Spiritual Practices for a Healthy Summer

For College Students and the rest of us

As welcome as the summer break can be, it can also be a dangerous season. We fall out of our routines and end up taking a vacation from Jesus. Separated from our community at school, we can fall into old patterns that become spiritually destructive to our souls.
How can we look forward to the summer as a time to grow closer to God, not move further from him?

These are the essentials:
1. Preach the Gospel to Yourself Everyday! Compose a self-sermon you can pull out when you need it.
2. Read your Bible. There are some great plans out there. You can also get a daily Bible reading sent directly to your InBox.
3. Pray!
4. Get connected to a good Church community. Don’t believe the lie that “I’m only around a couple months, it doesn’t really matter if I connect or not.”

These practices go a long way towards your spiritual summertime health:
5. Make sure you take some downtime/vacation. And when you have downtime, make sure its truly resting. Sabbath is a Biblical principle. It means to cease from our regular activities in order to have extra time with God.
6. Make sure it’s not ALL downtime. Work is God-given and worthwhile, so get a job. In the rare situation that you don’t need to get a job, make sure you fill your time with Kingdom-building stuff. God has bigger and better plans for you than playing Wii all summer.
7. See your workplace as a mission field. From Day 1, think and pray about how you can share Jesus with your colleagues.
8. Lead! Many college students feel disconnected in the summer months—gather them for cookouts, trips, Bible studies. Be the initiator!
9. Share what you’ve learned this year with your old friends and family. Don’t be afraid to let them see how you’ve grown spiritually.
10. Be proactive in your relationships with friends and family. Repair those that are broken. Strengthen those that are weakened. Be intentional in carving out quality time with parents, siblings, high school friends.
11. Read good books that will stretch your faith. There are good Christian books out there for your personal spiritual growth, for reaching out with the Gospel to others, to thinking through your major and the culture from a Christian perspective. For suggestions, check out the list I started at the Missio Dei wiki!
12. Fast—summer can become a time of indulgence and distraction. Fasting helps reorient you to Who and What really matters.

This list is by nature not exhaustive. And none of these practices is ‘guaranteed’ to make you closer to God. The point is that they are designed to draw you into a closer, deeper relationship with the living God. Good spiritual practices don’t guarantee growth, but put you in the way of receiving God’s grace. Make the most of the summer and come back in August spiritually fed, strengthened, and ready for what God has for us!

Does the Bible teach bad Cosmology?

Anyone else catch the the scientific implications in Isaiah 40:22? "It is [God] who sits above the circle of the earth..." Apparently, at least God and Isaiah understood that the earth was not flat but round, even though it took a couple millenia for everyone else to figure it out! Upon some brief internet research however I discovered that many skeptics actually accuse the Bible of supporting a flat earth view. There's actually a lot more controversy about the way the Bible presents the earth, sky, etc, than I was aware of. Interesting...

I didn't really spend the time to be able to write up a whole summary of this controversy, but if you are in to this sort of thing, the following article from Tektonics Apologetics Ministries seems to give a pretty thorough and biblically faithful point of view on this discussion:

http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html#circle

A Theology of Brokenness

I recently downloaded The Ambassador's new CD called The Chop Chop: From Milk to Meat (In case you don't know William "Duce" Branch, AKA The Ambassador is a Christian hip hop artist, and also and one of the teaching pastors at Epiphany Fellowship in Philadelphia.) While I've always been more of a rock-n-roller as opposed to a hip-hopper, I find the theological depth that the Ambassador packs into his lyrics to be irrestible, and far superior to a lot of Christian music out there these days. The great thing about hip-hop is that it allows for so many lyrics...so you can practically preach a sermon in one song. It's great...maybe I'm more of a hip-hopper than I thought. Not sure I should start free-stylin' yet though.

Anyway, track 11 on the CD is an interlude entitled "A Theology of Brokenness". I think basically what it is is a clip of him preaching, overlayed onto some cool piano music and beats.

It's better to listen to it with the music and everything, but the content is hard-hitting, and hits me right where I'm at, so I wanted to share it with you guys.

Here it is:

...A lot people blame a lot of things on Satan.
It's easy to deal with the reality of the fact that Satan is against you and all that stuff, and he's your problem.
But there's a whole other category and issue to let sink into you, when it's not Satan who's your problem, but God who's your problem.

