Protestin’ Mor Chikin

August 3, 2012 Uncategorized 3 comments

I never thought the day would come when eating a chicken sandwich would be a polarizing political statement.

Obviously, though, I was wrong. On Wednesday, crowds flooded Chick-fil-A at Mike Huckabee’s request to show support for founder Truett Cathy’s statements on gay marriage. Today, in response, members of the gay and lesbian community have staged a “Same-Sex Kiss-In” at various Chick-fil-A locations to let their opinion on the matter be known.

Honestly, this whole idea of expressing a political statement through chicken is amusing to me. In a few months, I’m expecting life in the chicken business to return to normal. The battle over gay marriage will carry on, but I don’t see Chick-fil-A being at the forefront of it much longer (and my assumption, based on their company statements, is that they would prefer not to be immersed in this battle).

Much has been written on these two days of political expression, so I see no need to express a further opinion on it. If you’re looking for something more to read, especially on the Christian perspective of things, I’d recommend this article by Matthew Paul Turner.

Instead, I’d like to focus on another aspect of the story that hasn’t gotten as much attention. The mayors of Chicago and Boston have each made interesting statements on this issue, essentially stating that they wish to ban Chick-fil-A from their respective cities. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Boston Mayor Tom Menino said the following: “Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.” Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel expressed similar thoughts.

Many who oppose Chick-fil-A have expressed support for Emanuel and Menino. Essentially what they’re saying is this:

  1. Chick-fil-A’s owner wants to ban something with which he disagrees.
  2. Because we tolerate all viewpoints, we won’t tolerate this.
  3. Therefore, because we disagree with them, we should ban Chick-fil-A.

See the inconsistency there? I’m certainly not saying that Christians have handled everything perfectly, but I think there are issues on both sides here. I’m definitely bothered by Christians who make homosexuality out to be the primary problem with our society. I don’t agree with gay marriage or homosexuality in general, but I don’t see it as worse than any of a million other wrongs that go ignored in today’s society. The fixation that some Christians have with homosexuality is out of control and it’s problematic. However, those on the other side of the spectrum that are fixated with hating those who hate really aren’t any better. What if, instead of Chick-fil-A, a mayor wished to ban something else? A gay bar? A Muslim temple? If any politician even so much as thought about saying something like that, the media onslaught would be tremendous. Why, then, is Chick-fil-A different? Why are Christians okay to hate?

I think both sides of the issue have something to learn here. For Christians, we need to focus on love. Honestly, it’s nice to see Christians being for something rather than against something for a change. I’ll admit it’s being for something that’s against something, but reading headlines involving the words “Christian” and “appreciation day” is still a nice change. Growing up, Christians often made the news for the things they were thought to hate: homosexuality, alcohol, Disney, etc. Instead, Christians should be known for our love. It’s only then that we reflect Jesus, who gave his life for us out of love. Showing hate accomplishes nothing except turning people off from Christianity for no good reason.

For those who are against Christians, Chick-fil-A, and “intolerance” in general, it’s time to see your inconsistency. You want everyone to be treated equally, even homosexuals? Treat everyone equally, even those who disagree with you (and even those who don’t treat everyone equally!).

I truly believe if people from both sides of this debate could cooperate despite their differences, progress would be made. Unfortunately, both sides still have lots of work to do. Maybe this starts with simply recognizing that neither is doing things “right.”

Sacred vs. Secular

May 8, 2012 Uncategorized 7 comments

Today, I received an invitation on Facebook to a friend’s “Holy Hip-Hop” concert. I noticed one of the comments on the event page echoing a line of thought I’ve heard before, essentially arguing that there is no place in the Christian community for hip-hop music, that these “worldly hip-hop beats” (the commenter’s words) are incompatible with a Christian message.

As a former worship pastor, I’ve heard many an argument made for a biblically preferential worship style. I’ve been told that “Be still and know that I am God” (Psalm 46:10) cannot take place when drums are present (it’s important to note that the context of this verse has nothing to do with worship). I’ve been told that being “in the world and not of the world” means listening to and singing music that is stylistically different from music on the radio. I’ve heard that certain types of music are “hypnotic” and can “put you in a trance.” I was once even told (when working at a bookstore in high school) that the Switchfoot CD we were playing contained the “devil’s beat.” I’ve heard it all. And I’m here to tell you it’s all nonsense.

The truth is, instruments are neither sacred nor secular. There’s no such thing as a “sacred instrument” or a “secular instrument.” A pipe organ is no more holy than a kick drum. By the same token, instrumental music is neither sacred nor secular. Music without lyrics gives glory to nothing and no one, regardless of whether it’s a string quartet or techno CD. While we may recognize certain tunes and associate them with certain sacred or secular lyrics, it is the text of a song that determines its meaning.

