I've moved

For anyone still following us here at the Ten Minas Ministries blog, I've moved my various thoughts over to a new blog titled "Living Life Consistently."  You can find it at livinglifeconsistently.blogspot.com.  A full explanation is available there.  Thank you.

Is Pro-Choice Really Pro-Life?

I am currently reading the book “True Reason” by Tom Gilson and others (the book's official website can be found here). This isn’t a traditional apologetics book per se. Rather, it is a collection of essays by authors responding to the new atheists’ cooption of the term “reason” to describe their worldview. The contributors are not so much concerned with making an affirmative case for Christianity as they are illustrating how so many of the techniques used by the new atheists can be described as anything but reasonable.

In surfing Facebook recently, I came across this picture attempting to present an argument in favor of the pro-choice movement. As I read it, I could not help but see some parallels between the issues raised in “True Reason” and the tactics employed by those advocating in favor of abortion.

Do Abortion Bans Lead to "Back Alley" Procedures?

One of the issues I have not covered in my recent blog posts on abortion is the oft-repeated myth that if a country outlaws abortion, the number of abortions will not go down and women instead will seek "back alley" abortions, dangerous procedures that result in more injuries and fatalities for the pregnant women.

As I said, this is a myth.  But rather than post my own blog on the subject, I recently came across a thorough, clear and fascinating blog by Kristi Burton Brown that I thought I would link to here for your reference.

True or false? Banning abortion does not decrease abortion rates

Fetal “Personhood,” Abortion, and Allowing Exceptions for Rape and Incest

On October 26, 2012, a post appeared on a blog titled, "The Dead Author's Club" by "Christine" (her last name does not appear on the post) titled "Fetal personahood and criminalizing abortion: a prosecutor's perspective."  The blog had nothing to do with dead authors, and to Christine's credit she explained this from the ourtset.  Instead, she wanted to express her thoughts about the efforts to ban (or even criminalize) abortion except in certain special circumstances such as rape and incest.  Unfortunately, comments have been closed, so there is no way for me to respond to Christine directly.  Even without that opportunity, though, I felt a response of some sort was warranted.

The “False Gods” of Evangelicalism

On September 12, 2012, Rob Asghar wrote a blog post for the Huffington Post accusing evangelical Christianity of pledging allegiance to an unholy Trinity which he calls the idols of Mars, mammon and sexual purity.  The idol of Mars refers to our allegedly bloodthirsty desire to resort to warfare when we should love our enemies instead.  Our worship of mammon is illustrated through our alleged allegiance to capitalistic materialism and hoarding material wealth.  Finally, he believes we are hypocrites by demanding sexual purity in society while worshipping at a materialistic altar ourselves.

Mr. Asghar does manage to exhibit a certain rhetorical flourish.  Like a good politician, he can get his audience to stand up and cheer as he holds their hands and navigates them down the path he wishes to travel so by the endof the journey they will proclaim along with him how utterly fair and reasonable his position appears.  And to be fair to Mr. Asghar, in many cases his position is fair and reasonable and he hits on some legitimate points that should cause some sincere reflection to take place within evangelical circles.  However, by taking his listeners by the hand and walking them down his path, he has carefully avoided allowing them to look from side to side and notice the other paths veering from Mr. Asghar’s trajectory, many of which are far more lit and enlightened than the destination to which they are being led.  In logical terms, Mr. Asghar commits the fallacy of universalizing the exception.  He points out a legitimate problem within evangelicalism but then overstates its prominence or effect.  He also makes little to no effort to understand the rationale of his “opponents’” position, so in many instances he ends up crafting a straw man and knocking it down.  As a result, while they are certainly some important things to take away from his piece, his ultimate conclusions are overly broad and not well thought-out.

What is the Real Issue in Abortion?

There is hardly a more emotional issue out there than abortion.  In fact, many times it seems absolutely impossible to have a logical discussion with people about it.  Personally, I am opposed to abortion.  I don't need the Bible to tell me this.  It seems pretty logical that I cannot condone abortion without also condoning many other clearly unethical practices if I am to hold a consistent worldview.

I have written before about how the entire issue of rape and incest is really a red herring.  Even under those atrocious and appalling circumstances, people would not justify killing a living human being.  I often ask someone if they would condone killing a two year old child that was conceived via rape or incest.  Inevitably, nobody ever says "yes."  Instead, they try to make some other distinction between the two scenarios, usually that a two year old child is a living human being whereas an embryo is not.  And I would agree that IF an embryo is not a living human being, then there is nothing wrong with abortion.  It has no additional moral implications than removing an appendix.  But this illustration shows that for those who bring up rape and incest, their real objection has nothing to do with either one.  It has to do with life.  Is whatever is inside the womb a human life or not?

