Posts

Posted on

The Moon or Mars?

Should our current focus in human space exploration be the Moon or Mars? That is the controversial question that looms over discussions of humanity’s next step in space exploration. Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives has introduced a bill that would make Mars the priority (listen to a thorough discussion of the issues here), but not everyone agrees.

Before I get into this question a bit, I want to address why a Presbyterian Pastor would or should write on the subject of space flight. I did not have a science major, and I certainly am no expert in the matter.

I have a couple of reasons. First, I think that God has called us to explore the universe. He created the universe, and we know Him through the universe. The created reveals the Creator. So, in order to know God better, we should explore the macrocosmic and microcosmic as a creational duty (HT: James W. Skillen for the terminology and idea, via Charles Strohmer). We are made to explore.

Second, I believe that citizens need to talk about these issues. It is general interest in these topics that will help drive a vision to move us forward into exploration of the solar system. For good or ill, the average citizen must make decisions about space flight and innumerable other issues, so we need to do our best to think through them.

Third, it’s fun to think about. It’s exciting to think of humans traveling through space and discovering new things. I have always loved science fiction and astronomy and been fascinated by the prospect of space exploration.

So, here’s a few considerations on this difficult issue. To begin with, in some ways, I don’t really care what we do as long as we do something. We need to move forward with human spaceflight and get humans out of low earth orbit. Whatever we do to get us flying further out will teach us more than we know now and open up further possibilities.

Some people might ask, why can’t we just have robots explore the universe for us? In studying this issue, I was surprised to learn how inefficient robots are at exploring. Frances Westall, an astrobiologist at the National Center for Scientific Research in France said, “A human geologist can do in a week what the Mars rovers can do in a year” (Meghan Bartels, “Why We Can’t Depend on Robots to Find Life on Mars”; see also this paper on the topic).

One reason people want to consider robots for exploration is because the Moon and Mars are not very hospitable to humans. One thing that becomes very clear when you study this issue is how difficult it is for people to actually live on these bodies. Living in Antarctica or the Sahara Desert is incomparably easier than living on Mars or the Moon.

The problems go beyond the obvious problems of a lack of oxygen, running water, and food supply. Both the Moon and Mars do not have earth’s protective atmosphere, an atmosphere that keeps us from being bombarded by the sun’s radiation and other assorted cosmic rays. In addition, it is unclear how long-term life in a low gravity environment will affect a variety of human functions. There is much more, and you can read a somewhat gloomy description of the problems here.

The Moon has most of the same challenges as Mars with a few extra. The dust on the Moon is like broken glass that can cut into the smallest structures in our body. It has less of an atmosphere, and the water is much harder to access. The good news, by the way, is that both the Moon and Mars do have water that visitors or those stationed on these bodies can use (Marina Koren, “The Pros and Cons of a Lunar Pit Stop”).

Over against these problems, you have the relative closeness of the Moon. If you are going to have all sorts of problems, wouldn’t it be better to have them at closer proximity to earth? This would enable us not only to deal with emergencies but a much shorter time between seeing problems and being able to fix them. This video illustrates how close the Moon is compared to Mars:

That’s a lot closer!

IF it’s so much further, why even consider Mars? The answer: it’s inspiring. It would be an awesome thing for humans to explore Mars. It could totally change the way we look at the universe. It hasn’t been done before. People make many arguments for going to Mars, but beneath them all seems to me to be the sheer wonder of humans exploring another planet so distant from earth.

There are other options besides the Moon and Mars. We could go to an asteroid that is closer to the Earth. We could build a colony or station there, but there does not seem to be much momentum for this, even though it is feasible and potentially profitable because of the possibility for mining. However, this idea has not really captured many people’s imagination (thought it may eventually capture some big corporation’s wallet book).

So, what should we focus on? I lean toward the Moon for several reasons. One, it just seems like we should have a station there. I mean, why not? Why not make a permanent base on the moon? Second, the closeness allows us the opportunity to figure out relatively quickly what it looks like to live in a hostile environment in space. Third, there seems to be international interest in the project.

That said, I think G. Ryan Faith is probably right. We need to have some sort of plan for both in order to harness the enthusiasm of Moon and Mars advocates. So, we need some sort of long-time plan for both. That involves its own questions, but we’ll leave that for now.

What do you think? The Moon or Mars? Where should our focus be? I’d welcome your thoughts.

Posted on

Savannah

There’s something about the Southern live oak. It’s majestic and evocative. Its Spanish moss makes it mysterious, recalling the departed spirits that locals swear haunt these places. Few natural objects bring to mind so many and varied sentiments.