What is interesting about this whole argument is that many of those who believe God somehow prefers some styles of music to others actually personally prefer tunes that were originally secular. Several hymn tunes began as secular songs and were later adapted as sacred songs. Luther was especially known for doing this; some tunes he used were pub songs. One theory is that he used them because of their familiarity; he knew worshippers would be more easily able to learn songs they already knew. Those tunes are now the very songs to which many “musical purists” now cling. It all goes to show that whether a song “sounds sacred” or not is simply an opinion and often subject to culture.

The same argument made against using pop, rock, hip-hop, or other current music styles in worship (or as Christian music in general) could have been applied against many hymns. However, as previously mentioned, the familiarity of the tunes made them good selections for worship. Even though these tunes may have first been secular, they were still able to be made sacred. Some have made the argument that certain musical styles or beats have pagan roots to them. However, as Christians, we believe in a God who is Redeemer. Every day, God makes beauty from ashes. He turns “hearts of stone” to flesh (Ezekiel 36:26). If God can redeem any person, no matter how broken, why believe a song or even a musical style is beyond God’s redemptive power?

The reality is, for many, that it’s just a weak argument in favor of a preference. Oftentimes someone who prefers hymns played on an organ to rock music played on a guitar or rap music performed to a beat will try to find biblical support for such preferences. The only problem is it’s just not there. What the Bible does tell us is that we should worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). We can worship with trumpet, harp, lyre, or cymbals (Psalm 150:3,5). It is not the style that matters but the authenticity. And some percussion doesn’t hurt either!

When Christians Are Embarrassing

April 15, 2012 Uncategorized 5 comments

One of my favorite books is Donald Miller‘s Blue Like Jazz. While I’ll admit that it’s been awhile since I last read it, I still clearly remember the impact it had on me. In short, Don shares his account of his early adulthood – a struggle to make sense of his childhood Baptist upbringing in light of real-world experiences that seem so incredibly different. While it could be considered simply one person’s story, it is easily relatable for many. Don tells his story with authenticity and candor.

This past weekend, Blue Like Jazz made it to the big screen. Friday night, I had the joy of seeing it on opening weekend. While quite different from the book (or at least what I remember of it), the film version of the story retained the elements that made the book so successful. Struggle. Doubt. Honesty, though at times quite brutal. What makes Blue Like Jazz so popular, I think, is that Don Miller’s story resonates so well with the stories of so many others.

Most of the negative press I’ve heard about the movie (and, for what it’s worth, I’ve heard far more positive than negative) is that it isn’t “Christian” enough (take Christianity Today‘s review, for example). It seems to me that CT simply wants Blue Like Jazz to be like every other Christian movie out there. The problem is, I think that’s the point. In Blue Like Jazz, Miller ultimately realizes that his “typical” evangelical upbringing has failed him. At first, it causes him to reject the church entirely, but he ultimately realizes that while he can run from his past, he can’t run from God. While his childhood has turned out to be filled with deception and even lies, God is still Truth. What I love so much about the story is that Don doesn’t become an atheist or something like that; despite his pain and disappointment, he concludes that God is still real and true despite it all.

As we left the theater on Friday, we encountered at least two separate groups of what I like to call “Bible thumpers” on our way out. In case you don’t know what I mean, they were the typical fundamentalist Christians: waving Bibles, telling people to repent, and so on. My encounter with them went something like this.

I shook my head and looked at the ground, audibly mumbling, “Please stop.”
They asked: “Are you a believer?”
“Yes,” I replied, “and you are embarrassing me.”
“You’re embarrassing me,” one of them said. “Preach the word!”

We quickly walked away. Seeing another couple about our age by the parking garage elevator and not knowing which movie they came to see, my wife sheepishly said, “Christians aren’t all like those street preachers, you know.” As it turns out, they were also Christians who came to see Blue Like Jazz and could also relate to Don’s story. We were relieved.

It’s sad – pathetic really – that we felt relieved to know this. What is so ironic is that those trying to “take a stand for Christ” (or so I would assume, by their comments to me) were the very ones for whom Don felt compelled to apologize in the movie.

I just don’t get it. Why do some Christians feel the need to do more harm than good? Why are so many Christians, for lack of a better term, so embarrassing?

Recently, I’ve read about several people who have had struggles with the church. Just yesterday I read the story of Kim Van Brunt and her decision to leave the church. Perhaps the most unfortunate part is the bashing she received in the comments section of the page. While some of the comments were positive, most were chiding her for her decision and warning her of the consequences to come. While I’m sure they were well-intended, they likely inflicted additional hurt onto an existing wound and reinforced her decision.

