Daily devotions not for all, Tim Ross says in new book 'The Nearest'

Do you struggle with a daily devotional time? If so, Tim Ross wants you to know you are not alone.

In his just-released book “The Nearest: Devotion Not Devotions” (O Books, 175 pages) Ross makes the case that while Bible reading and prayer are important, Christians shouldn’t beat themselves up if they have trouble with them. Ross himself, a retired Methodist minister in the U.K., found it difficult to set aside daily time for prayer and Scripture when he first became a Christian in his late teens.

He began to realize that it is one’s entire life that is a devotion to God and not just daily devotionals. Using one’s spiritual gifts is an act of devotion: helping a person in need, etc. And the short prayers uttered throughout the day keep one in contact with God no less than an hour devoted specifically for that purpose.

So how did we come to believe that a certain portion of time sequestered from the outside world was vital for recharging spiritual batteries? Ross says the medieval monastics led the way setting themselves apart to focus on their relationship with God, and over time lay people began to model that behavior with daily devotionals.

And while certain time set aside for devotions are beneficial to the spiritual lives of some, they aren’t for others.

“ The heart of my problem, I knew, was one of self-discipline,” Ross writes. “I am not a person who is happy in routines. I am not one of those people who have no problems with keeping to patterns and habits, just the opposite, in fact. Which raises another relatively serious question about patterns and habits of prayer. Just as there is an implied relationship between the frequency of prayer time and the presence of God, it is easy to make a connection between spirituality and discipline, which again risks exchanging the grace of God for spirituality by merit.”

Ross makes sound theological arguments, and his humor and personal stories make them easy to understand. His encouragements are worth a look to anyone who has ever wrestled with doubts over his or her ability to dedicate a set-aside time in prayer. He notes that his ideas aren't new, but they can be revolutionary for people who have spent years feeling inadequate in their spiritual walk.

(Disclaimer: A free review copy of this book was provided by the author. Read my interview with Ross about the book here.)

Who was best at creationism, theistic evolution conference?

Hugh Ross addresses the conference in favor of old earth creation.

I've written the past four days about my attendance at Fixed Point Foundation's conference "In the Beginning: 3 Views on Creation." But I didn't give much opinion. I'm a trained journalist, and presented the speaker's words as objectively as I could. Still, I do have opinions.

I went into the conference knowing little about any of the speaker's views except for Hugh Ross. I watched his show Reasons to Believe years ago, and also read his books and heard his podcasts. Whether he's got everything exactly right none of us can know, but I was impressed that he takes science and Christian faith equally seriously and has no problem harmonizing them. I was so impressed, in fact, I bought copies of his book, The Creator and the Cosmos, and gave them to anyone who would take them.

So, needless to say, being able to see Ross up close and rub elbows with him was pretty cool. (A guy named Benjamin Moon who tweets as @CaptainAhmazing put it: "I totally just random campered Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. John Lennox. They're like my Justin Beiber and Taylor Swift.")

Much like Captain Ahmazing, it was a given I'd like Ross' presentation of old earth creationism. The question was, would Terry Mortenson, a young earth creationist or Michael Behe, a theistic evolutionist, be able to sway me?

Unbeknownst to me, John Lennox, at left, would present yet a fourth view as he spoke on opening night. Actually, Lennox's theory sounded a lot like Hugh Ross' with some differences here and there. Lennox postulates that God really did "create" on literal 24-hour days, but it took perhaps millennia for that command to be carried out before he spoke another command on another literal day and the process began again.

He was jolly in his presentation, and I liked how he said it was just a theory and he isn't willing to die for it "though some of you wish I would."

I felt something of a kinship in that every time I tackle any theological controversy I always end up believing both sides are somewhat -- if not completely -- correct. That's how I found out in Bible college I'm a Molinist on the predestination/free will debate.

Each speaker had a little under an hour to present his case, and Mortenson, the "biblical creationist" or young earther wasn't able to give me enough details without purchasing the books and DVDs he had for sale out front. Every speaker was selling books, DVDs and CDs that he pointed to for more detail, but Mortenson did so the most. Since I didn't have the money to buy any, I was left without knowing why light seems to have traveled millions of light years when the universe is only about 6,000 years old. He did touch on carbon dating being unreliable, but Hugh Ross seemed to refute that argument later.

Still, Mortenson made some points about uniformitarianism and the danger that in parts of the world where the doctrine of creation has been dropped other important doctrines have fallen like dominoes behind it -- notably, original sin. I also respected his willingness to uphold the veracity of Scripture. He did nitpick a bit, though, on some of Hugh Ross' points, i.e. saying that Moses wouldn't have used "one rotation of the earth" as one of the meanings for "day" because Moses didn't know the earth rotated. Well, no, that was just Ross' terminology for a 24-hour day, not Moses'.

