E-Flash From Dan, May 23, 2009

E-Flash Friends;

Because of the planning that is a necessary part of church work, I’m often thinking about projects and sermon series and church events that will be happening 3 or 4 or 5 months from now. (If you have any good ideas for a Christmas message, let me know.)

I was in that “advance planning” mode for a while, earlier today—thinking about some issues that will be coming up for us in the fall. And in the midst of my “fall” planning, it occurred to me that summer hasn’t even arrived yet. (When I start to forget about summer, you know something strange is happening because I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE summer, it’s my favorite season. I’m pretty sure it’s God’s favorite season, too.)

Many of us typically have some vacation time in the summer and do some traveling, so BE CAREFUL, if you’re planning on traveling. We love you and want you to come back safe and sound.

But don’t forget that we have some fun things coming up this summer, too.

On Sunday, June 7th, 5:30 p.m., writer and speaker Rick Green will be speaking here at our church, in person. (I know, technically, that’s still not summer yet.) If you haven’t gotten your tickets, there’s still time. Five dollars per ticket, simply to pay for the expenses, not to make a profit. Rick is an expert on issues of church and government and the writings of the American founders regarding their intentions on the role of religion in government and society. Hope you can make it. This will be a great learning opportunity.

Also, our children’s ministry, Promiseland, kicks off their summer-time theme on June 28th. That will great fun, as well as, great spiritual learning for our kids. (The Promiseland picnic will be at the end of July, this year. That’s always a riot! And I say “riot” in the best sense of that word.)

Also, wait to you hear some of Chris’ teaching this summer. He will draw us to God and deliver the Word with power and effectiveness.

Also, our church will be participating in a spiritual growth survey later in the summer. You’ll be hearing more about that later, but I thought I’d stir up a little curiosity, for now.

I’m switching gears, now, so this won’t have anything to do with what I’ve written up to this point. Hope you don’t mind an abrupt change in thinking. I had a conversation this week that reminded me that churches can get so wrapped up in doing the next thing on the agenda that we can move along without God, if we’re not careful. It’s not intentional, when something like this happens. Nobody means to leave God out of the equation, but we can get too busy doing things and just don’t notice.

I don’t want that to happen. We don’t want that to happen. We need God! Our church is here because of Him; and only because of His goodness and grace. We exist to help people connect with Him and know Him and follow Him and worship Him and serve Him. I realize these might be unusual thoughts to communicate in an e-mail message, but even now, I pray that God would be a part of everything I do and everything that we, as a church, do. In fact, I would greatly appreciate it if you would take a moment, right now, to invite God’s presence into everything you do today, this week, this summer, the rest of this year.

An authentic encounter with God is what changes our lives. That’s what we need! I’m hoping that lots of people are saying “Amen!!!” right now.

Alright, I know this has been a lengthy message. I’ll wrap it up. Thank you for taking the time to read it.

I love you, but more importantly, God loves you.

Blessings,

Dan


P.S. I’m sending this on Saturday afternoon/evening, so, by the time many of you read this, it will probably be too late for me to invite you to the service on Sunday, May 24th. We will be dealing with “Practical Advice About Anger”. This is a very relevant and helpful teaching from God’s word. If you receive this message after the services on May 24th, then I’m inviting you to the services on Sunday, May 31st, “Can We Make God Sad?” That will be interesting and helpful teaching, too. Really. I promise.

Will There Be Tolerance For The Unfashionably Religious?

Some Christians, particularly those who hold to traditional understandings of the teachings of the faith, feel that they are encountering a subtle—or sometimes not so subtle—intolerance of their beliefs. This is especially true when it comes to matters that have to do with sexual behaviors and mores.

If your religious teachings hold that sexual intimacy is only to be expressed between a man and woman, within the confines of a marriage relationship, it’s pretty obvious from a casual perusal of virtually any TV show, movie, popular magazine, zany morning radio show, etc., that you are hopelessly old-fashioned when it comes to the opinions of those who are most influential in shaping opinions, these days.

I suppose some people might be inclined to say, “Oh well, too bad, you uptight religious nuts!” And then have a good hearty laugh.

And, frankly, to be laughed at or mocked because of your religious convictions could properly be considered an honor. And it could certainly fall into the category of: That’s the least I could do for God. (Though, to be really honest, most of us don’t like it very much.)