Here’s the thing. The church is the bride of Christ. If I’ve learned anything from my just-short-of-a-year of married life, it’s this: a marriage works the best when the husband and wife are on the same page. The times Lindsay and I have found ourselves at odds are all rooted in some sort of disagreement. Sometimes we’ve had different ideas about how to do something, and other times one of us made a mistake. Either way, though, the root of the problem was some sort of fundamental difference about something. And if the church is to be the bride of Christ, that means that the church needs to be on the same page as Jesus. Stories like Don’s and Kim’s are examples of times when this isn’t the case.

There’s one difference between Christ’s relationship with the church and all other marriages, however. It’s this: the church has a spouse that doesn’t mess up. So when the church isn’t on the same page as Christ, it’s the church that’s in the wrong. Though I still (hopefully) still have much of my life ahead of me, I’ve already seen far too many examples of this firsthand in my short past. I was the youth pastor at a church where most of the youth left before worship because they didn’t feel like they were welcome. I’ve been a worship pastor at a church immersed in a war over musical style. I’ve heard a guest speaker come and preach a “sermon” that was really more of a fundamentalist treatise on who to hate and why. I’ve visited churches whose pastors regularly spew out a misconstrued “gospel” that is in fact more of an arrogant brag on why they have been chosen as elect while most others in the world have not. I’ve experienced the cheesy Christian subculture – the awful bumper stickers, the copycat t-shirts, the zombified music detectable within milliseconds (justified in its existence for its “family-friendly” benefits). As a child, I even once visited a church in which a girl pointed at my sister and me and exclaimed, “Who are those people?” as if our mere presence in the room deserved explanation.

It’s easy for me to see why so many feel the need to give up on church completely. It’s not necessarily because there’s something wrong with those who are leaving; it’s because, more often than not, the church looks nothing like the bride it’s intended to be. It’s because, far too often, the church is driven by selfishness, greed, control, and fear of change. I’m so thankful that I’m currently a part of a church that appears to be none of these things. I have a feeling that Donald Miller and Kim Van Brunt might really like my church. I’m absolutely sure that my church is trying to be the church that people like Don and Kim are looking for. But for all the other churches out there, maybe they can take a hint from Don and Kim: instead of badgering others to conform to what you think church ought to be, try actually being the bride of Christ that we’re called to be. I think (non-zombified) Christian songwriter Shaun Groves says it best: “This world is not what’s wrong with me / I’m what’s wrong with this world.” I truly believe the biblical model for church is far more appealing than what we’ve made it out to be, but we must change our ways and stop the bleeding before we can truly advance the Kingdom of God.

An Update

March 9, 2012 Uncategorized No comments

It’s been about a month and a half since I last wrote a blog post. Because of this, combined with all the change in my life mentioned in my last post, I don’t feel right getting back to normal blogging without updating everyone on things. Next week I will be taking a group of students to Arkansas on a mission trip, and I hope to resume normal blogging after that. But first, the promised update.

I began serving University Baptist Church as youth minister last month. It has been a great joy to do so. I’m incredibly excited to get back into youth ministry, something I missed greatly during my tenure as a worship pastor. I’m definitely passionate about leading worship, too, but it’s been refreshing to have the privilege to work with students again. I’ve been blessed with an amazing, intelligent, talented youth group, and our church is very supportive and encouraging. The past month has been a great joy, and I’m sure the months to come will be too!

In other news, we also found a new place to live. It’s only about ten minutes from our old house, in the far northwest corner of Fort Worth. It’s much smaller than our last house, but it’s enough for us. We’ll live here through the end of September and then decide whether to stay or move again. We miss having such a big house but we’re also quite content with what we have.

I’ve been unable to blog since we’ve been so busy moving and settling into our new place. I hope to resume blogging regularly in a couple of weeks after my trip. Stay tuned!

New Beginnings

January 18, 2012 Uncategorized No comments

“Every new beginning comes from some other beginning’s end.”
- Semisonic, “Closing Time”

Times of transition are always bittersweet. In order for the new to come alive, the old must pass away. Excitement is mixed with grieving.

Today, as Lindsay and I face a time of transition, such is the case. I’m extremely excited to announce that I have accepted a new ministry position as the interim youth minister at University Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas. I will have the privilege of serving the church in this capacity until August of this year. It’s a great opportunity for me, and I can’t wait to begin. It is also difficult, however, to sever ties with Rosen Heights Baptist Church in Fort Worth, a community of believers I have grown to love over the past two and a half years. My time there has been sweet, and I hate to see it come to an end so quickly. I hope that I can stay in touch with so many there who have meant so much to me.

Lindsay and I will be looking for a new place to live over the next couple of weeks and I’ll begin my ministry at UBC sometime around February 1. Please keep us in your prayers as we make this transition. I’m very excited to see what God will do in this next chapter of our lives!