External Evidence for Pauline Authorship of Ephesians

I was recently visiting a church on a beautiful Sunday morning when the pastor made an assertion in her sermon to which I felt I should respond.  She stated that Paul did not write the book of Ephesians.  In fact it allegedly was not written for 100 years or more after Jesus' death, at which time an unknown author attached Paul's name to the letter in a practice that this pastor urged the congregation was considered perfectly acceptable at that time.

She expressed herself in much the same way as I just outlined, as if the issue of the authorship of Ephesians was clearly resolved, with no mention of the abundance of scholarship that disagreed with her conclusion.  After listening to the sermon, her congregation would have no idea that a differing point of view even existed in scholarly circles, let alone realize that the perspective they were hearing from the pulpit had no advocates in its favor for at least 1,400 years after Jesus' time and was a minority view even today.

Being a guest, and having more than an ounce of decorum, I did not stand up mid-speech and interrupt in order to insert my two cents.  Rather, I sent an e-mail after the fact in an attempt to encourage this pastor to look beyond the oft refuted criticisms of the likes of Bart Ehrman and instead evaluate what I believe is the overwhelming external evidence of Pauline authorship of Ephesians.  What follows is the text of that e-mail.  In order to keep the focus of this post on the merits of my position rather than a critique of this individual pastor, I have excluded her name and the exact date of my visit.

By placing this information on the TMM blog, it is my hope to encourage others to look at the totality of the evidence and not believe everything they read in such narrowly focused works as Dr. Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" or his latest book, "Forged."  God bless.

Relatively Football

Football season was upon them and John along with his friend Evan were chomping at the bit for it to begin.  Feeling the need to break out the pigskin, John asked Evan if he’d like to go outside and throw the football around for a while.

“Sure,” said Evan.  “Do you want to try to get some people together for a pick-up game?”

“Nah,” replied John.  “Let’s just toss it for a while.  I’m not looking to get wrapped up in all the rules of a game.  I just want to stretch my arm out a bit.”

“Sounds good.”

So, the two of them went into John’s back yard and started throwing the ball back and forth.  After about five minutes, though, things started to get weird.

Our Knee-Jerk Prejudices

"We often hold our views prejudicially, that is without looking at the opposing arguments, and then we react in a knee-jerk kind of way to people who differ from us." Greg Koukl

Most people will read this quote and immediately react by saying, "Yes, that is exactly what my 'opponents' do all the time! I get so sick of that!" I can only encourage you to look in the mirror. In truth, the odds are that you too react in this way (as do I). It is a reality of humanity, although people are far more willing to see it in others than in themselves.

Consent "Plus"

In my last blog post I addressed the issue of harm.  Many people argue that an action should be considered moral if it does not harm anyone else.  I provided the example of two Peeping Toms to demonstrate that lack of harm, in and of itself, is insufficient to determine the morality of an action.  A similar concept that often arises hand in hand with the harm principle is that of consent.  Under this principle, an action is morally permissible if all parties affected by it give their knowing and voluntary consent.

The same question is properly asked of this alleged justification that was asked of the harm principle: “Is consent in and of itself sufficient to render an action morally permissible?”  As with harm, an example illustrates why this question clearly must be answered in the negative.

No Harm, No Foul

I am sure you have heard the expression, “No harm, No foul.”  If an action does not hurt anyone, then it is no big deal.  Don’t sweat it, so to speak.  Sometimes this expression is used somewhat playfully, like in a pick-up basketball game when someone gets accidentally knocked to the ground but rises unhurt.  No harm, no foul.  But other times this principle is used in more significant moral contexts.  It is often referred to as the “harm principle”: A person is free to behave in whatever manner he or she chooses so long as the behavior does not harm anyone else.  While the actual phraseology of “no harm, no foul” rarely appears in these moral arguments, the concept remains the same.

The Basic Logic of Coherence

I am not sure I could devise a better example of blatant logical error than what I recently read in the article linked below.  To make it worse, it occurs in two consecutive sentences, making the flaw all the more obvious.  Here is what the author said:

“Organizations that seek to curtail the rights of any demographic should be disbanded, ridiculed or lose their tax-exemption status.

“I believe that the right of people to live in a manner of their choosing, self-evidently excludes any right to prevent others from living how they choose.”

For those of you who still do not see the problem, it may help to reverse the order of the sentences and offer some brief commentary.