On the day Behe spoke, I stayed in bed most of the day with a migraine, so I heard only the ending of his talk, though I was able to make his Q&A session the next day. I'll have to wait until I get the DVD of the conference to hear his full argument. But I did learn that he doesn't get into the theological aspects of creation, just the biology. Behe is the Lehigh University biology professor who speaks out for Intelligent Design based on the fact that plant and animal "machines" are far too complex to have occurred through chance mutations, as Charles Darwin asserted. Though a Christian, he makes no attempt to harmonize biology with Scripture, instead noting that life is "irreducibly complex." In other words, it couldn't have slowly built up from scratch with no designer guiding it along.

I liked Behe, too. In the way I respect Mortenson not wanting to see Scripture belittled, I respect Behe for not wanting to see science taken as unimportant. Though I should be clear: Both men do respect both the record of nature and Scripture. That said, I still think Ross best explains how the two work together.

But maybe this journalist was already biased to think that.

You should follow me on Twitter here and Facebook here.

Dr. Michael Behe on theistic evolution

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama – My intent was to give you a synopsis of Dr. Michael Behe’s presentation on theistic evolution, but I woke up Friday morning with a migraine, which, despite medication, only got worse.

As a result I spent most of the day in bed, praying that I would be well enough to drive an hour to hear him at 7 p.m. I awoke after 6 p.m. and decided I would be able to make the trip, but I would get there late. As it turns out, I missed about three-fourths of his talk.

I’m sure you can read much of his story at his webpage on the Lehigh University website, and also, Fixed Point Foundation is selling audio and video versions of the conference, so both you and I will be able to hear his entire talk once those are mailed out.

I think it's generally safe to say that Behe sees the complexity in creation demanding an engineer with a purpose rather than it being the result of random mutations.

When I finally made my way into the audience, Behe was talking about travelling with a friend and looking at a mountain range. “Look at that slope,” he tells the friend. “From that mountain top to the other one is an angle of 19 degrees!”

“Yeah, so what?” his friend asks.

Next they travel to see Massachusetts’ Old Man in the Mountain formation. Behe notices how the rocks resemble a human face and wonders if perhaps they were designed my some primitive culture.

Finally, they arrive at Mount Rushmore, seeing the perfectly chiseled faces of four U.S. presidents. The slope from the top to bottom of George Washington’s nose clearly was formed by a designer.

Even noted atheist Richard Dawkins admits the “appearance” of a purposeful arrangement of parts in even some of the most simple of life forms, Behe said.

Behe coined the term “irreducible complexity” for his theory, likening it to a mousetrap, which has several components necessary to make it work. If you remove half the components, he said, “you won’t get a mousetrap that works half as well. It won’t work a fourth as well. It’s a broken mousetrap.”

Behe finds it amazing so many biologists would latch on to Darwin’s theory. “The bottom line: There is strong evidence for design, little evidence for Darwinism.”

Radio host Rick Burgess closed out the evening, noting that he, too, is an Oxford graduate. He got his high school diploma from Oxford High School in Oxford, Ala.

“I’m going to ask a question I’ll bet none of these men with Ph.D.s asked,” Burgess said. “I read Genesis and I wonder stuff like: What if, instead of a snake, it had been a giraffe that tempted Eve in the garden. Can you image giraffes with no legs? What if you saw a legless giraffe out in the garden and hollered, ‘Honey, bring me a shovel or hoe!’ then tried to cut that long neck off?”

Turning serious, Burgess said that while it’s good to engage in debates such as the origin of may, Christians shouldn’t make it a litmus test for salvation.

The conference concludes on Saturday, with Q&A sessions with Behe, young earth (or biblical) creationist Dr. Terry Mortenson and old earth creationist Dr. Hugh Ross, a roundtable discussion among all three, a sermon on Genesis 1 from Gilbert Lennox and a concert by modern hymn writers Keith and Kristyn Getty.

You should follow me on Twitter here and Facebook here.

Photo: Owen Tew

John Lennox on creationism, and my slip with a banana peel

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama

“Do you have a place I can throw away this banana peel?”

That was me creating my usual good first impression as I entered Briarwood Presbyterian Church to hear John Lennox (pictured right), the first of six speakers at Fixed Point Foundation’s “In the Beginning” conference on three views of the Genesis account of creation.

The young woman to whom I spoke didn’t have a trash can but pulled out a box top with some scrap paper in it and had me deposit the remains of my supper-by-commute in there. Next, she found the lanyard with my name on it which would grant me access to the event.

