practicing homosexuals as opposed to perform same-sex marriages, but the theological divide is the same). There are countless opportunities for our denomination to do God’s work. If we truly love our denomination, then we would take this opportunity to come together in mission and service. Maybe we could minister to people in Fort Hood. Maybe we could jump in to assist victims of Ida. But instead of looking for these opportunities, the majority in our Presbytery chose to pounce.

These issues are not going away. The time will come to discuss them. There will be another General Assembly in 2012. Bring it up then. Why insist on bringing it up now unless your goal is to kill our denomination?

Perhaps what disturbed me most was the speaker who immediately followed me who said she was “tired of being told the time is not right.” She then went on and on about how unfair the current Book of Order is to her. I understand and I sympathize that you feel wronged. But the point I was making is that there are more people involved in this debate than just you. Sometimes we are called to endure hardships for the greater good of others. If you truly love this denomination and believe that even those who disagree with you are still your brothers and sisters in Christ, then you would react in love. The fact that you refuse to even wait a little while to allow for people to heal shows a total lack of commitment to keeping this denomination unified. Your message, simply put, is that you will insist to continue to push your agenda regardless of the consequences it has on this denomination and on the body of Christ of which you claim to be a part.

I never argued that people could not raise this issue. I simply asked why it had to be raised again now, so soon after we just survived an incredibly divisive debate which caused our denomination to bleed. If you love us, let us heal. Then bring it up when we are all in a better position to withstand the coming storm and come out the other side together. A vote to press forward on this issue immediately was a vote to pounce on the wounded soldier. That vote simply makes no sense to me unless your goal is to kill us. If you voted in favor of this overture, congratulations, you may just get your wish. And it will spell the end of the PC(USA).

2009 Holiday Craft Fair

2009-11-05T17:05:00.001-05:00

WHAT? Come meet and greet TMM President Ken Coughlan at the 2009 Holiday Craft Fair to benefit the Havre de Grace High School Music Department

WHEN? Saturday, November 21, 2009 from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm.

WHERE? Havre de Grace High School gymnasium, 700 Congress Avenue, Havre de Grace, Maryland 21078.

We look forward to seeing you there!

Love is Worth Fighting For

2009-10-16T09:29:00.001-05:00

“Love is not a place
To come and go as we please
It’s a house we enter in
And then commit to never leave
…
If we try to leave, may God send His angels to guard the door
No, love is not a fight but it’s something worth fighting for”
Love is Not a Fight by Warren Barfield

Some people think it is unreasonable of Christians to ask couples to honor their marital vows and stay together not only “for better,” but also “for worse.” Nobody is saying that you should stay in an abusive relationship, but people today give up far too easily. They convince themselves that because they don’t feel butterflies anymore every time they see their partner, they have “fallen out of love” and that gives them license to leave or start having an affair. When children are involved it is particularly troublesome and sometimes selfish.

But in reality God is not asking anything of you that He has not been willing to commit to Himself. After all, His salvation is the ultimate act of love. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16. When you come to faith in Jesus, you enter into a loving relationship with Him. Once that relationship begins, God makes a commitment to stand by you “for better or for worse.” “My sheep listen to my voice; … no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.” John 10:27-29.

Let’s face it. You are far from perfect. But even though you mess up again and again, God stands by you. He doesn’t abandon you. He refuses to let you go. So if you ever find yourself wishing you could get out of your marriage for anything less than infidelity or abuse, remember the words of Warren Barfield. “If we try to leave, may God send His angels to guard the door. No, love is not a fight but it’s something worth fighting for.”

God's Fight Song

2009-10-11T17:25:00.002-05:00

"While I live will I praise the LORD: I will sing praises unto my God while I have any being." Psalm 146:2

I am sure you've heard of the six days of God's creation. He made the heavens and earth, calling each thing he made "good." When he got around to making mankind he called it "very good." On the seventh day, God rested.

I sometimes joke that sometime after that God created football (the American variety, that is), and it was "awesome." I am a huge football fan. I set myself up for disappointment every weekend, though, by rooting for so many different teams. In the college ranks I cheer for my alma mater Delaware, the University of Nebraska (where I spent much of my childhood) and the University of Virginia (where one of my brothers went to school; my other brother went to William & Mary, but since they are in the same conference as Delaware, they don't get my loyalty even though I went there myself for law school).

In the NFL I've been a Dallas Cowboy fan since I was a young child, but I recently also started cheering for the Baltimore Ravens since they drafted Delaware QB Joe Flacco. The end result is that it is almost inevitable that at least one of my teams is going to lose each weekend. As I said, I'm setting myself up for disappointment.

Most football teams have a fight song. Its a song that's used to cheer for your team. I could still recite the Delaware fight song on demand (but for the sake of your own ears, I don't suggest you ask me to sing it). No matter what my abilities are to carry a tune, though, when Delaware scores a touchdown, I will belt out that fight song along with the band as loudly as you can imagine.

Well, God doesn't really have a fight song (although when I recently delivered this message in church, a friend proposed that "Onward Christian Soldiers" could be His fight song). But we do sing for Him in very much the same way as we sing for our sports teams; at least we are supposed to. You see, when we sing hymns in church, or when the choir sings an anthem, we aren't just singing for our own benefit. This isn't like singing in the shower because we think our voices sound better with the bathroom acoustics. We are singing to our Maker. It is like a prayer set to music. We use hymns to praise Him, to thank Him, to petition Him, or just to express our love for Him.

But in many churches you can hear the crickets singing louder than the congregants. People bury their noses in their hymnals and mutter the words to themselves if they are even singing at all. Some people just mouth the words thinking that with everyone else around them singing, no one will notice that there isn't actually any sound coming out of their mouths.

I'm sure that there are many reasons for this. One could be that people are self-conscious. They don't think they can carry a tune and don't want the person next to them to hear out of fear of embarrassment. But I wonder, will those same people belt out a fight song with reckless abandon when their team scores a touchdown, regardless of who hears it?

Who do you cheer for more loudly, God or your team? The irony of it all is that you are the one on the team and God is the captain. Be thankful that He picked you when God and Satan were "picking teams."

So sing loud. Sing proud. Boldly declare what God has done for you. It doesn't have to sound melodic. Simon Cowell will not be judging you. Sing praises to the only judge that matters. The beauty of it all is that He's not judging your singing either. In fact, thanks to His grace, you won't be facing the inevitable condemning judgment at all. So the next time you find yourself cheering loudly for your sports team, take a moment and ask if you were that enthusiastic for God on Sunday morning.

God bless.

New Season of "Preparing Your Answer"

2009-09-28T09:02:00.001-05:00

The first podcast in our new season of "Preparing Your Answer" is now on the website. We are starting this year with a "Christianity 101" series. So if you want a reminder of the foundations of your faith, or if you are a seeker looking for answers to the basic questions of what Christians believe, visit the TMM site (www.TenMinasMinistries.org; see the link at the top of the page) and download the podcasts free of charge! The first lesson is titled "Getting to Know Your Textbook."

Jesus is neither a Republican nor a Democrat

2009-09-11T10:18:00.002-05:00

In my job I spend a lot of time in the car, so I listen to Christian radio to pass the time. Lately, with all the hubub over health care reform, I've felt more like I am listening to political radio than religious radio. For some of these shows, it seems that the only thing they talk about is how "wrong" the President's proposals are.

First of all, I've been somehwat disturbed by the lack of repect sometimes shown to our President. Romans 13:1-2 says, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established … Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted.” In the interest of full disclosure I am an independent. But as you can probably guess by the content of Ten Minas' website, my political views run a bit more toward the conservative spectrum, at least on many social issues. However, that does not mean that I do not take my obligation to be respectful to our President very seriously. We are free to disagree with him, but not by utilizing the type of ridicule and irresponsible fact-twisting we all have likely come across from time to time. And please don't think I am "calling out" only Republicans on this. Democrats and other political parties are just as guilty sometimes.

Leaving that aside for the moment, though, it bothers me a bit that the message many of these radio shows seem to be sending is, "If you are a Christian, you should be opposed to the Democratic proposals for health care reform." I am pretty sure there is nothing in the Bible about what kind of coverage Blue Cross Blue Shield should be providing or whether or not there should be a "public option."

Yes, it is very important to have an open and honest discussion of these issues. Yes, there are many political issues that also have theological implications (abortion, homosexual marriage, etc.). But I fear that sometimes we take this too far and act as if everything on the politically conservative agenda is also on Jesus' agenda. Don't we as Christians understand that when we do this we only put up one more obstacle between us and non-Christians that gets in the way of sharing the gospel? Do we really want people thinking, "I like Obama's health care plan, so I guess I can't be a Christian"? That may not be what we intend to say, but it is what many people are hearing (see, e.g., the chapter in the book "UnChristian" about how Christianity is perceived by outsiders as being "Too Political").

There is (and should be) a forum for discussing political issues like health care reform, and I certainly have no problem with anyone in that forum being forthright about their love for Christ. But when a program that is purportedly dedicated to teaching and advancing Christian principles spends day after day talking about health care reform, I am left wondering if they have lost sight of their true mission.

Don't assume that everything you believe is what Jesus believes. If you do, you are in danger of creating Jesus in your image. Instead, evaluate what you believe based upon what the Bible says. Then we can allow the Holy Spirit to mold us in Jesus' image. And always remember that there are many areas in life where we can disagree and still belong to the same body of Christ. That's the beauty of Christianity. It can bring unity in diversity. Yes, there still are some foundational beliefs that define what it is to be a "Christian" (as there must be if we are not to slip into universalism). But sometimes I fear that we define those foundational beliefs far too broadly and pick and choose them so that we can exclude anyone who is not "like us." Please be careful. Jesus spent His time on Earth with sinners, and they were definitely not "like Him" in that regard.

God bless you all, and God bless America.

THE HUMAN CONDITION

2009-07-23T20:27:00.004-05:00

PART 1 - THE PROBLEM OF THE HUMAN CONDITION

"I know not who sent me into the world, nor what the world is, nor what I myself am. I am terribly ignorant of everything. I know not what my body is, nor my senses, nor my soul and that part of me which thinks what I say, which reflects upon itself as well as upon all external things, and has no more knowledge of itself than of them.

"I see the terrifying immensity of the universe which surrounds me, and find myself limited to one corner of this vast expanse, without knowing why I am set down here rather than elsewhere, nor why the brief period appointed for my life is assigned to me at this moment rather than another in all the eternity that has gone before and will come after me. On all sides I behold nothing but infinity, in which I am a mere atom, a mere passing shadow that returns no more. All I know is that I must soon die, but what I understand least of all is this very death which I cannot escape.

"As I know not whence I come, so I know not whither I go. I only know that on leaving this world I fall for ever into nothingness or into the hands of a wrathful God, without knowing to which of these two states I shall be everlastingly consigned. Such is my condition, full of weakness and uncertainty. From all this I conclude that I ought to spend every day of my life without seeking to know my fate. I might perhaps be able to find a solution to my doubts; but I cannot be bothered to do so, I will not take one step towards its discovery."

Blaise Pascal, Pensees 29.