But my concern is this: Will this relatively harmless mockery and—at this point—fairly subtle intolerance of these traditional beliefs become an increasingly overt intolerance of traditional beliefs?

Several people have cautioned me, in recent months, “Hey Dan, your biblical teaching is going to be labeled illegal ‘hate speech’ at some point in the future.”

Is that true? I don’t know. I have had a notoriously difficult time trying to predict the future. But it’s going to be interesting to see if those who have in the past claimed to speak on behalf of a robust tolerance for other viewpoints will now be willing to extend tolerance to the increasingly un-cool and unfashionably religious among us.

Dan Marler

Oak Lawn, IL

www.VisitUsOnline.org

College--Do You Remember How Much Fun It Was?

I wish I would have known, at the time, how much fun I was having. Oh, I was enjoying myself and that was evident to me. But I didn’t realize during those college years that getting out of school and having a job was going to require so much time and effort and attention. People actually expect me to work and be productive every day as a condition of giving me a paycheck, it’s nuts!

So, I tell my son—who will be starting college this year—to cherish every moment. I tell him, “Pay attention to the little things because they go quickly. These will be some joy-filled, fun and low-stress years of life.” [Of course, that’s assuming that you choose your classes with the same strict attention to “lack of difficulty” that I did.]

But right after the words “pay attention . . . ” come out of my mouth he has already left the room and the rest of the deep and profound advice that I offer is left unheard.

When I try again, later, to speak these words of great wisdom to him, he simply stares at me with a look of sadness and pity.

“Mom,” he tells his mother, “he’s trying to be profound again. I think he’s been reading fortune cookies, or something.” And he turns up the volume on his I Pod while I stand outside tapping on the window. (They keep telling me they’re going to give me a key to the house one of these days. That’ll be cool, if that happens.)

I think back and wistfully ponder those college years. I wish someone would have told me to savor them more fully. But, then again, if someone would have, I probably would have turned up the volume on my “record player” as I put the gigantic, bulky headphones over my ears and continued listening to some awesome “Foghat”.

The Simple Truth

I recited a poem I have written at the service last Sunday, May 3rd. After the service, a couple of people asked me for a copy of the poem. Well, as you can imagine, I got all excited and began to envision having a book of poetry published. Unfortunately, this is the first and only poem I've ever written. So, I'm printing the poem here with great excitement.


The Simple Truth

The truth.
It seems so simple, doesn’t it? Just tell the truth.
But, of course, you can slice and dice with the truth.
Or, you can be very nice with the truth.

You can hurt with the truth.
You can flirt with the truth.

You can laugh with the truth.
You can cry with the truth.
But you can’t really ever lie with the truth.

“Does this dress make me look fat?”
You might avoid the truth.
“I’m considering getting this large skull and crossbones tattooed on my face, what do you think?”
Proclaim the truth!

“No such thing as truth” . . . some people say.
“Truth doesn’t matter” . . . they tell us.
But we all know better.

If the person sitting next to you knows the truth . . . don’t look at him.

The truth . . . it seems so simple.


Dan Marler
May 2009


P.S. This poem was read in a message titled: "It's Simple, Just Speak The Truth In Love". To hear the entire message go to www.VisitUsOnline.org and click on "media", then on "messages".

How Does A Guy Who Doesn't "Know Anything", "Know" So Much?

This is a review of the movie/documentary "Religulous" by Bill Maher.


I thought “Religulous” would be more antagonistic toward religion than it was. Oh, don’t get me wrong, Bill Maher makes it very clear that he does not like religion, actually, that’s probably putting it gently. He believes religion is a significant aspect of what’s wrong with our world. If he doesn’t say it in those exact words, that’s the basic gist of his message.

And it’s not just that he doesn’t like religion, he feels that religion is a form of stupidity that no rational, thinking person could possibly accept. In fact, often, his argument against the religious beliefs that he encounters is simply to smirk and have the attitude of, “Oh, come on . . . !”

But even allowing for all that, the movie wasn’t quite as mean-spirited toward religion as I thought it might be.

I, also, thought “Religulous” would be funnier than it was. There were some moments and there were a few good lines. One of the lines that made me laugh was when Maher was describing his experience in catechism class, as a kid. He referred to it as “vast stretches of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror.”

But, let’s face it, religion and religious people provide lots of material for comedy—and I say that as a devout Christian believer and pastor of a church. In fact, there are a number of “Christian” comedians who have mined church life and the basic Christian experience for great hilarity. Although, come to think of it, people probably find comedy at the expense of their religious experience to be much more palatable if it comes from another believer who is basically saying, “Aren’t WE pretty funny, sometimes?”