After finding a men’s room, which, of course, contained a trash can, I sheepishly made my way back to the Will Call desk and begged her let me put the banana peel in a more appropriate place. As you can see, I have not been blessed with elegance.

I had contemplated bringing, rather than a banana peel, my camera to take decent pictures to illustrate this post, but feared “good photography” might not be allowed since I wasn’t attending as an accredited member of the press. So you are stuck with lousy cellphone shots.

I was way early, and got a seat front row, center. At least I’d be as close as possible for those lousy shots. I guess most of the attendees were Baptist since it was quite a while before anyone else joined me on the front row. When someone did, he introduced himself, and said he was from Huntsville, which is about 100 miles to the north.

Huntsville, Alabama is a space and defense industry hub, and sure enough this guy was semi-retired from the business. “You’re a rocket scientist, eh? Not me. I just gave the woman at Will Call a banana peel – THEN TOOK IT BACK.” I didn’t say that, but I probably will if I see him again tonight. There’ll probably be a brain surgeon from UAB sitting on the other side of me.

My neighbor suddenly thought to turn off his cellphone, then I told him way more than he cared to hear about mine – including the fear I’ll forget to put it on vibrate in church one day and it will go off to my ringtone of the old Emergency Squad 51 call.

God eventually showed the rocket man mercy and allowed the event to begin. Husband-and-wife duet Keith and Kristyn Getty kicked things off with a few hymns, some of which they wrote themselves. You can see the rotten cellphone photo at left that makes them appear as angels in their brightness; actually, it’s just overexposure. Though their singing and piano was indeed heavenly. I think they said Kristyn is John Lennox’s niece.

Lennox took the stage next. His purpose was to give an overview of the three views that will be presented over the next two nights: young earth creationism, old earth creationism and theistic evolution. Give-and-take among the views will be Saturday.

But Lennox added his own view: something in between. Noting that there are multiple interpretations for the word “day” in most languages, he pointed out that Genesis 1 says that God spoke things into creation and there was “evening and morning.” Young earthers say this proves the six days of creation are literal 24-hour periods. Old earthers and evolutionists say “days” refer to epochs. But Lennox posits that both could be true. That is, God spoke certain things into creation on an actual day, but “it might have taken a long time for what he said to work themselves out.”

Problems with his theory? One is the Bible’s claim that man’s sin in the Garden of Eden brought death. Lennox says that perhaps man’s sin brought death only to mankind, not animals and plants. But it brought decay and disease to all creation. A daffodil can get a disease and die, he explained, but if a daffodil blooms, then later dies out for the year, only to rise up again the next spring, that isn’t though of as disease or decay. It’s part of the natural cycle of the plant.

Lennox said he’s looking forward to hearing the other speakers – and perhaps even hearing them refute his theory. He admitted he might well be completely wrong. “I’m not willing to die for it,” he said, joking, “though some of you wish I would.”

Taking the Bible literally doesn’t mean that nothing should be seen as symbolic, Lennox noted. For instance, no one thinks that when Jesus said “I am the door” he meant he was an actual wooden door. “It’s because you have experience with doors.”

The Oxford mathematics professor said he got onto theology after one of his early students at Cambridge asked him whether he believed in God, then added, “Of course you do; you’re Irish. You believe in God, and you fight about it.”

The young man was making two common assumptions that Lennox didn’t care for: “He was saying my belief in God is genetically determined, and secondly, that it leads to violence.”

Lennox urged Christians, no matter what their view of creation, not to turn people off from faith by being overly dogmatic. He noted how Copernicus’ assertion that the earth circles the sun and not vice-versa wasn’t accepted by science or the church at first. And that debate was as hot as “creationism” is now. If the earth wasn’t the center of the universe it messed up the theology that the earth was important to God.

“The earth doesn’t have to be at the center of the physical universe for it to be at the center of God’s attention,” Lennox said.

Scripture talks about the origins of the universe, but it isn’t a science textbook, he said. “In Genesis, God encourages man to find things out for himself.”

He noted that many theologians of centuries past questioned whether the universe was created in six 24-hour days, among them Augustine, Justin Martyr and Origen. “And they weren’t influenced by contemporary geology.”

Lennox urged attendees to listen with respect to all points of view at the conference, even if their minds aren’t changed. He especially pointed out evolutionary biologist Michael Behe, who is taking a risk in his field by rejecting Darwinian evolution. “I am a mathematician, and I challenge it, too,” he said, “but not at the cost a biologist does.”