"So I hated life, because the work that is done under the sun was grievous to me. All of it is meaningless, a chasing after the wind. I hated all the things I had toiled for under the sun, because I must leave them to the one who comes after me. And who knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool? Yet he will have control over all the work into which I have poured my effort and skill under the sun. This too is meaningless. So my heart began to despair over all my toilsome labor under the sun. For a man may do his work with wisdom, knowledge and skill, and then he must leave all he owns to someone who has not worked for it. This too is meaningless and a great misfortune. What does a man get for all the toil and anxious striving with which he labors under the sun? All his days his work is pain and grief; even at night his mind does not rest. This too is meaningless."

Ecclesiastes 2:17-23 (NIV)

PART 2 - ATHEISM'S RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEM OF THE HUMAN CONDITION

"Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: 'I seek God! I seek God!'---As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?---Thus they yelled and laughed.

"The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. 'Whither is God?' he cried; 'I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

"'How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto.'

"Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. 'I have come too early,' he said then; 'my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars---and yet they have done it themselves.'

"It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: 'What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?'

Friedrich Nietzsche, Parable of the Madman

PART 3 - CHRISTIANITY'S RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEM OF THE HUMAN CONDITION

"Who am I, that the Lord of all the earth
Would care to know my name
Would care to feel my hurt
Who am I, that the Bright and Morning Star
Would choose to light the way
For my ever wandering heart

"Not because of who I am
But because of what You've done
Not because of what I've done
But because of who You are

"I am a flower quickly fading
Here today and gone tomorrow
A wave tossed in the ocean
A vapor in the wind
Still You hear me when I'm calling
Lord, You catch me when I'm falling
And You've told me who I am
I am Yours"

Casting Crowns, Who Am I?

"Therefore Jesus said again, 'I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.'"

John 10:7-10 (NIV)

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

John 3:16 (NIV)

CONCLUSION

Does any of this prove the existence of God? No. But it does lay out for us the consequences of our beliefs. Bear that in mind when you look at this issue.

The "Safe" Abortion Pill

2009-07-08T16:16:00.003-05:00

WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS SOME ADULT THEMES AND IS NOT FOR CHILDREN. IN ADDITION, THIS POST IS SPEAKING OF CONSENSUAL INTERCOURSE, NOT THE ATROCIOUS RESULT OF FORCIBLE RAPE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A TOTALLY SEPARATE DISCUSSION.

I just read an article on the abortion pill on Yahoo! News. It said that between 2005 and mid-2008, 228,000 abortions were performed at Planned Parenthood Centers. But I thought one particular comment would be humorous if it wasn't so sad. When discussing a new study on the risk of infection from using the pill, the article stated as follows:

"'This is the first really huge documentation of how safe and effective medical abortion is,' said Dr. Beverly Winikoff, a professor of family health and population at Columbia University."

Safe? I guess for the pregnant woman that is good news. But I'd venture to say the abortion pill still is not so "safe" for the child being aborted. It just goes to show you how far our culture has devalued life inside the womb. Now when discussing the "safety" of a pill, we only look to the pregnant woman and completely ignore the fact that the child inside is being murdered as a direct result of this so-called "safe" pill, all because the mother doesn't want to be inconvenienced with a child.

To me the solution is simple. If you aren't willing to take the risk of having a child, don't have sex. News flash: the purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation. But somewhere, somehow, our society has decided that we have some absolute "right" to engage in sexual intercourse and completely disregard the potential consequences.

I personally don't mind the use of contraceptives that act before conception when used by married couples as long as people realize that they don't always work. But if they fail, don't act like you are a victim who has had some undesirable affliction thrust upon you. You knew what you were doing. You knew the risk. You made a conscious choice to take that risk. You just don't like the fact that you gambled and lost.

You don't have a God given right to have sex. If you aren't willing to accept the risk, don't have sex. This goes for men and women. Guys, if you have sex with a woman and she has a child, where are you? This is your child. Act like a real man and help raise that child. You knew the potential consequences before you had sex. Don't run away scared when things don't go as you planned.

Calling a pill "safe" when it kills off a conceived child and helps us avoid the consequences of our actions only further perpetuates the problem. We all need to learn to accept consequences, both in this arena and in every other aspect of our lives.

Viability

2009-06-24T22:45:00.000-05:00

Imagine for a moment a hospital patient with a severe heart condition is being treated at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. His treating doctor decides that the facilities are better at the local outpatient speedy clinic and discharges him from Hopkins. Needless to say, the clinic is woefully ill prepared to handle such a severely ill patient and he promptly passes away. The patient's family sues the doctor for malpractice. During the course of that litigation the doctor says that when the patient was at Hopkins, he wasn't really alive anyway and we could only really know if he was alive by whether or not the speedy clinic was able to keep him alive. Since the clinic couldn't do it, obviously the patient was not really alive in the first place, and if he wasn't alive, then the doctor didn't really kill anybody.

Are you going to buy this argument? It seems to me that the whole abortion argument based upon viability (made, among other places, in the pivotal case of Roe v. Wade) is just as preposterous. Nobody denies that the fetus (or whatever else you want to call it) is being sustained perfectly well in the mother's womb. God has designed a brilliant life support system for it. By any standard, man-made life support systems outside the womb are far inferior. Basically, the viability argument gives a doctor permission to rip this entity out of a far superior life-support system (like the facilities at Hopkins in my example), place it in a far inferior one (like the clinic), then declare that it wasn't really a life to begin with since our inferior system couldn't keep it alive. It was doing just fine in God's system. It seems to be the pinnacle of human arrogance to set the measuring rod only so high as our human technology can achieve when God's technology could accomplish far more if only we hadn't torn the fetus out of that system. Why should our life support abilities set the standard instead of God's (or nature's if you want to take a purely naturalistic perspective)?

While in the womb, that child was just as much alive as the patient at Hopkins. It was perfectly viable. The only reason it died was because some person made the decision to take it out of that system. I don't claim that this answers all questions about abortion (or even the viability argument, for that matter). But it does tend to raise the question of why we ignore the life support system inside the womb in favor if man's inferior system when deciding whether a baby is "alive."

Obeying God in the “small matters”

2009-05-28T10:42:00.000-05:00

In the parable of the Ten Minas (Luke 19:11-27), a man of noble birth gave a mina (i.e., money) to ten servants with instructions to “Put this money to work until I come back.” Upon his return the first servant said, “Sir, your mina has earned ten more,” to which the master replied, “Well done, my good servant! Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.”

Are you trustworthy in the small matters? We all like to think we are good people. After all, most of us have not murdered, raped or robbed someone. So we hold ourselves to that standard and believe that we are living up to God’s expectations. Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort (in their ministry “The Way of the Master”) do a pretty good job of illustrating the fallacy of this belief. They ask people, “Have you ever told a lie?” “Have you ever stolen something, no matter how small (even a paper clip from the office)?” “Have you ever used God’s name as a curse word?” “Have you ever looked at another person with lust?” Most people will admit to having done all four of these at some point during their life. These are all part of the Ten Commandments just like “Thou shalt not murder,” but we tend to overlook them as “small matters.”

Allow me to give another example. Romans 13:1-2 says, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established … Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted.” Do you submit to the governing authorities? Even in the “small matters”? Again, most of us have not committed a murder. We haven’t embezzled funds from our employer. We haven’t spent time in jail so we think that we are submitting to the authorities. But are you really? Have you ever been pulled over for speeding? How did you react? Did you try to talk your way out of it even though you knew you were in the wrong? If the officer decided not to give you a ticket, did you brag to your friends about how you put on the “pouty” face and it worked so that you got off with only a warning, as if this “accomplishment” was something to be proud of?

As Christians, we have all come to terms with the simple truth that we have violated God’s law and we deserve punishment. But for some reason many of us have trouble carrying this over to the civil law, even though Paul explicitly told us to submit to the governing authorities. If you have done something wrong, the appropriate response is to own up to it and accept your punishment, not to try to get out of it, however tempting that may be.

How fast do you drive? Do you obey the speed limit or convince yourself, “They won’t pull me over if I’m only doing 5 mph over, so I guess that’s okay”? I recently came to terms with my own hypocrisy (if we are honest with ourselves we are all hypocrites in one way or another) in that I was preaching submission to the governing authorities but routinely traveling 5, 10 or even 15 mph over the speed limit. I now try to travel the speed limit wherever I go, and let me tell you it has been an eye-opening experience.

First, it was a disappointing surprise to see how many cars with the “Christian fish” logo on the back went flying by me like they were in a NASCAR race. But it also has served as a powerful lesson in temptation. Even though I drive in the right lane with plenty of room to pass me on the left, I still find myself feeling guilty when a car pulls up behind me and has to slow down. I find myself worrying about what other people are thinking of me, or the curse words that are flying out of their mouths because I am “holding them up” (for the incredible inconvenience of having to wait perhaps 10 or 15 seconds for an opening so they can change lanes). A semi-truck may pull up behind me. Due to its sheer size it has a harder time changing lanes and often tailgates me right behind my bumper. Sometimes I wonder if I should speed up to make these peoples’ lives easier. But then I remember that I am the one obeying the law, they are the ones defying it, and I leave my cruise control right where it is.

Obeying God’s Word is not always easy, even in the little things. It is amazing how even in the small day to day activities of our lives, modern culture can be steering us away from God. I have made a commitment to try to follow Christ’s examples even in the “small matters.” Will you join me? Your driving is an easy place to start. Make a pledge to start obeying the speed limit then see where the Holy Spirit guides you from there. God bless you all.

Thank You God for Another Day

2009-05-08T09:12:00.000-05:00

In the movie “Star Trek: Generations” there is a character named “Data,” an android whose life long wish is to become more human. Data has never felt emotions, a limitation in his programming. But at the beginning of this movie he has an “emotion chip” installed. The first thing Data does with his new emotions is to go to the bar and have a drink. With his first sip his entire face contorts into something resembling a prune as he announces he is “feeling” something. His friend Geordi points out that it looks like Data hates the drink, to which Data responds enthusiastically, “Yes! That’s it! I hate this! It is revolting!” Yet when he is offered another cup, Data eagerly responds, “Please!”

Data was excited to be having any emotions, even the sensation of loathing the taste of a beverage. To him it was a new experience, an experience he had been searching for all his life. He was ecstatic and grateful to be feeling anything and he was willing to take the good with the bad.

Sometimes I wonder what has happened to our sense of gratitude. After all, our very existence is a gift from God. How often do you sit back and thank God for even being here in the first place? Oh, we all may send up a prayer from time to time thanking God for the food on our table or the roof over our head, and I don’t mean to diminish that. After all, in America today even many people living below the poverty level still live like kings compared to some of the slums in India or South America. Those of us living comfortably by the standards of our prosperous nation certainly have nothing to complain about. So thanking God for these blessings is definitely a good thing.

But we owe God more than that. According to the Bible God did not just create the universe but through Jesus He is “sustaining all things by his powerful word” (Hebrews 1:3). In other words, God did not just make you, but the entire creation continues to exist from moment to moment only because God is actively involved in holding it all together. God made you, but He also keeps you in existence every second of every day.

Not only should we be thanking God for creating us, but every morning we should thank Him for giving us and everybody else in the universe the chance to exist one more day. Looking at life this way gives us a bit of perspective. Bad things will come our way. Maybe we’ll lose our job or have some other financial setback. In those circumstances we certainly aren’t thanking God for our financial blessings. But there is still something far more fundamental to thank Him for.