Savannah is a city of live oaks. They are everywhere. The city is truly urban but more like a giant garden. It’s the sort of place where you can walk around every corner and take magnificent pictures.

I’ve visited many Southern cities: New Orleans, Mobile, Charleston, Montgomery, Jackson, among others. None compares to the elegance and perfection of Savannah. Savannah is all that they aspire to be and much more.

The city is the brainchild of Gen. James Oglethorpe, the founder of the colony of Georgia. He carved the city out of the forest and created a beautiful pattern that shapes the city today. It’s a tribute to what the vision of one man can accomplish many generations later.

The layout of the city is based on squares. These are small or large parks around which are built housing, businesses, shops, and churches. Each one has its own character, monuments, and flora and fauna. These are places where people can gather, visit, and reflect.

In Reynolds Square, there is a statue of the founder of Methodism, John Wesley. Wesley was converted (or came to a better understanding of justification) on his trip to Georgia. He preached there and left his mark on the growing colony. He said: “My heart’s desire for this place is not that it be a famous or a rich but that it may be a religious colony, and then I am sure that it cannot fail of the blessing of God.”

You can see the religious nature of the city by the fact that nearly every square (at least on Bull Street) has an historic church. I knew of Independent Presbyterian Church through its Pastor, Terry Johnson, who is a member of my denomination. I did not realize that it was right in the heart of old Savannah. It was founded in 1755, but the current building was dedicated in 1819 at a service that President James Madison attended.

There is so much history in this city. We had lunch at the Pirate’s House and had a delicious and cheap lunch buffet. This was a building originally constructed in 1753 as a tavern. The owners of the tavern attempted to grow grapes for wine and mulberry trees for silk. These and many others failed. What did succeed was peaches, and, according to the restaurant, this became the source for peaches throughout the colony.

I feel like I merely scratched the surface of the city. There is so much more to see and learn. Each street, each home, each square summons me to investigate.

But I’m not sure I want to go back. It was a day of perfect weather. I have such a perfect image of the city in my mind. I feel like it was a glimpse of the New Jerusalem. I don’t want to go back and have it spoiled. I may just carry the image in my mind until I reach the New Jerusalem and can more adequately compare the two.

Posted on

The Science of Aging

Can we live a thousand years? I have my doubts.

Can we significantly reduce the effects of aging? It seems likely.

Understanding our genetic code and other research has given some insight into how aging works and how it its effects can be minimized, and there is promise of much more to come.

Newt Gingrich, known for politics, is also interested in history and science, and his podcast provides a good introduction into where we are on the science of aging. You can listen to it here.

A couple of insights that you could implement right away. There is a “longevity gene” that seems to be activated under stress. You can do two things to activate that gene. First, you can do some strenuous exercise. Second, you can do intermittent fasting. Both interviewees on the Newt’s World podcast recommend a 16 hour fast each day (most likely attained by skipping breakfast). A sedentary lifestyle where you graze constantly on food will keep that gene inactive.

The other point that he brings out is how much of our medicare costs are related to the illnesses of the last two years of life. If you could eliminate the common difficulties of the end of life, you could reduce medicare expenses dramatically. In addition, if people are healthier longer, then they can also contribute to society longer. So, reducing or reversing the effects of aging has a lot of ramifications for problems that we may currently find intractable.

Have you done any research on this subject? Any insights that you have found worth sharing? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Posted on

Explaining the Mystery of Who Jesus Is and Why It Matters

It no doubt seems strange to us today to talk about a human being as also being God, and yet that is what we celebrate at Christmas time. We must also remember that this might not have seemed strange to the people of Jesus’ time and day. They believed that human beings were gods or became gods or were appearances of the gods (see Acts 14:8–20 for an example).

The problem for the early Christians was that they believed that there was only one God, so Jesus could not be a sort of lesser god that appeared in human form. The early Christians emphatically rejected that possibility at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. Its conclusion was that Jesus was “begotten from the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made; of the same essence as the Father.”

One possibility, then, was that Jesus was the appearance of God in a different role, just as I am a son, a father, and a brother. The problem is that the Bible clearly presented Jesus as interacting with the Father as another person and as sending the Spirit as another person. So, they rejected the idea that there was only one person in God. In the words of the ancient Athanasian Creed, “we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence. For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit still another. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.”

With that cleared up, the question became: how are the human and divine united in Jesus? One possibility was that there were two persons in Jesus. The trouble with this is that the Bible clearly teaches that the eternal Son of God became a human being. Jesus is a “He” not a “they.” So, there is one person in Jesus, the second person of the Trinity.

By the end of the 4th century, there was little dispute that Jesus had a divine nature, but what about his human nature? Was it a real human nature? Did it become a sort of mixture of divine and human when Jesus became incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary?