Fixed Point Executive Director Larry Taunton said he put the conference together because often in churches only one view is heard. “If you aren’t willing to submit yourself to some scrutiny within the church … I can assure you you’ll face some difficulty outside the church,” he said.

Oh, and my cellphone? It did go off with a call for Gage and DeSoto. I must have turned it off vibrate when I was taking one of those crummy pictures. Happily, I also accidentally turned the ring volume down to 1, which is 6 quieter than full blast.

It was my wife. When I called back she said a turtle was in the garage and she couldn’t coax it out. “Be careful when you come home,” she said. “Don’t run over it.”

And ruin part of God’s creation? Never.

You should follow me on Twitter here and Facebook here.

Photos: Owen Tew's cellphone and his wife

3 views of Genesis creation conference in Birmingham, Alabama (VIDEO)

Fixed Point Foundation, which normally presents debates between atheists and Christians, is putting on a four-day conference beginning tonight on three Christian views of creation. It will be held at Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, Alabama. If you can't make it, check back here each day for my observations. And they usually make DVDs, CDs and mp3s of their events available for sale.

Here, Fixed Point Executive Director Larry Taunton explains what the conference is about:

You should follow me on Twitter here and Facebook here.

I don't care what the Bible don't allow, gonna write with green ink anyhow

Quite a few Christians don't believe something in The Bible.

Even Christians who say they believe the Bible word-for-word.

To avoid getting off on a tangent arguing which verses we disagree about, let's make up an example that isn't actually in the Bible. How about: "Don't write with green ink." Let's say the Apostle Paul wrote this in III Goofians.

Some readers are going to foreswear green ink because the Bible forbids its use. Some of these foreswearers who are theologians will think up good reasons for the edict: Green represents the deadly sin envy, as in "green with envy," or perhaps the serpent who tempted Eve was a green snake. Others, who are just plain followers of the text (i.e. fundamentalists) simply note that green ink is a sin and avoid it.

Other readers who can't think of any logical reason not to use green ink -- or maybe they just think it's pretty -- will come up with reasons that this passage should be considered in context. Maybe in Paul's day you had to kill a kitten to produce green ink. Since catricide is no longer necessary to the process today, green ink is fine. Or maybe Paul was talking only to the Goofians because that city's culture associated green ink with worshiping false gods. Or maybe Paul never said it at all, and the green ink ban was put in later by makers of red ink who didn't want to change their business model.

Whatever the case, the disagreement brings about the creation of several churches based on either believing in or not believing in the green ink ban. Also, a publisher will get four theologians to contribute to a book titled "Four Views of Green Ink" in which this one verse of Scripture is dissected ad nauseam.

Then there's the whole loophole of writing in yellow, then tracing over it with blue. Is this sinful? After all, the intent is to produce green writing. Is it OK to write in green on computers since the text says "ink" and computers don't use ink?

Some people will say that anyone writing with green ink is going to hell. Others say that while green ink is clearly unbiblical, God's forgiveness is vast. And, in certain circumstances, green might be the only ink available with which to share the gospel in printed form. Is it better that the Word not be shared at all, or that it be shared in green?

In the end, the debate will not be settled, because I am right (no pun intended) and you are a child of perdition. Even though you think the same thing about me, that just makes you judgmental.

You should follow me on Twitter here and Facebook here.

Photo: Paper Mate

A different drummer

The drummer for the Newsboys is following me on Twitter.

This may not seem like a big deal to you if you are being followed by celebrities on Twitter or if you don’t know who the Newsboys are. But let me assure you, it’s a big deal to me. You might have noticed that this blog is titled “Syncopator Familias” with drum art on it. I wish that meant that I’m a brilliant drummer, but, sadly, that is no more true than the fact I was able to get the Twitter handle Tweetologian means I’m a brilliant theological thinker – or even a decent tweeter.

But I do like to play the drums when I get the chance, so when I’m followed by an actual professional drummer, that’s pretty cool. What’s more, I didn’t even follow him first – or mention him in a tweet. Kellie Pickler follows both my @OwenTew and @Tweetologian accounts, but she followed neither until I mentioned her – and used her Twitter handle – in a tweet. Pickler’s follow seemed to bring in some other folks, including Reba McEntire’s drummer.

I’m followed by some authors, musicians, politicians and pundits. But most of them set up autobots to follow people who follow them first.

But Duncan Phillips appears to be following me solely over something I wrote. I want to know what it was. The last thing I tweeted before I got the e-mail he was following me was: Dear, Westboro Baptist: "Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep." Romans 12:15 http://bit.ly/mipkIo

I suppose that was it.