Data touched on this. He understood that some things are so fundamental that they deserve our gratitude, whether we are currently facing good or bad. I don’t know yet what today has in store for me. It is just getting started. But I will take the opportunity right now to thank God for sustaining me one more day. Will you join me in doing the same? God bless you.

It's Over

2009-04-28T14:21:00.003-05:00

At least for the time being, the battle in the PC(USA) over the fidelity and chastity clause in its ordination requirements has ended. For anyone unaware, the PC(USA) requires any candidate for ordination, whether it be as a Minister of the Word and Sacrament, an Elder or a Deacon to either live in fidelity within marriage or in chastity in singleness. Obviously, as long as the PC(USA) does not recognize homosexual marriage (which it does not), this would preclude anyone engaging in an active homosexual relationship from being ordained to office. This has not stopped some ordaining bodies from doing it anyway (my own presbytery, the Baltimore Presbytery, has knowingly ordained an openly gay man as a minister). However, these bodies are acting in defiance of the denomination's constitution.

Over the past year, the 173 presbyteries in the PC(USA) have been voting on whether or not to adopt an amendment to the constitution that was proposed by the General Assembly last year. The General Assembly is the highest legislative body in the PC(USA). The proposed amendment called for the fidelity and chastity requirement to be eliminated from the constitution altogether, substituting language about a candidate's sincere efforts to follow where they feel Christ to be leading them. If passed, this amendment would have permitted the ordination of practicing homosexuals.

A simple majority (i.e., 87) of the presbyteries would have to vote in favor of the amendment for it to pass. As of yesterday, however, 89 presbyteries have voted to keep things the way they are. The current vote is 89 against the amendment, 69 in favor of it, with 15 still having to vote. Of those 15, 4 are expected to vote against the amendment, 3 are expected to vote for it, and the remaining 8 are "up for grabs." Even if all 8 of those presbyteries vote as they did in 2001, however, the final margin for this vote (101-72) would still be far closer than the 2001 vote when this same issue previously arose (127-46). This has proponents of the amendment claiming victory and arguing that a change in the ordination requirements is only a matter of time.

Michael Adee of More Light Presbyterians, an organization that was supporting the proposed amendment, has told the Presbyterian periodical The Layman that More Light's (and similarly minded groups') next mission will be to get denominational approval for same-sex marriages and other similar rights for same-sex couples ("‘Fidelity/chastity’ affirmed but both sides claim victory" by John H. Adams).

Below is a list of the presbyteries that will still be holding their votes between now and May 18, along with the result of their 2001 vote on a similar amendment. An "(S)" next to a presbytery means that the vote in 2001 was close enough that they realistically could switch their vote this time around. Even if all 15 remaining presbyteries voted in favor of the amendment, though, it still cannot pass.

1 Dakota-No
2 Detroit-No (S)
3 East Iowa-Yes
4 Kiskiminetas-No (S)
5 Lehigh-No (S)
6 Middle Tenn.-No (S)
7 Minnesota Valleys-No (S)
8 Missouri River Valley-No (S)
9 Noroeste-No
10 Northern Waters-Yes
11 Pacific-No (S)
12 Savannah-No
13 Southern New England-Yes
14 Suroeste-No
15 Utah-No (S)

Fidelity and Chastity is Likely to be Upheld

2009-04-20T19:08:00.003-05:00

It's been far closer than it should be, but with 24 presbyteries still needing to vote, those in favor of keeping the PC(USA) ordination requirements as they are only need 3 more votes. Both the Alaska Presbytery and the Atlantic Korean Presbytery voted against amending the PC(USA) Constitution. But the impact on those seeking amendment is bigger than just these two votes. Alaska was one of the "key" presbyteries; i.e., one whose vote on this same issue in 2001 was close enough that they foreseeably could have changed their vote this time around. The amendment backers needed every single one of these presbyteries to go their way in order to have a chance to win the day. Even if they got every one of these close presbyteries, they still would have needed at least one "upset" vote; i.e., a presbytery which had a wide enough margin in 2001 that a switch really would have been a surprise. Now they would need all the close votes plus two upset votes.

Needing only 3 of 24 presbyteries to keep the Constitution intact, it is not looking likely that anything will change this time around. But, of course, it isn't over yet, and we all know that the issue will probably rear its head again at the 2010 General Assembly.

Be There

2009-04-16T22:05:00.003-05:00

Here's the question of the day. Who spoke the following profound words?

"There is no need to say you love me, It would be better left unsaid ...
all that I want from you is a promise you will be there."

(a) Emily Dickinson
(b) Nora Roberts
(c) Mark Twain
(d) Oscar Wilde
(e) The Spice Girls

Believe it or not, the correct answer is "(e) The Spice Girls." These are lyrics from their hit song "Say You'll Be There."

There is a powerful lesson in those words. In our society the word "love" is bantered about far too easily. We "fall in love." But we also "fall out of love." Your boyfriend or girlfriend may say they "love" you today, but that is no guarantee they will "love" you 10 years from now. You see, we have boiled love down to nothing more than a feeling. We often confuse it with infatuation, and once that higher-than-a-kite, giddy-as-a-schoolboy feeling inevitably exits, we too make our way for the exit, right out of the relationship.

The really sad thing is that this is not just true for couples who are dating. It also applies all too often in marriages. People get married because they are in "love," but their definition of love is this fleeting emotional state. They are quick to look for a way out when that feeling subsides and divorce is the inevitable result.

This is not to say you cannot feel a strong emotional attachment to your spouse. Of course you can. But a lasting love is far different from the infatuation on which relationships often begin. Shakespeare depicted this brilliantly in Romeo and Juliet. When Romeo and Juliet first meet, they are like two high school kids passing notes in class. But by the unfortunate end of the play, their relationship has grown to something far deeper.

The Spice Girls picked up on this truth. Don't say that you "love" me. What does that even mean any more? Telling me that you "love" me doesn't provide security. I want a commitment. It will mean far more if you would tell me that you'll "be there." At least that way I'll know that 20 years down the line when I need your shoulder it will be there for me to rest my head.

This is one of the problems I have with people moving in together before marriage. It's an illusion. People behave as if they are really committed to each other, but they cling on to that "escape hatch" just in case they "fall out of love" later on. Marriage is certainly not something to be taken lightly. We have to take the time to really get to know our prospective mate and prayerfully consider the commitment we are undertaking. But once you decide to make that commitment, don't beat around the bush. If you are willing to make the commitment, make it. If not, fess up to your partner and move on. To me moving in together just seems like a cop out.

Once you make a commitment, be true to your word. Don't say you'll "be there" unless you really mean it. But if you say it, do it. When the going gets tough, don't make a break for the exits. Remember your promise to "be there" and honor it. Nowadays, that promise means far more than how we have defined "love." God bless.

How Do You Define Morality?

2009-04-13T09:56:00.001-05:00

I’m curious how people out there ontologically define morality. By “ontologically” I mean what morality actually is, not simply how we come to our personal moral beliefs (unless you believe subjective belief is all there is). The latter would be speaking epistemologically, and we all may agree that there are certain cultural influences, etc., that influence what a person comes to morally believe. My question is not about what is believed, but rather what is true.

I had a discussion recently on another board with someone who was basically advancing a similar notion to Sam Harris; i.e., a form of utilitarianism based upon harm. The morally correct action is the one that does the least harm, or in which the harm is most outweighed by the benefit. I pose the classic response to this of a homeless person with no family or friends to speak of, doesn’t have a job, isn’t giving anything to anyone or doing any service for anybody, but he is actually expending resources by way of food, volunteer time, etc. being given to him. Suppose I could euthanize this person painlessly while he slept (unbeknownst to him and without his consent). Should I do it? I believe an argument could be made under utilitarianism that I should.

If someone responds, “But there is great harm in the act of ending his life” I would simply ask, “Why?” At least if you hold to a purely naturalistic framework, I see no difference between killing this man and shooting a deer during hunting season. They are both simply biological machines that result from blind undirected evolution. Why is it acceptable to kill one but not the other? If anything, we could argue that the homeless man is more of a draw against society than the deer, who wanders quietly in the back forests of our country where few humans will ever see him.

Is it because blind evolution has bestowed greater intelligence upon the human? If so, does this mean that people with higher IQs have superior moral rights to those with lower IQs?

A few years ago I was engaged in a discussion with another gentleman who favored ethical nihilism. The problem I find with these views, however, is that inevitably the so-called evidence always ends up detailing how we arrive at moral beliefs. But that is a matter of epistemology, not necessarily ontology. In other words, we may sincerely believe that the moon is made of green cheese, and I can offer all the evidence in the world showing how we came to that belief. But this does not mean that the moon is actually made of green cheese. Not only that, but the particular viewpoint on moral origins being advocated by this individual (and by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion) was based upon so-called “reciprocal altruism”; i.e., where members of a society realize that it is to their benefit to help others because they may get something in return. But this is not true altruism. This is selfishness. So those theories fail to explain the moral origin of truly self-sacrificing acts.

What about Kant’s categorical imperative that we should always act in such a way that our actions could be taken as a universal rule? This sounds good on the surface. We should not murder anyone we wish because our society would not survive long if we allowed willful murder to be universally permissible. Swiss philosopher Benjamin Constant provided a rebuttal to this point, however. Under Kant’s rule, lying is immoral because we cannot wish that lying be universally allowed. But what if a murderer is chasing his prey and asks us which way his prey ran? Are we allowed to lie to that murderer in order to keep him from consummating his intended crime? Kant says no. Lying is always wrong because we would not wish for it to be a universal rule. Some people respond by saying that we could simply refuse to answer and therefore not break Kant’s categorical imperative. But that is small consolation to someone with a gun held to their face and a murderer demanding an answer. Are we not allowed to defend our own lives and the other person’s by a simple deception, or must we accept our own end simply so as not to deceive a killer? By making everything universal, Kant fails to provide an adequate resolution when two ethical mandates come into conflict with one another.

The Christian worldview answers some of these questions by placing an inherent value on human life (to quote a certain famous American document, “All men are created equal”). All humankind is created in the image of God, and certain moral value is bestowed upon them as a result. It is wrong to kill the homeless man, regardless of what benefit society may see as a result, because there is value in his human life and it would be wrong to erase that value when the man has done nothing to warrant it. It would be okay to lie to the murderer because by doing so we are defending the value of the lives of both the innocent victim and ourselves.

The point of this post is not to provide a detailed defense of the Christian moral view. Instead I am asking for your opinions. If you do not accept the Christian worldview, how do you ontologically define morality? What (or who) determines what is right and what is wrong? God bless.

New Facebook Page

2009-04-09T10:29:00.002-05:00

Ten Minas Ministries now has a Facebook page. It contains updates on any events we have coming up as well as a discussion board where we will post some devotional-type thoughts from time to time. It also has the ability (unlike this blog) for people other than me to start posts. Just keep it clean please. We are all for honest intellectual discussion, but abusive or obscene posts will be deleted.

Visit our Facebook page here. Become a "fan" of Ten Minas on Facebook and tell your friends about us!