Well, I got a little sidetracked, there. My point was that “Religulous” had some amusing moments but for a movie about the pitfalls of religion, made by a well-known professional comedian, I thought it would be funnier. [Before I submitted this review, I read a few of the other reviews and noticed that many of them considered “Religulous” to be very funny, even, “hilarious”. So I guess we see, once again, that “comedy”, like “beauty”, is very much in the eye of the beholder.]

But, that brings me to my final point about the movie. In some ways, it probably wasn’t as funny as one might have expected because there’s a serious edge to it; there’s a “message” to this movie. Throughout the movie, Maher, describes himself as someone who is merely asking questions, a doubter, a skeptic, he refers to himself as someone who “doesn’t know” and he insists that none of us can really know with any degree of certainty about the big issues that religion raises. And, yet, the flaw in Maher’s logic is that he actually does claim to know some things. And his movie has an agenda that is driven by the fact that he is certain of some things, foremost among the things that Maher knows is the “truth” that ALL religions are wrong, false and ultimately very bad for our world.

If you think about it, that’s quite a vast, comprehensive and impressive thing to “know” for a guy who “doesn’t know” but is merely asking questions.

Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL

Searching? Start With Christianity

This post was originally written as a paper for a course of study in apologetics which I am taking at Biola University. The concept is based on an argument by Dr. Craig Hazen in which he suggests that a religious seeker would be wise to begin a search among various faith traditions with Christianity. Take special notice toward the end of the paper of my shameless flattery of the Biola professors. I did, actually, submit the paper with the “sucking up” portion and final footnote. I have not yet received a grade on the paper.

Here is my version of the argument . . .


If a person were going to look into the various religions of the world as an authentic seeker, with an open mind, it can be argued that the Christian faith would be the wisest place to begin.

There are several reasons why Christianity would be a most reasonable starting place.

First of all, more people on earth are Christians than any other religious faith. Billions of people all around the world, from every nationality, and, every educational level and every socio-economic background, are convinced of the truth of Christianity. This, of course, does not prove that Christianity is true, but this testimony certainly raises the question “why?”, to any truly curious seeker.

Why are such a huge percentage of all living people committed to Jesus Christ? This fact would incline a person to investigate Christianity as one of the primary starting places.

Another reason to begin with Christianity would be the vast amount of information that is available. This is simply a practical suggestion. If one intends to embark upon a search of various religions, why not start with a religion where an extraordinary wealth of material is readily available?

This may sound like an appeal to laziness. Heavens no. I prefer to think of it as beginning the research process with the wind at your back.

Perhaps the strongest reason for beginning a search of various religions with Christianity is that it can be tested.

Let me explain, Christianity is rooted in history and it claims to be objectively true. Yes, there is an experiential component to Christianity, and there is, by definition, a faith component, as there is with all religions. However, Christianity does not depend on experience alone for confirmation of its truth claims. This would not be the case for the other major world religions which often make the subjective experiences of spiritual practices—which can take a lifetime to master—integral to an understanding of the faith.

So, if an honest search is to be undertaken, it makes sense to begin with a religion which can be tested—and, even, relatively speaking, quickly tested—in objective ways. Then, if it fails the test, it can be confidently crossed off the list of alternatives and the seeker can move along to investigate other options.

Christianity makes claims that can be and, for that matter, have been tested. For example, the field of archaeology has provided many confirmations of the truthfulness and reliability of Christian scripture when it comes to the names and dates and places and culture during which the Bible was written.

Christianity, in the Bible, makes claims about issues having to do with human nature. Is mankind inherently good and virtuous as some people claim? Or, is mankind fallen and inclined toward sin as the Bible clearly teaches? These basic questions are, at least to some degree, testable. This morning’s newspaper could give some indication of the answer to the question of mankind’s basic nature.

G.K. Chesterton famously, wrote that the doctrine of original sin—which speaks to man’s basic nature—was an empirically verifiable aspect of Christian teaching.

The Christian scriptures are open to the accepted methods of academic historical criticism and, for that matter, have been subjected to the rigorous scrutiny of historical critical methods for many years. This is just another way in which Christianity can be, and has been, tested.