The Dangerous Meme

Unfortunately, it is all too common for people to simply repeat something that they once heard without first investigating whether it is true.  When we are talking about our friends and neighbors, this is called “gossip.” But when people engage in this type of behavior in the intellectual marketplace, unfortunately very few folks are willing to respectfully call them on it, leading to more misinformation being spread and accepted by the masses as the truth.

This is how political campaigns are run or ideological drives are pushed.  Start an overly simplistic (and usually misleading) slogan and spread it all over the internet.  Before too long, everyone believes it is true.

I recently came across a similar phenomenon in a discussion on a Yahoo! News article with a gentleman named “Ryan.”  Ryan proposed, without offering support, that “science tells us” that “something can come from nothing for no reason.”  The first question that occurs to me when people make comments like this is what they even mean by “science.”  Science is a discipline, not a person.  In fact, it is a collection of multiple disciplines.  A discipline cannot “tell” us anything.  It cannot speak.

IS MORMONISM JUST ANOTHER CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION?

Since its inception in the 19^th Century, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has identified itself as a “Christian” church, borne out of the New Testament.  They speak of Biblical figures such as Adam and Eve, talk about Jesus’ death for our salvation and even use traditional Christian terminology such as “the Trinity,” “Salvation,” and of course, “Jesus Christ.”  Based upon these apparent similarities, many in the mainstream American public have accepted that Mormonism is a branch of Christianity and are quick to label anyone who disagrees with them as being “intolerant.”  Mormons themselves will take offense at any suggestion that they are not Christian and even many Christian believers refuse to share the gospel with Mormons, believing they are just another Christian denomination.

Obviously there are many denominations within Christianity, all of which are generally accepted as falling under the Christian “umbrella” even though they disagree on some finer theological points.  Switching from one denomination to another is not a departure from Christianity and does not affect one’s salvation.

But the reason these denominations consider themselves to be part of the same body of Christ despite their differences is because they all hold certain foundational beliefs in common.  In order for any group label to have meaning, it must have a definition.  In other words, there must be some distinctive attributes that differentiate those within that group from those who are on the outside.  While Christianity certainly has a history of multiple denominations, these denominations have shared certain core beliefs such that their differences are peripheral.

ABORTION: Choice, Life and Rape

Insensitive Christians. You say you care about people, but your actions prove otherwise. Just look at how you treat rape or incest victims. You are so caught up in your moral superiority, trying to force your morality on everyone else that you have completely lost sight of the person who is suffering. You say you don’t like abortion. Fine. Don’t have one. But how can you claim to love people, then look at a woman who has gone through the horrifying experience of rape and tell her she cannot have an abortion, knowing full well that her drawn out pregnancy will do nothing but constantly make her re-live this horrifying experience?!

Have you ever heard anyone speak like this? I have. Most discussions on issues like abortion are fraught with emotion. Something about this topic is far more personal than an intellectual exercise about where Columbus actually landed or whether scientists will ever be able to directly observe a quark.  People can talk about some things calmly and coolly, not terribly invested in what the answer turns out to be. Abortion is not one of those things.

DO CHRISTIANS COMMIT THE FALLACY OF COMPOSITION?

When I debate atheists, from time to time I point out when they commit some of the standard logical fallacies.  The genetic fallacy probably comes up as often as any other.  This occurs when you incorrectly assume that by proving the origin of a belief, you have thereby disproven the validity of that belief.  For example, atheists often claim that morality is merely the byproduct of evolutionary processes.  Even if true, however, at best this may show how people arrived at their individual sense of morality.  It does nothing one way or the other to demonstrate whether objective morality actually exists independent of our perceptions.

In fairness, though, if the theist is entitled to point out logical fallacies committed by the atheist, they should be permitted to do the same in return.  One favorite tactic of many is to claim that in advancing the kalam cosmological argument, Christian apologists like myself commit the “fallacy of composition.”

Reading Biases Between the Lines

I have written previously warning Christians about the way we treat others and avoiding hypocrisy. The Christian Church has a reputation for being too political, sometimes radical, and intolerant and in many instances those of us within the church are at least partially responsible for that perception.

However, I also want to take the opportunity to illustrate the opposite side of the equation.  Sometimes those outside the church work very hard, in my opinion, to find a reason to attach these labels to Christianity, even when it is not justified.  I recently read a conversation on Facebook which began with the following post:

"I just got an email forwarded where the original sender's e-signature stated 'As Christian Patriots, we must be committed to doing the 'Right Thing for the Right Reason', no matter what the cost or consequence.' How can this NOT be construed as creepy! 'No matter what cost'? Isn't that the type of radicalism that promotes terrorism? Eek."