One Step Closer

2009-04-06T15:24:00.000-05:00

We came one vote closer to ending the dispute over the PC(USA)’s ordination requirements when the South Louisiana Presbytery voted “no” on April 4, 2009, bringing the total number of “no” votes to 82, just 5 shy of the number needed to defeat the amendment. In the meantime, three more presbyteries voted in favor of the amendment: Long Island, Northern New York and San Jose. All three voted to amend the constitution when the issue arose in 2001 as well. The current vote count is 82 against the amendment and 65 for it.

Of the four presbyteries who have voted since my last blog post, none of them were surprises, except perhaps for the margin in San Jose. On April 4, 2009, the San Jose Presbytery voted 84-81 in favor of the amendment, a difference of only three votes. Bucking the trend that has been seen throughout the denomination, San Jose came very close to moving from a “yes” vote in 2001 to a “no” vote in 2008/09. Quite a few presbyteries have switched from a “no” to a “yes”, but San Jose would have been the first to flip/flop the other way around. In 2001 San Jose voted 86-75 in favor of removing the fidelity and chastity requirement. Unlike most other presbyteries voting for the amendment, San Jose’s “margin of victory” has actually shrunk over the past 8 years (from an 11 vote difference to only 3 and from 53.4% in favor of the amendment to only 50.9%).

26 presbyteries still need to hold their votes.

6 more down, 30 to go

2009-03-31T21:28:00.004-05:00

6 more presbyteries have voted with no particular surprises. All six voted in favor of amending the Constitution and removing the fidelity and chastity requirement. The presbyteries were:

Genessee Valley
Grace
New York City
Philadelphia
Susquehanna Valley
Western New York

Of the six, three voted for removing fidelity and chastity in 2001. The other three switched their votes from 2001, but all three were among the list of presbyteries whose 2001 votes were close enough that they reasonably could have been expected to switch. Opponents of fidelity and chastity would need all of the close votes from 2001 to change their minds this time around, plus they would need at least one more presbytery that nobody really sees going their way to come over to their side as well. The total vote is now 81 against the amendment and 62 in favor of it. 87 presbyteries are needed to prevail.

The remaining presbyteries (along with their 2001 votes and whether they are amongst the presbyteries who foreseeably could switch (S)) are as follows:

1 Alaska-No (S)
2 Atlantic Korean-No
3 Boise-No (S)
4 Dakota-No
5 de Cristo-Yes
6 Detroit-No (S)
7 East Iowa-Yes
8 Kiskiminetas-No (S)
9 Lehigh-No (S)
10 Long Island-Yes
11 Middle Tenn.-No (S)
12 MW Hanmi-No
13 Minnesota Valleys-No (S)
14 Missouri River Valley-No (S)
15 National Capital-Yes
16 Noroeste-No
17 Northern New York-Yes
18 North. Plains-No (S)
19 Northern Waters-Yes
20 Pacific-No (S)
21 Salem-No (S)
22 San Francisco-Yes
23 San Jose-Yes
24 Savannah-No
25 Sierra Blanca-Yes
26 South Louisiana-No (S)
27 Southern New England-Yes
28 Suroeste-No
29 Utah-No (S)
30 Wabash Valley-No (S)

God bless.

5 more votes, no more surprises.

2009-03-27T10:23:00.002-05:00

5 more presbyteries have held their votes on removing fidelity and chastity from the PC(USA) Constitution. None of the 5 were among the presbyteries whose "no" votes in 2001 were close enough that they could possibly change their minds this time. All 5 went as expected. They were as follows:

NO:
Beaver-Butler
Charleston-Atl.

YES:
Denver
Elizabeth
Geneva

The tally is now 56 presbyteries in favor of the amendment and 81 against it. 87 votes are needed to "win" (although the mere fact that this vote even has to be held takes away any feelings of "victory"). The remaining presbyteries are as follows:

1 Alaska-No (S)
2 Atlantic Korean-No
3 Boise-No (S)
4 Dakota-No
5 de Cristo-Yes
6 Detroit-No (S)
7 East Iowa-Yes
8 Genessee Valley-Yes
9 Grace-No (S)
10 Kiskiminetas-No (S)
11 Lehigh-No (S)
12 Long Island-Yes
13 Middle Tenn.-No (S)
14 MW Hanmi-No
15 Minnesota Valleys-No (S)
16 Missouri River Valley-No (S)
17 National Capital-Yes
18 New York City-Yes
19 Noroeste-No
20 Northern New York-Yes
21 North. Plains-No (S)
22 Northern Waters-Yes
23 Pacific-No (S)
24 Philadelphia-No (S)
25 Salem-No (S)
26 San Francisco-Yes
27 San Jose-Yes
28 Savannah-No
29 Sierra Blanca-Yes
30 South Louisiana-No (S)
31 Southern New England-Yes
32 Suroeste-No
33 Susquehanna Valley-Yes
34 Utah-No (S)
35 Wabash Valley-No (S)
36 Western New York-No action (S)

Two More Presbyteries

2009-03-25T09:15:00.002-05:00

Two more presbyteries have voted in favor of amending the PC(USA) Constitution and removing the fidelity and chastity requirement for ordination, Boston Presbytery and Western Reserve Presbytery. Both of them voted for the similar measure in 2001, so neither vote was a surprise. The current tally is 79 against the amendment and 53 in favor of it.

My math was a little off

2009-03-24T13:32:00.003-05:00

I may have called this thing a little too early in my last post about the vote to amend the PC(USA) constitution to remove the fidelity and chastity requirement. Part of this was my fault due to my poor math skills. It was also partly due to the fact that a couple of presbyteries who voted in favor of fidelity and chastity in 2001 (by wide enough margins that nobody really expected them to change their minds) changed their votes.

Currently, those against amending the Constitution (and therefore in favor of keeping the fidelity and chastity requirement) still have a sizeable lead, 79 to 51. 43 Presbyteries still have to vote. 25 of those voted to keep fidelity and chastity in the Constitution the last time the issue arose in 2001 (one of these actually took no action in 2001, which has the same effect as a "no" vote). The other 18 all voted to take the provision out of the Constitution and are all expected to do the same this time.

Knowing that none of those 18 presbyteries are really in dispute makes the current vote total really 79 No and 69 Yes. It is the 25 presbyteries that voted "no" in 2001 that are up for grabs. According to The Layman, a publication of the Presbyterian Lay Committee, 17 of those 25 presbyteries reasonably could switch their vote this time around. If all 17 switch, the final vote would be 87 No and 86 Yes. The amendment would still fail, but it would be much closer than I previously may have led you to believe. Also, keep in mind that we recently had two presbyteries that nobody thought would change their votes switch over in favor of amendment. If there is even one more surprise, it could effect the outcome of this vote.

Below is a chart showing the remaining Prebyteries, how they voted in 2001, and whether the 2001 votes were close enough that they reasonably could switch this time around. The name of each presbytery is followed by its 2001 vote. An "(S)" indicates it could potentially switch its vote.

1 Alaska-No (S)
2 Atlantic Korean-No
3 Beaver-Butler-No
4 Boise-No (S)
5 Boston-Yes
6 Charleston-Atl.-No
7 Dakota-No
8 de Cristo-Yes
9 Denver-Yes
10 Detroit-No (S)
11 East Iowa-Yes
12 Elizabeth-Yes
13 Genessee Valley-Yes
14 Geneva-Yes
15 Grace-No (S)
16 Kiskiminetas-No (S)
17 Lehigh-No (S)
18 Long Island-Yes
19 Middle Tenn.-No (S)
20 MW Hanmi-No
21 Minnesota Valleys-No (S)
22 Missouri River Valley-No (S)
23 National Capital-Yes
24 New York City-Yes
25 Noroeste-No
26 Northern New York-Yes
27 North. Plains-No (S)
28 Northern Waters-Yes
29 Pacific-No (S)
30 Philadelphia-No (S)
31 Salem-No (S)
32 San Francisco-Yes
33 San Jose-Yes
34 Savannah-No
35 Sierra Blanca-Yes
36 South Louisiana-No (S)
37 Southern New England-Yes
38 Suroeste-No
39 Susquehanna Valley-Yes
40 Utah-No (S)
41 Wabash Valley-No (S)
42 Western New York-No action (S)
43 Western Reserve-Yes

This information comes from The Layman.

Stay tuned. This may go down to the wire.

Happy St. Patrick's Day

2009-03-17T11:38:00.002-05:00

For those of you who don't know, "Coughlan" is a good old fashioned Irish name. So to honor my heritage, I am fully decked out in my green suit and tie today. I wish you all a Happy St. Patrick's Day. Please celebrate it responsibly. God bless.

No sooner did I speak...

2009-03-16T19:44:00.002-05:00

I finally got around to updating the fidelity and chastity vote in the PC(USA) when ... what should happen but more information comes in within hours of my post. The current vote tally is 74 presbyteries in favor of keeping fidelity/chastity and 46 voting to do away with it. Whichever side is going to prevail needs 87 presbyteries voting their way. That means the "magic number" for fidelity/chastity is 13. Those who want to amend the Constitution have a magic number of 41. It is looking increasingly likely that the PC(USA) Constitution will emerge unfazed, but it isn't over yet.

Of the 53 Presbyteries that still have to vote, 12 voted for a similar measure to do away with fidelity and chastity in 2001 (and all are expected to vote the same way this time around). The other 41 presbyteries all voted to keep fidelity/chastity in 2001. 22 of these were close enough that they realistically could go the other way this year. Even if all 22 switch, though, that would still leave the amendment 7 presbyteries short. All in all, it will be a closer vote than it was in 2001 (which means that this issue is likely to rear its head again in the very near future), but the outcome should still be the same.

Jacqueline Spears new home

2009-03-16T09:15:00.003-05:00

You may recall that for some time now the Ten Minas Disaster Relief Project has been raising money to help rebuild the home of Jacqueline Spears in Gulfport, Mississippi. Her home was severely damaged by Hurricane Katrina. Well, thanks to the help of everyone who donated (along with the efforts and donations from many others, including Grove Presbyterian Church, Westminster Presbyterian Church, Carpenters for Christ and the Presbytery of Mississippi) Jackie's new home is arriving on March 21. There are enough volunteers to have it completely assembled within one month. Thank you for all your help and prayers. We are thrilled to have taken part in this happy ending and look forward to our next project. God bless.

Fidelity and Chastity update

2009-03-16T09:04:00.003-05:00

The latest vote tally on the effort to repeal the fidelity and chastity requirement from the PCUSA Constitution is 69 in favor of keeping the requirement and 41 in favor of getting rid of it. 63 Presbyteries still need to vote.

In an only tangentially related note, I have recently been re-elected to serve another three years on the Session of Grove Presbyterian Church, so I will remain "in the trenches."

Richard Dawkins does not exist

2009-03-14T19:46:00.002-05:00

"However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable."

This quote comes from page 138 of the paperback edition of Richard Dawkins' bestselling book "The God Delusion." Mr. Dawkins concedes that the existence of the universe is improbable, but he accepts its existence (largely because we live within it). We see the universe all around us, so it somehow must have overcome these odds (for anyone who wants to get hyper-technical, yes, I realize that he goes on to discuss the anthropic principle as a means to overcome the improbability, but it is just that, a way to overcome the improbability; this is still conceding that the universe's fine-tuning is improbable). But Mr. Dawkins rejects the existence of God based upon the even larger improbability. After all, Mr. Dawkins has never seen God as he has seen the universe, so he has no reason to believe that God has overcome the improbabilities.