I’ve been a Newsboys fan for more than 20 years. I actually own a cassette tape of their debut album. A friend gave it to me as a groomsman’s gift because he and I were both newspaper reporters – and because I listened to Christian music outside the cookie cutter stuff. So to have their drummer following me is a full circle.

It’s odd, though, that as a wannabe drummer I get followed by the Newsboys’ drummer and Reba’s drummer. Even stranger was when I met the drummer for the Barenaked Ladies.

I was killing time between work and a class about 10 years ago, taking photos of a church a block away from my office. I saw a guy out of the corner of my eye and tried to ignore him. But after he yelled, “Hey, Mr. Photographer!” it was difficult.

Hardly anyone walks up and talks to you on the street in downtown Birmingham without hitting you up for cash, so I was poised for this. He sensed my wariness and explained he was the drummer for the Barenaked Ladies. “Can you tell me where I can get a sandwich and an Absolut?” he wanted to know.

I hated to tell him, but there’s hardly a place even today – and certainly back then – to get a sandwich and an Absolut in downtown B’ham at 4:30 on a weekday afternoon. It finally hit me that there was place about six or seven blocks down, but I couldn’t verify they’d be open. He looked a bit letdown, but was on his way.

I went straight to my car where I had three Barenaked Ladies CDs – and there he was on the back. I looked at my camera and realized I was an ignoramus for not taking his picture.

You should follow me on Twitter here and Facebook here.

Photo: Newsboys Facebook page

My 25 years as a Christian

I became a Christian 25 years ago this month. I had not, at that point, given much thought to my fellow human being. Being 19 years old and self-absorbed, I was more concerned with my own welfare than that of anyone else.

My conversion quickly changed my view of humanity. I feared that most of those I loved, not to mention those I didn’t even know, were bound for eternal damnation, and so there was an urgency in my soul to do whatever necessary to convince them of their need for Christ’s salvation.

But in the past few years I’ve become a misanthrope. I don’t know why this is. Perhaps it’s because I’ve let my spiritual life slip. My early days of Christianity were spent in hours a day of prayer and Bible reading. Most days now pass with little thought to either.

What’s turned me so cold? I can’t blame anyone but myself, but outside influences have their effect. Right after my conversion I gave up all secular pursuits except for college – and before I’d had time to graduate I gave that up too.

A few years in I started listening to classic rock on the radio and watching TV Land, but still shunned any current entertainment. By the ‘90s I was watching "Seinfeld" and listening to Kurt Cobain. Still, I read my Bible and prayed daily. I even entered Bible college.

But Bible college may have begun my undoing. It wasn’t that they were teaching me to abandon my faith, but with working a full-time job and studying for class and seeking a wife (I was in my 30s), I had little time to dedicate to my former Scripture reading and prayer. I determined I’d take it back up between semesters. But I didn’t.

Now, years past Bible college, I still don’t. I’m still at church every Sunday, but my passion lacks. In some churches I see accommodation. I have no problem with trying to reach people through new methods, but one of those methods shouldn’t be leaving out any part of the message that offends. Other churches are either not accommodating enough or they cling to ideas that drive people away. I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s no home for me.

I don’t wish to wallow among the ungodly either. They’ve become more and more brazen in their spitting in the face of the holy.

I actually attend two churches currently: The one I grew up in, which is formal, but doesn’t compromise the gospel, and one which I’ve found that has a contemporary service, but still embraces tradition. I like both these churches, so please don’t get the idea from two paragraphs up that I don’t like them. I was speaking generally, and I’m sure there are many churches I’d feel comfortable in. I wrote those words several days before I penned this paragraph, and was in certain mood then that I’m not in today. Still, I’d like the words to stand unedited.

I’m trying to work God back into my life, but I’m doing so amid trying to work physical exercise back into my life and trying to become a better (newlywed) husband, better son, better pet owner, etc. And I’m trying to figure out ways to make extra money in a down economy – especially considering that I work in the newspaper business – a shrinking industry.

So pray for me if you are of the mind. Encourage me if you can. And I’ll do my best to do the same for you.

My quarter-century of walking with Christ has had its ups and downs, but overall it is the best thing that has ever happened to me. I entered this new life a few months before turning 20 assuming I had three choices: suicide, insanity or Christian conversion. Assuming I was teetering on the edge of the first two I reasoned I could try giving myself to God first. If that didn’t work out I could try insanity, and if that didn’t work, try death. After all, if death were a mistake I couldn’t undo it. Maybe I could come back from insanity, but maybe not. I could always give up Jesus if he didn’t cure my problems.

I’m happy to say that after all these years he still does. Even when I feel I’ve failed him.