The early Christians saw that it was necessary that Jesus be a real human in order to represent us, sympathize with us, and carry out our salvation. They also knew that Jesus had ate, slept, wept, walked, and talked as a real human being. So, they insisted that Jesus had a real and full human nature, body and soul.

At the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, the leaders of the church adopted this explanation of the incarnation as capturing the fullness of the biblical testimony. Jesus was “recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ.”

The Church gradually gained clarity on the truths we confess today that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity, the eternal Son of God, who became a real human being in order to bring us to eternal salvation.

What is the significance of all this? Charles Hodge says it well in his Systematic Theology:

Although the divine nature is immutable and impassible, and therefore neither the obedience nor the suffering of Christ was the obedience or suffering of the divine nature, yet they were none the less the obedience and suffering of a divine person. The soul of man cannot be wounded or burnt, but when the body is injured it is the man who suffers. In like manner the obedience of Christ was the righteousness of God, and the blood of Christ was the blood of God. It is to this fact that the infinite merit and efficiency of his work are due. This is distinctly asserted in the Scriptures. It is impossible, says the Apostle, that the blood of bulls and of goats could take away sin. It was because Christ was possessed of an eternal Spirit that He by the one offering of Himself hath perfected forever them who are sanctified. This is the reason given why the sacrifice of Christ need never be repeated, and why it is infinitely more efficacious than those of the old dispensation. This truth has been graven on the hearts of believers in all ages. Every such believer says from his heart, “Jesus, my God, thy blood alone has power sufficient to atone.”

Martin Luther explains the same point from a slightly different angle:

We Christians must know that if God is not also in the balance and gives the weight, we sink to the bottom with our scale. By this I mean: If it were not to be said, God has died for us, but only a man, we should be lost. But if “God’s death” and “God died” lie in the scale of the balance, then He sinks down, and we rise up as a light, empty scale. But, indeed, He can also rise again or leap out of the scale; yet He could not sit in the scale unless He became a man like us.

The point is that Christ’s humanity enables Him to take our place and suffer in our place and His divinity gives Him the power and merit to overcome what our sin deserved.

When properly understood, the implications of Jesus’ incarnation are wonderful beyond compare. It calls us to understand that God wants to connect with us. It also warns us that our sin and separation from God is no small problem, since it required the God-man to solve it. But it also assures us that since the God-man is the solution to our problem, then the solution is complete. We have a full and complete restoration and salvation that we merely need to receive by faith.

Posted on

Accepting the Most Important Relationship You’ll Ever Have

At Christmas time, we celebrate the greatest gift that God has ever given: His own Son. But what does that gift have to do with us? We need to receive that gift. What does it mean to receive the gift of Jesus?

First, to receive Jesus means that we accept the claims Jesus makes about Himself. He claims to be the Savior of the world. Do we believe that this is true? That’s not an easy decision. It’s something we have to think about deeply.

Why would anyone believe that this Man is the Creator and Savior of the world? One of the most powerful arguments is from the fact that so many agree that Jesus is a good and valuable teacher of humanity. It would be easy to put him alongside all of the teachers of humanity and say that He is just another great one.

The trouble is that Jesus has not left that option open to us. As C.S. Lewis, himself an atheist who eventually received Jesus, said:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of thing Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic–on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg–or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

How can we put together His astounding influence and the positive good that He brings with the seemingly wild claims about His own power, authority, and divinity? I would encourage you to consider this for yourself.

Second, to receive Jesus means that we want Jesus to save us. We believe that He is the source of light, life, forgiveness, and eternal blessing. We accept Him as the one who will give that to us.

John describes this in a variety of ways to help us understand it. For example, he quotes Jesus as saying, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty” (John 6:35). Again, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). Jesus also said, “I am the gate for the sheep, whoever enters through me will be saved” (John 10:9). All these are ways of saying that we have to receive Jesus and commit ourselves to Him by an act of faith.

Third, to receive Jesus means to accept His leadership. In John 8:12 He says, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.” In the days in which Jesus was on earth, people would follow Jesus around and listen to Him. We cannot literally do that now, but we can accept His guidance and teaching through His Word together with His people. That’s what it means to receive Jesus.

Accepting Jesus is about accepting Him in all that He is. One of those things is the Lord of the Universe. When we receive Jesus, we are saying that we accept that leadership.

That’s what believers mean when they say that we receive Jesus. In many ways, it’s a very simple act that anyone can do at any time. At the same time, the implications of receiving Him are staggering and life-changing.

Wherever you are in your journey, I hope that you will consider Jesus’ claims this year and the hope that He provides that we remember in the Christmas season.

Proudly powered by WordPress