Mr. Dawkins' argument misses the distinction between entities that exist within time and those that exist outside of time, but that is not the point of this post. Instead I wish to point out a rather humorous implication of the specific sentence I quoted above.

Bearing in mind that I have never seen Mr. Dawkins (just as Mr. Dawkins has allegedly never seen God) let's take Mr. Dawkins' statement again with a few insertions to clarify his meaning:

However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer (i.e., the universe), the designer himself (i.e., God) has got to be at least as improbable.
The conclusion = God does not exist.

Now allow me to use the same logic, but use it to try to explain the existence of the finely-tuned book "The God Delusion" instead of trying to explain the universe. After all, the combination of letters that come together to form the complex thoughts in "The God Delusion" are extremely improbable, so I am proposing that they were designed by Mr. Dawkins. Using Mr. Dawkins' own statement we get:

However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer (i.e., "The God Delusion"), the designer himself (i.e., Richard Dawkins) has got to be at least as improbable.
The conclusion = Richard Dawkins does not exist.

I am sorry to say Mr. Dawkins, that you have apparently disproven your own existence, at least to anyone that has never met you personally. I guess "The God Delusion" came together randomly after all, despite the odds.

What does "love" mean to you?

2009-02-09T22:15:00.002-05:00

Little is known about the "Valentine" that is the namesake of the upcoming St. Valentine's Day. In fact, "Valentine" was a relatively popular name in early Christian times, and there are any number of potential candidates for the origin of this holiday.

One thing we all agree upon, though, is that St. Valentine's Day is all about "love." But few people ever really explore what that means.

Ancient Greek actually had at least three different words for "love," each with a subtly different meaning. "Eros" refers to a passionate love, perhaps with physical attraction (hence our modern word "erotic") and a sense of sensual longing. "Philia" was the word for a familial-type of love. This is the love you feel for your family or close friends. We certainly would not confuse this with the sensual love of "eros," even though both concepts could be described by the same English word. Finally, "agape" (in New Testament usage) is the word for a love that is self-sacrificing, all-encompassing and totally committed. It is offered to everyone, friend and enemy alike. This is the love that Jesus felt for John, the beloved disciple, and it is the love that the Father feels for us.

All too often people equate Valentine's Day with the "eros" type of love, especially when you walk by "Victoria's Secret" or some other lingerie store. Rarely, if ever, do you see "philia" love celebrated on February 14. When was the last time you gave a Valentine's Day gift or card to your sibling? I personally think it would be wonderful to honor "philia" love on Valentine's Day by telling our family how much they mean to us.

But most of all I would like to encourage you to reflect upon "agape" love this Valentine's Day. How many people in this world can you truly say you would die for? Your spouse? Your children? How about your co-workers? The stranger on the street corner? Your worst enemy?

God exemplified the highest level of love for us on Good Friday. The example He set should remind us all of what true love really is. I believe we could stand to learn something from grade-schoolers and the way they celebrate Valentine's Day. Each child gives every other child a Valentine. The children are not related to one another, and they are certainly far too young for an erotic love. But they trade Valentines with each other, regardless of whether they get along every other day of the year or not.

This Valentine's Day I encourage you to celebrate by doing something loving for a complete stranger, or better yet for someone who has been unkind to you. Show the world what agape love is really all about. Remember that anything you do would be but a small token compared to the agape love that God has shown for you.

God bless you and happy Valentine's Day.

The race is getting closer

2009-02-03T15:59:00.003-05:00

Many more Presbyteries have now chimed in on the question of whether or not to eliminate the "fidelity and chastity" requirement from the PC(USA) constitution, and the latest trends are not good for those in favor of keeping it. Whereas the "early returns" were overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the requirement, the latest results have been more even, with a slight edge toward removing it.

19 more Presbyteries have held their votes since my last post and the tally is now 22 Presbyteries in favor of keeping the requirement and 11 wanting to get rid of it (and substitute the new language discussed in an earlier post). This means that since my last update, 10 Presbyteries have voted to do away with fidelity and chastity and 9 have voted to keep it.

Perhaps the biggest piece of news is that the Presbytery of Western North Carolina, which voted in favor of keeping fidelity and chastity when a similar measure came up in 2001, reversed its position on this new vote. 57.1% of the delegates voted to make the change. This is the first Presbytery to "switch sides" from the 2001 vote so far. 140 Presbyteries still have to vote.

My own Presbytery, the Baltimore Presbytery, in a move that shocked no one, voted on January 22, 2009 in favor of removing the fidelity and chastity requirement, 106 to 38.

New look to the website

2009-01-29T15:02:00.002-05:00

The main Ten Minas Ministries website has undergone a pretty extensive overhaul. Feel free to stop by and "pop a gander" at our new look. Comments are always welcome.

An Update on the Ordination Amendment

2009-01-18T23:05:00.002-05:00

One more Presbytery has chimed in on the proposed amendment to the PC(USA)'s Constitution to remove the fidelity and chastity requirement (see previous posts). On January 11, 2009 Foothills Presbytery voted 131 - 41 against the amendment. This brings the total count of presbyteries to 13 against, 1 for the amendment.

BREAKING NEWS: E=mc2 no longer considered to be true!

2009-01-02T10:08:00.000-05:00

After much thought and deliberation, I have come to the conclusion that E=mc2 is simply too dangerous to believe, so I have decided that it is not true. For those of you who are not familiar with exactly what that proposition stands for, it was part of Einstein’s theory of special relativity and it basically means that a large amount of energy can be released from a small amount of matter (energy = mass times the speed of light squared) (see http://www.doug-long.com/einstein.htm). This formula provided the foundation for the invention of the atomic bomb, which as we all know has been used with devastating results. The loss of human life has been unimaginable.

Now I understand that there is nothing inherent in the formula of E= mc2 per se that has caused the atrocious loss of life. But people certainly have taken that formula and used it as a means to exterminate large numbers of humanity. Therefore, because E= mc2 has been abused resulting in such horrible results, I have concluded that it must not be true.

Now, before you start blasting me too harshly, please note that I have some pretty distinguished company in my reasoning. Take Sam Harris, for example, the noted (and vigorously outspoken) atheist. In his book “Letter to a Christian Nation” he spends a good amount of time arguing against the existence of the Christian God based upon things like the crusades. At one point he even claims that early Christian anti-Semitism led to the ethnic cleansing during World War II several hundred years later. Mr. Harris is not alone in this argument. Many atheists repeatedly bring up all the suffering that has occurred under the alleged banner of Christianity to convince us that it is too dangerous to hold on to these types of religious beliefs.

Well, because it is so dangerous to believe that a religious system is true when it (like any other belief) is open to being abused, misinterpreted and misapplied with such dire consequences, I have decided that it is just too darn dangerous to believe in E= mc2 anymore. Why let something like pesky objective truth get in our way? We don’t need to concern ourselves with that. Any belief that is open to being abused should be discarded.

So I am launching my campaign to do away with this horribly dangerous scientific belief. No more Einstein! Holding to this outrageous belief system has a proven track record of being abused, leading to astonishingly deadly results. Let’s all join with Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the other new atheists and make a new year’s resolution to rid this world of the hazards of Albert Einstein!

Happy New Year!

Our Deteriorating Moral Foundation

2008-12-12T22:13:00.003-05:00

I just saw a story on the news that can only make you say, "What on earth is going on in this world?" The story was about an armed robbery at a Chinese take-out restaurant. Two men with bandannas over their faces came into the restaurant. They held a customer at gun point, robbed him, then shot him in the knee. Believe it or not, that isn't even the most appalling part.

You see, all of this was caught by the security camera. In the background, leaning against a wall, were two teenage girls. This crime was happening right in front of their eyes, no more than 7 or 8 feet away. I know what you're thinking. This must have been terrifying for them. What did they do? Were they screaming? Crying? Perhaps just paralyzed with fear? Maybe they ran out of the store to get help. Perhaps they even exhibited extraordinary bravery and tried to help the victim. Any one of these would have been an expectable reaction. If I were to tell you that any of these happened on that surveillance video, none of you would probably be surprised.

I am sorry to say, however, that I just made all of those potential reactions up. So how did these two teenage girls really react to the violence before them? What did they do?

They laughed.

That's right. They laughed. While this man had two firearms in his face, likely with his life flashing before his eyes, these two girls thought this was one of the most hilarious scenes they've ever witnessed. Not until he was shot in the knee did they finally leave the room.

What is wrong with the youth of our world when two teenage girls can become so desensitized to violence that they react as if they are watching the latest stand-up routine? We should properly have a sense of disgust when we see such images. Even when we see them on the television or movie screens, these acts should inspire emotions in us that (at a minimum) make us uncomfortable.

But today violence is depicted graphically and realistically in the media, all under the umbrella of purported entertainment. As a society, we add fuel to the fire by patronizing this type of programming, giving it a larger and larger audience. The result is that we reap what we sow. When Bing Crosby becomes Quentin Tarantino and tap shoes become hand guns, why are we surprised that revulsion turns to laughter?

Christianity teaches us that the human heart is fundamentally depraved. Modern society lives in denial of this truth. What is the result of our failure to acknowledge our degenerate cravings and continuing to feed our corrupt desires?

They laughed.

Amendment to the PCUSA Ordination Requirements

2008-12-12T21:23:00.003-05:00

On July 3, 2008, I wrote a blog entry titled "PCUSA opts for human authority instead of Biblical authority." Part of that entry discussed my disagreement with the proposed changes to the PCUSA ordination requirements and how I feared they could open the door to relativism within the church. This amendment would remove the requirement that candidates for ordained office live within the covenant of marriage or in chastity in singleness. In its place the new standard would allow the ordination of a candidate if they sincerely believed that the scriptures led them to their theological conclusions. Missing, however, were any fundamental beliefs that defined Presbyterianism. In other words, if a candidate felt sincerely led to the conclusion that Christ was not divine, then he or she could still be ordained. The ordaining body is never called to evaluate whether or not those professed beliefs are actually true. See the earlier post for more details.

I mentioned at the time that the proposed amendment needed to be approved by a majority of the Presbyteries in order to take effect. I thought I would give you all a quick update on how the votes are going.

As of December 4, 2008, 13 out of the 173 Presbyteries have held their votes. Of those, 12 have voted against the amendment.

Presbyteries voting against the amendment have been:
Central Florida (48 to 164)
Central Washington (7 to 55)
Eastern Oklahoma (49 to 56)
Florida (41 to 46)
Los Ranchos (35 to 143)
Mississippi (2 to 49)
Palo Duro (29 to 47)
San Diego (17 to 74)
San Joaquin (8 to 74)
Stockton (11 to 39)
Upper Ohio Valley (12 to 72)
Western Kentucky (17 to 42)

The only Presbytery voting in favor of the amendment was Monmouth. It appears to have been simply a vocal vote (i.e., aye versus nay) because at least on the site I checked the precise vote county for and against was not available.

The early trend is promising, but there are still 160 Presbyteries that have yet to vote (including my own, Baltimore, but it is probably safe to assume that Baltimore will vote in favor of the amendment).

I will try to include more updates on this issue as more results come in.

