Not just our Savior; He's also our Lord

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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).