Listen, if you're going to walk in the implications of the gospel then you're going to have to be marrried to the principle of brokenness.

Brokenness is the mark of a person that is qualified to be used by God.
At the end of the day people that are actually being used by God in a crazy way- in an off the meter way, are people that have been cracked up, who have been lunged at by God, and God has done something to them. Broken can mean:

Shattered,
Crushed,
Maimed,
Devoid of arrogance,
Wounded,
Contrite,
Injured,
Smashed,
Grieved,
Anxious,
Distressed,
Crippled,
Wrecked,
Demolished,
Fractured,
Handicapped,
Disabled.

Brokenness, based on the scriptures: The spiritual state by which one is disarmed of one's self-dependence and pride, therefore leaving one disabled and in desperate need of help, thereby making one a viable conduit for the glory of Christ.

We're not massochists, but we do kinda have a theology of brokenness.

The Implications of the Resurrection (or lack thereof) #2

What if the resurrection didn't happen? Would the Christian faith fall apart?

Many today are attempting to find ways to say "no" to this question. In a lecture by D.A. Carson entitled Rumors of Resurrection he recounts a recent response by a prominent religious leader in Australia (I think it was an Anglican bishop). In an interview with the media, this bishop was asked if it could be proven that Jesus' body was found and that the ressurection was nothing more than a legend, if that would ruin his faith? The bishop responded with a confident "no" explaining that it would not change the fact that "Christ had risen in his heart."

While this kind of metaphorical reading of the resurrection may be very attractive to many (mostly because it is a safe, non-threatening interpretation that fits in nicely with a post-modern worldview that detests the idea of absolute truth or an exclusive savior), it is important for us and those we interact with to understand that this is not the biblical position.

Apparently the bishop I mentioned earlier had not spent much time in 1 Corinthians (or simply ignored it). In 1 Corinthians 15 (which by the way is the earliest report of the resurrection- within 15-20 years of the crucifixion), Paul answers the question with undeniable clarity:

15:14 "And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain."

15:17 "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins."

15:19 "If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied."

A resurrection-less gospel is not a gospel at all! If Christ only died but did not rise, we have no good news. As Paul points out later in the chapter, without the resurrection, we may as well live by the philosophy "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." If Christ was only a good teacher, or an admirable martyr, we are still in the dark, without hope. Even if we lived our lives following his good example, if he is not a living savior, he is not a savior at all, and we are all just fooling ourselves-- like cancer patients imagining we will be cured by lifting weights and keeping a healthy diet!

But if the resurrection is true, we have a living savior who conquered death and sin! For those who are in Christ, this victory has already been applied to us positionally as Christ's righteousness is credited to us by grace through faith. We see the effects of this victory gradually in this life in the process of sanctification. But the best is yet to come, when we will finally be able to fully taste the victory that Christ accomplished in his death and resurrection when we are united with him after death or upon his return.

The good news of Jesus Christ is truly "a glorious gospel" (1 Timothy 1:11) worth living for, and dying for.

The Implications of the Resurrection #1

As we ramp up towards Easter, I'm going to try to put up several posts on the implications of the Resurrection- why the event is essential to the Christian faith and what it means for us as Christians in the 21rst century.

While preparing for tonight's Sojourn topic, "The Reality of the Resurrection", (which by the way, you should come to, 7:30 @ Webster's) I realized that I have kind of taken the resurrection for granted in the past. Growing up in the church, the idea has never been strange to me, and as far as my own doubts, I've struggled more with foundational things like the existence of God and the validity of scripture. So it makes sense that if I came through those foundational doubts and came to the conclusion that God is real, and that the Bible is his inspired word of God, that there isn't much room left for doubting the resurrection.

However since it is often my doubts that propel me to study things out, I have never spent a lot of serious time dwelling on, dissecting, or questioning the resurrection. My unbelieving friends have also not seemed overly concerned with the topic. They seem to be primarily concerned with the existence of God, the validity of scripture, hypocrites in the church, the problem of evil, the arrogance of exclusive religious claims etc.

What I've realized though as I've prepared to lead the Sojourn discussion is that in the resurrection is a deep theological well that I've barely dipped into. And so these next few posts are as much for me as they are for you.