Consistency

In connection with the Catholic Church speaking out against the new health care law's requirement that health plans provide contraception coverage, there has been some outcry on the internet and in social media circles about churches staying out of the political arena.  It is not a new issue, but it has gained some recent steam.

In reality, churches are not prohibited from speaking out on anything of a political bent.  The Internal Revenue Code prohibits them from getting involved in a particular candidates campaign, donating to a campaign, or openly advocating a particular candidate for political office.  However, many issues overlap.  Things the church considers to be of spiritual concern may also be of political concern.  The church is within its rights to preach, teach or speak out in regard to its opinion on such subjects.  In fact, tax-exempt organizations are even permitted to engage in limited lobbying activity, so long as that activity does not rise to what the IRS defines as a "substantial" level.

More than anything, I would like to see consistency on both sides.  For example, were those who currently believe the church should be silent on the "political" issue of contraception equally incensed when the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote a letter in 2010 to the United States House of Representatives urging the passing of President Obama's proposed health care reform law (http://old.usccb.org/healthcare/HC-Letter-to-Congress-012610.pdf)?  Did they speak out against the United Church of Christ passing a resolution in 2005 aimed at "affirming marriage equality, affirming the civil rights of gay - of same-gender - couples to have their relationships recognized as marriages by the state, and encouraging our local churches to celebrate those marriages" (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/national/05church.html?_r=1)?  Did they object when the United Methodist Church urged the passing of health care legislation in the House of Representatives and opposed an amendment that would prohibit including abortion services (http://www.umc-gbcs.org/c.frLJK2PKLqF/b.3634159/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?aid=13356)?

We cannot "have our cake and eat it too."  If churches must remain completely out of the political arena, then all churches must do so.  We cannot pick and choose when we decide to raise the objection based upon whether we happen to agree with the stance the church is taking in any particular instance.

This is more an observation about human nature than anything else.  That which we condemn when it stands in opposition to our views we are all too often willing to give a blind eye when it works in our favor.  This principle applies far beyond this particular illustration and it is my prayer that we can all strive to seek consistency in our daily lives.

God's Precious Pearl

“The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.”

Matthew 13:44-46

Many people probably think that Jesus used these two short parables to repeat an important point for emphasis: the kingdom of heaven should be of such great value to us that nothing we have can compare. That definitely is the lesson of the first parable, but there actually is a subtle shift in the second.  If you “blink” you may just miss it.

In the parable of the treasure in the field, Jesus says the kingdom of heaven is like the treasure. Believers are symbolized by the man who finds it. But in the parable of the pearl Jesus does not compare the kingdom of heaven to the pearl (which would be parallel with the treasure in the first story) but rather the merchant!  Here, we are the pearl and God is the merchant looking for us! The first parable demonstrates what we must be prepared to give up for God, but the second shows what God was willing to give up for us!  The merchant sold everything he had to buy that pearl.  God the Father gave up his one and only son in order to “buy” us back from the price of sin.

When you are depressed or feeling unappreciated, remember that God, the great merchant, believes you have unimaginably high value. You are his precious fine pearl and he will always love you.

The Thorns in Our Flesh

My 9 year old daughter asked me last night why she was different.  Puzzled, I asked what she meant and she said she looks different than other children.  “Well, you’re definitely more beautiful than most 9 year old girls,” I replied.  “No Daddy,” she said, “I have two teeth that haven’t even come in all the way yet, and it’s been a very long time.”

Two of my precious little girl’s top teeth have not yet come down as low as the others, so her teeth do not all line up properly.  Apparently, this has been making her self-conscious.  So I pulled down her Bible and opened it up to 2 Corinthians 12:7b-12 where Paul said:

“Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.”

We also talked about 1 Samuel 16:7b:

“The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”

For those of you who don’t know, I have had a scar of sorts on my right pinky finger since the 4^th grade.  It almost looks like a large callous on top of the joint closest to the tip.  I have been very self-conscious about it and usually try my best to hide it from public view (although I guess that cat is out of the bag now!).  I told my daughter, being completely honest, that I would love for it to go away.  I’ve prayed, I’ve even seen doctors, but it is still there and probably will be for the rest of my life.  Sometimes “thorns” like this help keep us humble.  They help remind us that no matter what our current culture tells us, the worth of a human being is not measured by their outward appearance.  What we see as outward “flaws” really are nothing of the kind.  If anything, they keep us focused on what is really important; what we look like on the inside.

I told my daughter that in all likelihood her teeth will eventually grow in the rest of the way.  If they don’t by the time she has all her adult teeth, we can ask her dentist about it.  But in the meantime remember that in the eyes of God, she is as beautiful as she could be, just as she is in the eyes of her Daddy.