New Podcasts on Hebrews

2008-12-10T11:26:00.002-05:00

Under the "Biblical/Discipleship podcasts" on our website, we have started an exciting new series on the book of Hebrews. We are taking our time, going topic by topic to get the most out of this incredibly intricate book of the Bible. The overall theme for the author of Hebrews is to respond to Jewish converts to Christianity who were feeling tempted to return to their old lives. But in the context of making that argument, the author intertwines so many powerful theological themes that this book simply must have received divine inspiration.

The first six podcasts in the series are up already. Feel free to visit the website (www.TenMinasMinistries.org) to download them to your computer for free. Of course, if you would like to join us live, the classes are held every Sunday morning at 9:15 am at Grove Presbyterian Church, 50 East Bel Air Avenue, Aberdeen, Maryland. The classes are in the Monroe Building (the large brick building separate from the main sanctuary bulding) on the second floor. We would love to see you.

By way of reminder, we also have podcasts on a wide variety of other topics including:

- An argument for Christianity
- Lessons from the book of Ephesians (including wives submitting to husbands)
- How God can order the genocide of entire societies in the Old Testament
- Postmodernism and its effect on society and the church
- And many more!

Please visit the "Podcasts/Other Resources" page on our site to find what you are looking for. God bless. Merry Christmas.

Ken

What defines a Christian?

2008-11-12T11:41:00.003-05:00

"Tabatha" raised a very intersting question recently under the post titled "Modern Day Jewish Atonement" (in the archives under June, 2007) that I found to be fascinating and worthy of discussion. It is a question that likely confuses many people outside the church as to what "Christianity" is all about. The question is:

"What are the core or essential Christian beliefs, the ones that if rejected, would render a person a NON Christian?"

I think the obvious answer to this is "faith in Jesus," but what does that mean exactly?

I propose as a starting point that belief that Jesus died on the cross for your sins is included in that faith.

I would also argue that if you truly believe it, then your belief will be accompanied by sincere repentance (i.e., if you truly understand your fate without Jesus compared to your fate with Him, you will recognize what brought you there and be so incredibly grateful for what He did that you will allow the Holy Spirit into your heart and be changed).

I will leave it there for now to see what others have to say. The specific beliefs that Tabatha asked about were:

- virgin birth
- resurrection
- Jesus as messiah
- Jesus as 'son of god' and/or 'god incarnate'
- the 'second coming'

Please feel free to chime in with your thoughts on this very intriguing question.

Please Vote

2008-11-04T16:44:00.002-05:00

Today is Tuesday, November 4, election day. For those of us here in the United States (as well as other democracies around the world), God has given us the gift of living in a country that allows us a voice in choosing the people who will govern us. This is a privilege that many in our world do not share.

Don't waste the gift God has given you. There are many out there who are envious of the opportunity you have today. Give thanks to God that you live in such a country, then go out and take full advantage of the opportunity God has given to you.

I am not telling which way to vote. That is up to you. All I ask is that you pray, ask for God's guidance, then please go out and cast your ballot.

Thank you and God bless.

Ken

Postmodernism Podcasts

2008-10-27T11:57:00.003-05:00

For those of you who cannot join us for the free 5-week lesson at Grove Church on Postmodernism and Contemporary Christianity, we are posting podcasts of the lessons on the website. The first two lessons are currently available with more to come as they take place. Visit the "Podcasts/Other Resources page" for more details. There is also a link to the latest podcast on the Home Page.

Keeping your eye on what is important

2008-10-27T11:43:00.002-05:00

I am currently out of town on a business trip, and fortunately my hotel has free WiFi. I won't say exactly where I am so that I do not come across as "calling anyone out" and we can just keep our comments general.

As I was driving this morning, I passed a church with a sign out front, just like all those signs we use to announce when Sunday School and worship begin, or sometimes to put up cute little sayings designed to bring people through the front door. But this sign was different. This one said something to the effect of, "It is your Christian duty to vote against Sunday store hours." I may not have it exactly right. After all, I was driving at the time and couldn't write it down.

Now I assume that this locality still has some form of Sunday blue laws prohibiting at least some types of stores from being open on Sundays. I understand why Christians do not work on Sundays (I, for one, will not go into my office or do any office work at home on Sundays), and I certainly understand why an establishment like a Christian book store or even Chick-fil-a, many if not most of the employees of which are Christians, would not be open on Sundays. If your business chooses to do this, great.

But this sign appeared to be telling Christians that it was their "duty" to vote against allowing other, non-Christian businesses to be open on Sundays. Essentially, they are telling Christians that it is our duty to legally force others to observe our Sabbath.

I am not going to go any further into the merits of the position this church was advocating, but I am going to take issue with them telling Christians that they have a duty to vote a particular way on this issue. So now we will have some Christians saying we must vote this way, others saying we shouldn't, and before you know it we have divisions forming within the church. Are these divisions over the theology of salvation or over the true identity of Christ? No, they are divisions over blue laws.

We need to be careful where we draw the line when we are telling other Christians what they have to believe and what they don't if they call themselves Christian. Are Baptists going to tell Presbyterians that they are not Christians if they do not believe in full immersion or adult baptism only? Are we going to say a church is not Christian because it allows for Saturday evening services and Sunday, not Saturday is the Sabbath?

Be careful when you tell other Christians what they "must" believe, or what it is their "duty" to do. Our "duty" is to live as much like Christ as we can in this world, and to continue to grow more and more like Him. Part of that, as Paul tells us in Ephesians, is to live as one unified body, with Christ as the head. Let's not start down paths that could lead to division unless we are reasonably sure that whatever issue is involved really warrants it. I'd venture to say a Christian's position on blue laws doesn't rise to that level, so I will not be telling anyone what their "duty" is to vote one way or the other.

Free 5-Week Program on Postmodernism

2008-10-10T22:12:00.002-05:00

"I'm glad Christianity works for you, but it really isn't what I'm looking for right now."

"We really shouldn't attach labels of 'right' or 'wrong' to other people's ideas. After all, everyone is right. It just depends upon your point of view."

"Truth is all relative."

Do any of these comments sound familiar? They are all examples of the "postmodern" thought that has seeped into our culture and even into the church itself. Are these statements consistent with what the Bible teaches about Christianity? Find out by coming to a FREE five-week program on "Postmodernism and Contemporary Christianity" every Sunday morning from 9:15am-10:15 am beginning October 20, 2008. Join us for these user-friendly lessons as we compare postmodern beliefs to the scriptures. Learn how to share your faith in today's society. No philosophy degree required!

The classes will be held at Grove Presbyterian Church, 50 East Bel Air Avenue, Aberdeen, Maryland, on the second floor of the Monroe Building. Click here for directions. No advance registration is required. Just show up ready to learn.

Each class will be approximately 45 minutes to 1 hour in length, followed by a 10:30 worship service in the church. Based upon a book Ten Minas President Ken Coughlan is currently authoring, "Postmodernism and Contemporary Christianity" is more than merely a Bible study. While the lessons will dive into the scriptures, they will also explore some cultural and philosophical issues. Unfortunately, while most of our churches today do an admirable job of teaching what Christians should believe, they give short shrift to why Christians should believe it. By better understanding what people around you believe about reality, you will be in a far better position to reach them with Christ's truth.

Please feel free to contact us with any questions. So bring your Bible and your willingness to learn and join us for these classes. We hope to see you there.

Please pray for my father

2008-09-27T22:38:00.002-05:00

My posts here may be relatively limited for the time being. My father was in a pretty serious accident on Thursday. He fell 30 feet out of a tree. Believe it or not, none of his injuries appear to be life threatening, but he will be in the hospital, probably until Monday, then in a rehab facility for a few weeks regaining his ability to walk. Even after that he is in for a long, hard rehabilitation. Thank you for your prayers and your understanding.

Ken

New Podcasts

2008-09-24T08:08:00.002-05:00

Seven new podcasts are now available in the Biblical and Discipleship series on the Ten Minas website. There is a four part lesson titled "Chosen for a Purpose" and a three part lesson titled "The Mystery of Christ." Both are taken from the book of Ephesians, Paul's letter on unity within the church. More podcasts from Ephesians will be forthcoming in the next few weeks, so stay tuned.

Striving for Peace Through Antagonism

2008-09-18T16:21:00.000-05:00

As I was driving to work this morning I pulled up behind a car, the back of which look more like a collage of bumper stickers than part of a vehicle. With the exception of the rear windshield there was not one square inch on this thing that wasn’t covered, and even the windshield had a few blockages.

One of the bumper stickers was sending what I believed to be a very noble message. It said, “We need a Department of Peace.” I’m all for promoting peace. I am not a total pacifist and believe that there are times when war is necessary, but at least as a general objective peace is a good thing.

On the same car was one of those Christian fish symbols with legs attached and the word “Darwin” written inside. I can’t imagine that there are too many of you out there who do not know what I am talking about, but for those of you who may not, picture this. In the early days of Christianity, fellow Christians devised a surreptitious system for identifying one another. One person would use a stick to draw a curved line (kind of like a frown) in the dirt. To anyone looking it would just look like they were doodling on the ground. If the person watching was a Christian, however, they would draw a mirror image of the curved line, making the two lines meet at a point on one side (i.e., the nose of the fish), then crossing over each other at the other end of the line making the tail of the fish. If you want a picture, see the “Christian Links” page on the Ten Minas site. We have a picture of this “Christian fish” there.

Nowadays, a number of Christians put these fish on the back of their cars to identify themselves as Christians. As I said, this is a symbol that Christians have long used to identify themselves to one another (it’s not like we all walk around with “Christian” emblazoned on our foreheads).

In the last few years, someone came up with the idea for Darwinists to express their views on the back of their cars by creating one of these fish, but putting legs on it and writing “Darwin” across the middle. This is the placard that was on the car in front of me. It also had something I had never seen before, a T-Rex eating one of the Christian fish symbols.

My point is actually quite simple. I firmly believe that the first step toward peace is to try not to antagonize your opponent. I have often encouraged Christians to follow 1 Peter 3:15, “Always be prepared to give an answer to anyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” Why use the Christian fish to identify yourself as a proponent of Darwinism? I understand that many people believe Darwinian evolution and Christianity are contradictory. But why use a symbol that obviously has deep meaning to Christian adherents and, in essence, mock it to make your point? Why is the T-Rex eating it? Why are you putting feet on it?

It seems to me that this type of behavior is essentially “thumbing your nose” at Christianity. It is the type of behavior that you should know could generate strong negative emotions in the person or class of people that you are targeting. It is behavior that is designed to antagonize. Why else use that particular symbol in such a way that you have to know would not be welcomed by those who were using it before you? The Christian fish did not in any way mock Darwinism. Christian believers were not ridiculing Darwinism by putting these fish on their cars (although please do not misunderstand me to think I am saying that many Christians do not unfortunately ridicule others). It just seems to me to be an unnecessary attack and I find it ironic that someone who advocates a quest for peace would get the first step toward that peace so horribly wrong.

Please do not get me wrong. I am not starting off some kind of a crusade to have all these placards removed. I don’t start screaming at the car in front of me every time I see one. I am only using this small example as a point of entry for something bigger. Namely, if we really want to work for peace, let us begin by trying to respect one another. This does not mean we have to agree with each other, or that you cannot tell someone that you disagree. But do this without mocking, without teasing, without ridicule, and in a manner that shows that you respect your opponent as a human being.