To kick things off here's a great quote by N.T. Wright that Tim Keller ended "The Reality of the Resurrection" chapter with:

The message of the resurrection is that this world matters!
That the injustices and pains of this present world must now
be addressed with the news that healing, justice, and love
have won...If Easter means Jesus Christ is only raised in a
spiritual sense- [then] it is only about me, and finding a
new dimension in my personal spiritual life. But if Jesus
Christ is truly risen from the dead, Christianity becomes
good news for the whole world- news which warms our hearts
precisely because it isn't just about warming hearts. Easter
means that in a world where injustice, violence and degredation
are endemic, God is not prepared to tolerate such things- and
that we will work and plan, with all the energy of God, to
implement victory over them all. Take away Easter and Karl Marx
was probably right to accuse Christianity of ignoring problems
of the material world. Take it away and Freud was probably right
to say Christianity is wish-fulfillment. Take it away and Nietzsche
probably was right to say it was for wimps.

I used to rule the world....

Have you guys read Isaiah 13-24 yet?

Does anybody else think that Coldplay's "Viva La Vida" would be the perfect soundtrack to this section? As I read, I couldn't help but hear the song in my head, especially the first 3 verses:

I used to rule the world
Seas would rise when I gave the word
Now in the morning I sleep alone
Sweep the streets I used to own

I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemy's eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing
"Now the old king is dead! Long live the king!"

One minute I held the key
Next the walls were closed on me
And I discovered that my castles stand
Upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand

After reading this portion of scripture, it's amazing to me that anyone (look up open-theism) could question God's sovereignty over human history.

I'd recommend reading the whole portion at once, and also reading chapter 25 so you can rest in God's goodness, and see the beauty of his redemptive purposes after all of that judgement and carnage.

Notes on Michael Behe's Intelligent Design talk

Tonight I heard Dr. Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box and leading figure in the Intelligent Design movement, speak on the topic at Penn State. He was an invited guest of the "Science & the Bible Club," and he spoke to a full (and mostly sympathetic) house. In fact, I'm sure we violated the fire code. His talk was entitled:

“Answering Objections to the Argument for Intelligent Design in Biology”

Behe’s Disclaimer: he’s representing only himself.

What follows is my attempt to take as complete notes as possible, with a brief assessment at the end.



I. Argument for Intelligent Design Itself

His argument:

Design is not mystical. It is deduced from physical structure of a system.
Everyone agrees that aspects of biology appear designed.
There are structural obstacles to Darwinian evolution.
Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination [synonym for faith]
Bottom Line: We have strong evidence for design, little evidence for Darwinism


1. Design is not mystical. It is deduced from physical structure of a system.

What is meant by intelligent design?

The purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details. We infer design whenever parts appear arranged to accomplish a function.



Is the conclusion of design necessarily a religious one? No, it is a logical one. We can’t necessarily infer when or who or why or how. Only what.



The strength of the inference is quantitative. [huh?]



2. Everyone agrees that aspects of biology appear designed.

Richard Dawkins book, “the Blind Watchmaker”

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose” p. 1



So according to Dawkins (in Behe’s words), biology is more like observing Mt. Rushmore than your average mountain, or even the Old Man in the Mountain. It gives evidence of design. It’s not an aesthetic conclusion, but an engineering conclusion.



Paraphrasing Dawkins: we say it’s well designed if an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose…

But Dawkins insists that biology can produce the appearance of design w/o having been designed.



3. But there are structural obstacles to Darwinian evolution.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.” Darwin, Origin of Species, p. 58



Here’s a problem for Darwin:

Behe’s signature concept & contribution to ID: Irreducible Complexity.

A mousetrap needs each of its parts to work. Take away any piece, it doesn’t work only half as well; it doesn’t work at all. Irreducibly complex things are a headache for Darwinian thought. How would a mousetrap “evolve”? It couldn’t work that way.



Are there any irreducibly complex biological systems, cellular systems, biochemical systems? A couple examples:

The Bacterial Flagellum (the outboard motor of bacteria). Can’t take away any of the parts and it still works.
Everyone talks about the cells as “machines,” “motors, clocks, springs and things,” “engines.”


4. Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination

Imagination is important; but undisciplined imagination is a double-edged sword. If you have a good imagination, you’ll see things that other people have missed. But with an undisciplined imagination, you’ll see things that aren’t there.



Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box was widely reviewed:

“We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity (cites Behe); but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

--Franklin Harold, The Way of the Cell, Oxford UP 2001



What principle is it by which we reject ID? Harold didn’t say. Behe believes it’s “Ghostbusters,” ie, the belief that in ID extra-scientific ideas with supernatural beliefs are being wrongly imported into (in place of) Science.



Behe: Science is supposed to follow the evidence, wherever it goes. Let other people worry about the philosophy and its implications.



5. Bottom Line: We have strong evidence for design, little evidence for Darwinism



“Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” Dawkins, Blind Watchmaker, p.21



So, if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, etc., how is it not a duck? Dawkins says it’s not a duck, even though it looks, smells, sounds, tastes like one. They call it an “in-duck-tive” argument. (Ba dum cha). But Encyclopedia Britannica says, “inductive reasoning is the logic normally used in the Sciences.” In other words, ID is rationally justified.



II. A Rebuttal to Several Objections to Intelligent Design



1. Judge John Jones and the Dover Case

Behe testified at length for the losing side in the Dover Case. Behe believes ID rationally justified; Judge John Jones (in the Dover case) disagreed. Strongly worded verdict against ID. Judge’s opinion was 139 pages.

Eric Rothschild—lead attorney for the other side—presented a “findings of fact and conclusions of law” that was 161 pages, very long.

Judge Jones cut-and-pasted Rothschild at points, nearly word for word.

At one point, Judge Jones quoted Behe talking about design as an “analogy,” but it was Rothschild who characterized it that way.

And this kind of plagiarism is legal in legal circles, but Behe’s argument is that Judge Jones didn’t understand the material (that’s why it’s not allowed in school). And it was Judge Jones who apparently made up a bunch of people’s minds (like Scott Adams of Dilbert).



[This part of the lecture felt like Behe’s attempt at prosecuting Judge Jones. He was not rebutting the arguments themselves; it’s an ad hominem argument against the capabilities of Judge Jones. The temptation to get even a bit was just too tempting, I guess. But it weakened his overall argument, because he had ceased talking science. ]



His point was that people like Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) who said that the judge’s decision was “good enough for me” are not off the hook.



2. Prof. John McDonald, Univ. of Delaware

“A Reducibly Complex Mousetrap”

A prof. who allegedly refuted Behe’s mousetrap argument by “designing” mousetraps by taking one part out at a time, eventually down to one part.

http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

But his mousetraps are not physical precursors, but conceptual ones.

And they are intelligently designed traps. Nor would they evolve from step one to step two and so on. So this critique ultimately doesn’t work.



Unfortunately I couldn't stay for the Q&A, which I’m sure was interesting.



Behe has quite a bit more info at his blog on Amazon.com, connected to his books.



In short, I felt like I saw what makes the ID movement so interesting, and yet what also short-circuits it. The first half of Behe’s lecture was coherent, informed, and compelling. He made a solid case for the inclusion of ID in the scientific discussion. But the second half departed from science and made ad hominem arguments that undermined his case and were ultimately ineffective. While ID deserves a fair hearing, and is most assuredly not getting one in many places (just watch Ben Stein’s movie Expelled), the second half of Behe’s talk gave skeptics too many reasons to reject the issue out of hand.

[UPDATE: This morning I read a NYT editorial on the Texas School Board handling of evolution. It included these revealing paragraphs:

Conservatives tried — but failed — to reinsert a phrase requiring students to study the “strengths and weaknesses” of all scientific theories, including evolution. That language had been in the standards for years, but it was eliminated by experts who prepared the new standards for board approval because it has become a banner for critics of Darwinian evolution who seek to exaggerate supposed weaknesses in the theory.

The conservatives also narrowly lost attempts to have students study the “sufficiency or insufficiency” of natural selection to explain the complexities of the cell, a major issue for proponents of intelligent design. The conservatives also failed to get the word “sufficiency” inserted by itself, presumably because that would imply insufficiency as well. They had to settle for language requiring students to “analyze, evaluate and critique” scientific explanations and examine “all sides” of the scientific evidence.

So now the study of strengths and weaknesses is explicitly disallowed when it comes to Science? Who is the one suppressing genuine scientific inquiry? Who is the one imposing their ideology? Behe's point about following the evidence is well taken. Frankly, this is an embarrassing decision for the evolutionary fundamentalists, because it reveals how willing they are to compromise genuine science in the name of their evolutionary ideology.]