It is significant to note that Christian scriptures have stood the test of decades of historical critical study and remain credible, trustworthy and reliable, even to knowledgeable, sophisticated scholars, *like, for example, the brilliant, witty, good-looking professors at Biola University. The same cannot be said of the holy books of other world religions.

Christianity is believed by more people than any other religion on earth. An investigation of Christianity would be a simple and obvious place to begin because of the wealth of available material. And Christianity is objectively testable in ways, unlike any other major world religion. So, it makes great sense for an investigation by a true religious seeker to begin with the Christian faith.

Daniel L. Marler
Oak Lawn, IL



*Note: Come on, a little shameless apple polishing is going to happen once in a while, it’s a time-honored part of the academic process.

Is Science The Only True Form of Knowledge?

This paper was originally written for a course in apologetics which I am pursuing at Biola University.



Science is a wonderful pursuit and it is an understatement to say that it has provided mankind with many great and helpful achievements and benefits. But sometimes the subject of science is presented in such a way that a false understanding is given. The false understanding is that science alone provides all knowledge, or, at least, all true knowledge of importance or value.

It’s helpful for us to know that we do not have to negate the significant achievements of science in order to realize that there is important knowledge outside of science.

I present to you a few examples of knowledge that are not provided to us by science, in fact, these forms of knowledge are assumed to be true in order to pursue science. The important understanding here is that science does not prove these examples of knowledge to be true, it must assume that they are true as a starting point.

1) Science assumes that an orderly world exists. Scientific experiments are conducted based upon observable, repeatable tests. The assumption that science makes, but does not prove, is that the orderly condition of the physical world exists in such a way that these experimental findings will always hold true when performed under the same conditions. We could say it like this: The scientist assumes that the physical world will work in a consistent and orderly way, thus assuring the continued reliability of his or her findings.

But who says that this consistent, orderly world will continue tomorrow the way it always has in the past?

You say, “Well, we just know it will. It always has in the past and, therefore, we assume that it always will in the future.”

Yes, exactly. We make that assumption. And, so far, we have found that it basically holds. That’s why we can and do rely so heavily on it. But that is not proof that it will continue, in fact, if you think about it, our trust in the physical world’s consistent orderly workings is something very much like faith.

Again, this is not something which science knows or proves, it is assumed in order for scientific investigation to proceed.

2) Science assumes that logic works. We all rely, every day, on the validity of logic. We take for granted that it works because, much like our experience of an orderly physical world, our consistent experience is that, indeed, logic works and it comports with reality.

One of the fundamental laws of logic is the law of noncontradiction. The law of noncontradiction can be stated like this: “For any property F, nothing can be both F and not-F at the same time and in the same way.” (DeWeese and Moreland, Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult)

All of us have experienced firsthand the truth of the law of noncontradiction. We find that it works, in fact, it always works. Scientists live in the same world as all the rest of us and they, too, assume that the laws of logic work. They proceed with the assumption of the validity of logic in order to engage in their pursuits.

But the important point is that the findings of science do not prove the laws of logic, rather, they assume the laws of logic, in advance, in order to proceed.

3) Truths of morality are non-scientific, they are accepted truths which are not provided to us through the scientific method. Moral truths present us with the concept of “ought”. In other words, our moral conscience tells us that there are things we ought to do or we ought not do.

We can especially perceive the reality of the moral ought when we are personally wronged. Consider a scenario like this:

“Hey, that guy walked up and took my wallet for no reason, I don’t even know him!”

“So, what’s the problem with that?”

“What do you mean, what’s the problem? He’s not allowed to do that. It’s wrong.”

Why is this wrong? Says who? Where does this moral “ought” come from? Why do we experience it? Why can’t he take your wallet if he’s bigger and stronger and he wants to?

The answer is that we all know this is wrong. We just simply know it. A child with no significant religious or moral training knows it.

But our question is, why? The explanations for morality from evolutionary scientists have been inadequate.

A right thinking person will accept the reality of moral absolutes. But these truths are not discovered or explained by science. It is, yet, another form of knowledge that science cannot provide to us or explain for us.

Again, we can and we do appreciate and acknowledge the great importance of science and recognize the good it has done and the tremendous ways that it has benefited us. At the same time, it does not diminish science to say that there are forms of knowledge which science cannot tell us about. It is simply an acknowledgement that there are other true, valid, important forms of knowledge in addition to what is provided by science.

Daniel L. Marler
Oak Lawn, IL