The Secularization of America

2008-09-16T10:39:00.005-05:00

I was reading an opinion article today from the L.A. Times (dated June 17, 2008) titled “Will Gay Rights Trample Religious Freedom?” (Here). If I can briefly summarize the author’s point (although I encourage you to read the article for yourself), he was skeptical of the California Supreme Court’s assurances that allowing same-sex marriages will not effect the ability of churches to practice their religion (allegedly because no clergy member would be forced to perform a same-sex marriage). The author, Marc D. Stern, then gave four examples which he believed justified his skepticism:

(1) A case currently before the California Supreme Court in which a San Diego County fertility doctor is being sued for refusing to perform artificial insemination on one partner in a lesbian couple because it would violate his religious convictions (the doctor had referred the patient to another colleague at no extra cost to the patient).

(2) Catholic Charities in Boston and San Francisco stopping adoption services altogether rather than being forced by anti-discrimination laws to place children with same-sex couples (at least in Boston they were willing to refer these clients to other providers who would accommodate them).

(3) A case currently on appeal in which a Lutheran School is being sued for expelling two students for engaging in a lesbian relationship contrary to the values of the school.

(4) A lawsuit in Poway, California involving a public school that is seeking to ban students from wearing T-Shirts expressing their opposition to homosexuality on campus.

In fairness, I should point out that Mr. Stern only gave a somewhat discreet mention of the fact that in the Lutheran School case the lawsuit was dismissed by the trial court. This is actually a pretty big deal, as anyone can sue for just about any reason. The key question is whether or not the courts will allow that suit to proceed, which in this case they have not (at least so far). I should also point out that a number of the comments following the article argue that any organization receiving public funding must abide by anti-discrimination laws. Judging by the fact that Mr. Stern described this as a “Lutheran” school, it is probably safe to assume that it is a private school and not receiving government funding (the government does not fund religious education), although the article does not say one way or another.

Mr. Stern cites the above instances as examples of times when legal civil liberties have clashed with religious freedom, and religious freedom is the one that had to give way. He appears unconvinced that clergy really will not be required to perform same-sex weddings, possibly under threat of being prohibited from performing legal marriages at all. In other words, clergy weddings may have full force and effect within the church, but those same weddings may not be legally effective unless those clergy also agree to perform same-sex marriages. Mr. Stern does not explicitly make this point, but it is at least the impression I received, especially from him citing the Catholic Charities example.

Dr. Ravi Zacharias defines the process of “secularization” as “the process by which religious ideas, institutions, and interpretations have lost their social significance.” (Here). He argues that this process is occurring in American culture today. I agree. I saw this process illustrated in a number of the comments that followed Mr. Stern’s article. The following comment serves as an example:

“This entire argument is based on a false definition of ‘religious freedom’. Religious freedom allows you to believe anything you want, and to worship with any group you like. Your article assumes that believers have the right to live in a society that mirrors their beliefs. All of the examples cited of religious persecution have nothing to do with what a person believes, and everything to do with how they behave in public. The doctor doesn't have to inseminate anyone, but if he chooses to be licensed by the state to practice medicine, he is responsible for following whatever legal guidelines exist.
Submitted by: Jason
3:59 PM PDT, June 17, 2008” (emphasis added)

According to Jason, there is (and should be) a disconnect between what a person believes in private and how they act in public. Religion should be confined to the sphere of private thought alone. You are free to believe whatever you want inside your head as long as you conform to the cultural norms outwardly. Religious notions have no place in the public discourse.

I wonder how the secularist would react if I was to reverse this definition? You are free to have all your secular thoughts in private as long as you outwardly act in conformity with my religious ideas. That certainly would be unacceptable because at least the postmodern secularist demands that all viewpoints be “tolerated”, especially their own. Unfortunately, this postmodern world has redefined “tolerance” to mean not just “respected and allowed equal opportunity to express their perspective,” but instead that all views must be affirmed as equally true. No longer are we even permitted to respectfully disagree, but instead we are called upon to celebrate and actively practice those perspectives with which we may passionately disagree because all views are allegedly equally “true.” Jason tells us that we are perfectly free to disagree with homosexual practices in private, but in public we must act as if they are a cause for celebration.

What postmodern secularists fail to realize, though, is that in expressing this viewpoint they are violating their own definition of tolerance as to the religious believer! In restricting the religious viewpoint to the private arena, the secularist is not affirming it to be equally true with other views. What they really mean to say is that all views must be tolerated except those views that disagree that all views should be tolerated.

Let me pose a simple question. Do you truly “believe” something if you do not act as if you believe it? How many of us have been told by our parents that “actions speak louder than words?” The notion that someone can believe something in private but not act upon that belief in public is completely contrary to the realities of our existence. This is not how we live our lives and really appears to be nothing more than the secularist’s attempt to suppress the non-secularist, even though such suppression should be against what they preach.

The examples given by Mr. Stern illustrate this suppression. Take the case of the insemination doctor that was cited by Jason. It is not like this lesbian couple was without options. The doctor referred them to a colleague who was willing to perform the insemination. There would have been no additional cost to them whatsoever. If what they really were after was an opportunity to conceive a child, everything was in place for them to do so. But that is not what they wanted. The fact that they filed this lawsuit proved that what they really wanted was to force THIS PARTICULAR doctor to perform the insemination, contrary to his religious beliefs? Why? Why is the lesbian couple’s belief that they are civilly entitled to insemination more worthy of respect than the doctor’s belief that he should not perform it? How can Jason (and others who made similar comments) possibly decry the alleged suppression of the couple’s “right” to child-bearing without also realizing that they are suppressing the doctor’s right to practice his religion, especially when the couple HAD ANOTHER OPTION? Even assuming that this couple had a right to insemination, what made them believe that they had a right to be inseminated by this specific physician? Their "right" to insemination was not being denied. At best some alleged "right" to be inseminated specifically by "Dr. X" was being violated. I fail to see how any such "right" exists.

I can understand when a religious practice in and of itself would cross a line that a society believes cannot be crossed (such as human sacrifice, etc.). But this was not one of those instances. Nobody else’s “rights” would have been affected in any way by this doctor’s decision. If that couple had really wanted artificial insemination, they would have been able to get it. This really appeared to be more of a crusade against this individual doctor to force him to act in conformity with the prevailing culture’s beliefs instead of his own.

Forced belief is never appropriate. The Christian Crusades were unacceptable. I would hope that even secularists would realize this and try to persuade people through the marketplace of ideas rather than through the power of legal coercion.

Upcoming Appearances

2008-09-04T13:50:00.003-05:00

I will be making several appearances coming up if anyone would like to stop by.

I will be teaching a class on Ephesians starting this Sunday. The classes are from 9:15 to 10:15 am at Grove Presbyterian Church, 50 E. Bel Air Avenue, Aberdeen, MD. They will be held on the second floor of the Monroe Building (the large building adjacent to the church). I will be teaching on the following dates:

September 7
September 21
October 5
October 12

The class will also be taught on September 14 and 28 with another (and very qualified) elder of the church leading the group.

I will also be operating a table at the Havre de Grace Community Yard Sale, to be held at the Havre de Grace Activity Center, 351 Lewis Lane, Havre de Grace, Maryland 21078. This event will be on Saturday, September 27, 2008 from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm. We will be trying to raise money for our Disaster Relief Project to help people who have been the victims of natural disasters. See our website for more information.

I hope to see some of you at one or more of these events. God bless.

Ken Coughlan

God's Point of View

2008-07-29T20:08:00.002-05:00

Occassionally when I've been teaching, or just in casual conversation, the topic of election comes up. No, not the type of election we'll be having in November. I'm referring to God electing the people to be saved. Some people look at this concept and say its not fair. After all, if God sat down at the beginning of time and chose who would be saved and who would be "destined" for Hell, then we all live our lives with our destiny pre-determined and no way to change it no matter what we do during our lives. Some people claim that God simply foresees how we will exercise our free will before we do it, and makes His choice based upon His foreknowledge. But many Christians find this concept equally unacceptable.

I have often explained my personal view that both of the above alternatives start with the same flawed starting assumption. Both of them try to analyze God in human terms. We live a linear existence, so we try to understand God linearly as well. But God exists outside time. He created time. So He is not confined to time. We live linearly. God does not. I have often used the example of a tapestry. The tapestry represents every moment in time laid out before God. God looks down at that tapestry and equally "sees" all moments in time simultaneously. He can still interact; pull a string here, tie one on there. So he can see all times, and also act on any one of them.

The punchline is that God neither decides "beforehand" what our destiny will be, nor does he "foresee" our "future" actions and base His decision on them. He just sees our lives (and whether or not we have faith in Christ) in His reality and bases His election upon that. He sees all people over all times right in front of Him, just as someone can see the entire tapestry all at once. This is why there is no difference between a sin we committed 20 years ago and one we committed yesterday. We may think that the 20 year old sin is so far removed that we should be given "credit" for improving our behavior for so long. But in reality, that 20 year old sin has the same presence to God as our recent behavior. We cannot escape our sin.

I am currently working my way through Norman Geisler's 4 volume "Systematic Theology" and I came across a paragraph where he explained the same concept as I have been trying to explain, but doing so in a far better way. So I wanted to share Dr. Geisler's words with the rest of you.

"...as an eternal Being God does not really fore-know anything. He is eternal and, as such, He simply knows in one eternal Now everything there is to know. God sees all time - past, present, and future - from His lofty perch of eternity; whereas human beings looking through the tunnel vision of time can only see the present."
Geisler, Norman. Systematic Theology: Volume 1, p. 583 (2002)

This is just another example in which humans try to define God in human terms. Yes, we are made in the image of God. But there are many instances in which we must be cognizant of the differences between the finite and the infinite, and avoid trying to bring God down to our level, making Him into a finite being. Always try to be aware that God is far more that we are. God bless.

PCUSA opts for human authority instead of Biblical authority

2008-07-03T15:08:00.004-05:00

My own denomination, the PCUSA, which I have blogged about many times before, recently held its 218th General Assembly. Think of it like a legislature that meets every two years. In theory, that legislature is supposed to follow two things: (1) the Bible, and (2) the PCUSA Constitution. The Constitution is actually comprised of two parts, a Book of Order (which is like a set of statutes dictating how the church operates) and the Book of Confessions (a collection of historic Christian confessions including the Westminster Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, among others).

The PCUSA has been pretty unstable lately, in large part over the issue of the ordination of homosexuals, but even more fundamentally on the authority to be accorded to scripture. At the latest General Assembly that was just completed, there were a few things approved that have gotten the attention of many.

The first is a proposal to amend the translation of the Heidleberg Catechism in the Book of Confessions. Question 87 of the Catechism reads, "Can those who do not turn to God from their ungrateful, impenitent life be saved?" Prior to the amendment, the answer read as follows: "A. Certainly not! Scripture says, 'Surely you know that the unjust will never come into possession of the kingdom of God. Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers or drunkards or slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God.'"
Pursuant to the proposed amendment, it would read, "Certainly not; for as Scripture says no unchaste person, idolater, adulterer, thief, greedy person, drunkard, slanderer, robber or anyone like that shall inherit the kingdom of god."

Proponents of the amendment argue that the original version is simply a poor translation. And by the way, the correct translation just happens to exclude "homosexual perversion" from the list. Allegedly, though, this is simply a translation issue, not something motivated by the current political climate. They contend that the "homosexual perversion" language was inserted to discourage youth from the sexual revolution at the time the Catechism was written and really had nothing to do with divine mandate.

Opponents point out that the original answer is taken directly from 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 which reads, "9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." According to this camp, the Biblical basis for this part of the catechism explictly includes a reference to homosexuality, therefore the translation should not be changed. This still requires further action at the next General Assembly in two years.

A bigger issue, though, comes from the amendment of the ordination standards. Currently, the Book of Order requires that any candidate for ordination live in "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness." Under the proposed amendment (which still needs to be approved by a majority of presbyteries over the next year), this language would be deleted and a new subsection would be substituted. The new section would read as follows:

"Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation, pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation establishes the candidate's sincere efforts to adhere to these standards."

The General Assembly also enacted new "authoritative interpretations" (bascially, rulings providing clarification of constitutional provisions) explicitly overturning several prior authoritative interpretations that came down against homosexual ordination and also explicitly providing that if a candidate for ordination raises a conscientious objection to something in the ordination standards, the ordaining body may decide to go ahead and ordain him or her anyway.

For those of you who think I am now going to rant and rave against homosexual ordination, I'm sorry to disappoint. I've said my peace on this issue, over and over again, and I really do not see the point to rehashing the same ground again. If you want to hear what I have to say about it, there are plenty of prior blog entries on the PCUSA you can find in the history as well as an article on the website on homosexual marriage.

The one point I am going to raise here, though, is the incredibly dangerous standard set by the new ordination language. Can someone please tell me, after reading the new language, what exactly the PCUSA believes? What is our ordination standard? Because it seems to me like "anything goes." A candidate promises that they really are trying to be faithful to the scriptures, regardless of what they actually believe, and as long as the ordaining body agrees with him or her, that's okay. So if someone believes that all the doctrines of Mormonism are taught by the Bible, that person can be ordained in the PCUSA. If someone believes that the Bible actually teaches Hinduism or Jainism, or any other "-ism" you can think of, that's okay! Everyone gets to define for themselves what the PCUSA stands for. If this new language passes, all I can say is that telling someone that you belong to the Prebyterian Church (USA) is now a completely empty and meaningless statement.

Even social clubs have some common ground to define who they are. But it now seems that the PCUSA, in its effort not to offend anyone and to include everyone, has thrown that bit of (what should be) common sense out the window. We are in for a log jam of conflict and contradiction down the road.

God bless.

Ken

Morality according to Sam Harris

2008-05-30T20:23:00.005-05:00

I just finished reading Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation." The number of thoughts I could share is voluminous, but I decided to narrow it down to a few general impressions and one brief observation.

Overall, the book was one of the most vitriolic defenses of atheism I have ever seen. Mr. Harris' recurring theme throughout his book is that his point of view is intuitively obvious and anyone who disagrees with him is intellectually bankrupt. Very often he makes conclusory statements without even attempting to provide any evidence for his conclusion. Again, the theme is that his perspective should be obviously true to anyone with even a bare modicum of common sense. Ironically, at one point in the book Mr. Harris calls Christians "arrogant" when the entirety of his book could the the poster child for intellectual arrogance. Mr. Harris makes no attempt to respect those who disagree with him. He makes no attempt to engage in a polite, respectful discussion of the issues. If you agree with him, you are a genius. If you disagree with him, your opinions do not even belong in the marketplace of ideas.

The one point I want to address here, though, deals with Harris' conception of morality. Without explicitly saying so, Harris firmly establishes himself as a utilitarian. He argues that all morality stems from concepts of suffering and pleasure. He then goes on to Christian morality, claiming that it disregards a large degree of suffering that its moral views cause.

Obviously, I disagree with Harris' description of Christian moral theory, but I will confine the remainder of this post to one simple point, and it is a criticism that could come from proponents of both Christian and other non-utilitarian moral theories. Mr. Harris ... if all morality is solely derived from suffering and pleasure, this would mean that an act that causes no suffering should be morally acceptable. So if you could painlessly euthanize a homeless person who has no family or friends to speak of to even notice he or she is gone, is that OK?

If Mr. Harris is correct and there is no God, no afterlife, simply our material world, then that homeless person will experience nothing after death, so there is no post-mortem suffering. The act of death itself is without suffering, and there is no one remaining behind who is suffering as a result of the death. So this should be perfectly permissible under Harris' formulation of morality.

I believe that it is reasonable to state that most people believe that cold-blooded murder is never morally acceptable, no matter who your victim may be. The morality of murder does not depend upon whether it can be carried out painlessly, or how big the victim's circle of friends may be. But these factors do weigh into Mr. Harris' moral theory.

At some point respect for human life must enter the picture, and not because of some imprecise concept of suffering, but because of the inherent value that life holds. An acceptable moral theory cannot hinge on suffering. Suffering can be one component (as I believe it is in Christian moral theory), but it cannot be the "be all and end all" of your theory. Without taking into account human dignity any moral theory, including Mr. Harris', will collapse.

Ken Coughlan speaking appearances

2008-05-26T21:36:00.002-05:00

There are two dates coming up when you can come here me speak if you like, both at Grove Presbyterian Church, 50 East Bel Air Avenue, Aberdeen, Maryland:

Sunday, June 1, 2008 10:30 am
I will be delivering the children's message during the worship service.

Sunday, June 15, 2008 10:30 am
I will be in the pulpit leading worship and giving a special Father's Day sermon on sanctification.

After the worship service on June 15 we will also be holding a fund raising plea for the Ten Minas Disaster Relief Project. I hope to see some of you there. If you are able to make it, please come up and introduce yourself during coffee hour. God bless.

Miley Cyrus photos

2008-04-28T10:03:00.003-05:00

WARNING: This post discusses some adult themes and is NOT for children.

Back in February I wrote a post that was somewhat complimentary of Miley Cyrus. I felt that in order to do my “due diligence” I should also, therefore, comment on the latest news item about Ms. Cyrus that I just saw on the Today Show this morning.

Apparently, a number of moderately suggestive photos have surfaced of Ms. Cyrus. Most of them are on the internet. Of those they showed on the Today Show, they seemed to be depicting her laying across a boy her age, fully clothed but bearing her midriff, along with various other pictures of her in close proximity with this boy, and one in particular which the Today Show described as her kissing another girl (in all honesty, to me it looked like they were both eating something like a Twizzler, one on each end, a la “Lady and the Tramp”, but I admittedly only got a quick glimpse of it and the overall tone did seem to be suggestive in nature).

But the picture that is getting the most attention is in the latest issue of “Vanity Fair.” There, a photo appears of Ms. Cyrus sitting down. The picture is taken from behind her, but she appears to be topless, holding a blanket or sheet up to cover her front. She is wearing very bold lipstick and you see her full bare back. Ms. Cyrus is 15 years old.

Aside from the fact that Annie Liebowitz, who took the photo, did so (I believe) in exceedingly poor taste, Ms. Cyrus obviously went along with it. According to one source her parents were present the whole time. According to another they left 10 minutes early (I do not know if this particular photo was taken during that 10 minute span).

Ms. Cyrus has apologized. Apparently she initially believed the photo was “artistic,” but now acknowledges that it never should have been taken. Time will tell if she really means what she says.

The biggest thing that struck me about this whole story, though, was a comment on the Today Show by Donny Deutsch, host of MSNBC’s “The Big Idea.” Mr. Deutsch said that this is a “win-win” situation for everyone, including Ms. Cyrus. He claimed that the Vanity Fair photo will be good for her because it begins her transition from girl to woman. She needs to show a little sexuality in order for people to accept her as a woman. If she continues to keep her squeaky clean little girl image, then her career will be over when she turns 18.

I can accept the general principle that you need to be seen as an adult in order to have an adult career. But here is my issue with Mr. Deutsh. Why must being viewed as a “woman” be equated with sexuality? Don’t get me wrong. I am not naïve, and I am well aware that this is a viewpoint that is pervasive throughout our culture. I am admittedly simply choosing Mr. Deutsch’s remarks to illustrate a point that could have been made in any number of other contexts.

I am also admittedly not a woman. But I would think that this type of thinking would be offensive to most women. If not, maybe it should be. Basically, what Mr. Deutsch is saying is that if you want the public to view you as an adult woman, you must portray yourself as a sex object. Why can’t we come to view her as a woman by her exemplifying maturity, or the ability to make the correct decisions on her own without her parents’ involvement? Frankly, I believe she would have shown herself to be more of an adult if, assuming her parents were not there at the time, she showed the maturity to tell Ms. Liebowitz “no” to this particular pose. That would show that she can make her own decisions, and would demonstrate a level of maturity that we expect from adults.

Please do not misunderstand me. I do not want to seem like I am coming down too hard on Ms. Cyrus. She is, after all, only 15 years old, and is likely still learning how to be an adult. It is somewhat unfair how we place these young people in the enormous spotlight and expect so much from them. They are, after all, people like everyone else. And like all other teenagers they will go through their struggles as they make the transition from children to adults.

I only bring up the other possible decisions Ms. Cyrus could have made to illustrate what I believe is wrong with Mr. Deutsch’s viewpoint. He basically equates “womanhood” with “sexuality”, and ignores the plethora of other qualities that should properly define what it means to be a “woman.” Women, like men, were made in the image of God. But if you look at them as nothing more than an object designed to satisfy your personal selfish sexual desires, how are you treating them any different than any other consumable commodity; i.e., food satisfies my biological urge for sustenance, television satisfies my urge for entertainment, women satisfy my urge for sex? If that is all they are, how are you treating them any differently than food or your television set?

Women are human beings. They have far more value than consumable commodities. But when we define women in purely sexual terms, we devalue them as persons. They become “things”, not “people.” People have personalities, feelings and souls. Objects do not. I personally find this type of thinking to be highly offensive.

I also do not mean to say that this type of thinking only applies to women. Any time men are objectified I find it offensive as well (while I believe it is far more common in our culture to objectify women, any number of examples of treating men the same way can also be seen).

This is one of the reasons I am opposed to recreational sex. If the only reason you are engaging in the activity is to satisfy your sexual desires, each party is treating the other as no more than an object. When any of us are treated this way, we should be screaming out, “NO! I am more than that!” We should try as best we can to avoid looking at others that way and we certainly should not allow ourselves to be treated like that.

This is why, I believe, the Bible describes sexuality as two becoming one. It is an expression of intimacy, of recognition of the bond between the two of you. It shows in a very real, physical way, that you are bound to each other as if you shared one body, for the rest of your life. The two, quite literally, become one. Your partner is one and the same with you, not simply some object to satisfy your selfish desires. In the act of intercourse, you are quite literally equating your partner with yourself. When sex occurs properly, you are explicitly elevating your partner above “object” status to the same “personhood” status you recognize for yourself.

So I encourage Ms. Cyrus and anyone else who reads this (whether you be woman or man) to refuse to surrender to this cultural norm. You do not need to show your skin to be seen as an adult. In fact, if that is how you choose to express your adulthood, you run the risk of starting down a dangerous path in which you define your identity based solely on your sexuality, and all the entailments that may lead to. So please, when someone tries to get you to define yourself in that way, boldly assert, “No! I am more that that!”

God bless.