Is God In Control? Part 3: Why Does It Matter?

December 16, 2011 Uncategorized No comments
Jerry Sandusky

Former Penn State Assistant Coach Jerry Sandusky

Last week, former Penn State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was arrested. Again. He’s again a free man after posting bail, but this marks the second time he has been arrested. In case you haven’t heard the story, Sandusky is accused of sexually molesting several boys on the Penn State campus, at his home, and elsewhere. He now has a total of ten accusers and more than fifty charges against him. In 1977, Sandusky founded a charity – The Second Mile – ostensibly to provide support to at-risk children. He is accused of using this charity as a networking agency to connect with many of the children whom he allegedly sexually assaulted. Today, Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary testified (in a preliminary hearing for two Penn State administrators accused of perjury and failure to report these accusations to police) that he witnessed Sandusky sodomizing a boy aged between ten and twelve years old; this is perhaps the most convincing evidence against him. If the accusations prove to be true, Sandusky’s behavior could end up being one of the most sickening abuses of power on record.

Unfortunately, over the past few weeks another similar story has come to light. Bernie Fine, a former assistant basketball coach at Syracuse University, is accused of sexually molesting three former team ball boys. One of his accusers first made his story public six years ago, but only recently has enough corroborating evidence been found for the story to be made public. While the scope of the allegations against Fine is far smaller than that against Sandusky, both cases are saddening and abhorrent if true.

I could have written this at any time and found plenty of negative news stories to provide as examples. It seems bad news is everywhere, and when situations as these arise, a common question they produce is, “Why?” Some of these questions are practical in nature. Why would these men be placed in a situation with such limited accountability that it was able to go largely unchecked for years? Why was nothing done to stop them before now? And perhaps the biggest question of all, why would anyone want to do something like this? Many of the questions being asked, however, are of a more spiritual nature. Why would God allow something like this to happen? Why wouldn’t God put a stop to this?

The more the depravity of humanity comes to light, the more people often question its nature. If God is “all-good” and “all-powerful,” why does such evil in the world continue to persist? How much does God do to prevent evil in the world? Why doesn’t God do more? These questions have been asked for centuries and have received a variety of answers. The answers one chooses to believe shape just about everything one understands about the nature and character of God.

In my recent series, “Is God In Control?,” I’ve first discussed two views of God’s control and second explored one of them, determinism, in greater detail (if you haven’t read both of these, it would be a good idea to do so before continuing here). But why does all of this matter? Does it really impact the way we understand God? Why can’t it all just be a mystery?

Who’s to Blame?

The Truman Show

The Truman Show

The biggest problem with a deterministic view of the world is that it can minimize human responsibility. Think of it this way. If God caused something to happen, did the people involved really have a choice? I think of the movie The Truman Show as a primary example of this concept. If you haven’t seen the movie, Truman Burbank is the star of a reality show, but he thinks the world he’s living in is his real life. Whether the writers of the movie realized it or not, this serves as a great example of what our world would be like if determinism were true. People would be living their lives under the impression they’re making choices, when in reality they’re not at all. Life as we know it would simply be a distorted reality. The problem with this is where responsibility for these choices lies. If I thought I made a choice on my own accord but the reality is that God chose it to happen that way, did I actually make the choice? Am I responsible for the consequences resulting from that choice? Is it my fault if the choice was a bad one, or even an evil one? Assuming the charges against them are true, if God forced Jerry Sandusky or Bernie Fine to make the choices they made, who is responsible – the men or the God who determined these actions to happen?

The Author of Evil?

I once attended a Christian counseling conference, unaware that it was run by hyper-Calvinists. I remember one of the speakers at the conference passionately encouraging those in attendance, “Isn’t it beautiful how we serve a God who controls every minute aspect of our lives, who determines every detail?” I was appalled. I wanted to shout, “NO! That’s a horrible picture, and it’s not what God is like!” I didn’t, obviously, but I realized that day that many who believe in determinism haven’t stopped to consider the necessary implications of their beliefs. It only sounds beautiful when you haven’t stopped to consider the evil in the world. It sounds beautiful when we give God credit for everything that’s right with the world, but it stops sounding so good when we realize that a deterministic view of the world also requires that God has intentionally, purposefully caused every bit of evil that exists in this world.

Why It Matters

In Part 2 of this series, I explained in greater detail why the idea of God being controlling (and thus being responsible for evil) counters what the Bible teaches and creates inconsistent theology. Essentially, the point is this: God does not (and would not) decree that people do something that God instructs the same people not to do in the Bible. This would make no sense; it reminds me of the stereotypical elementary school bully, grabbing his victim’s arm and forcing him to hit himself, all the while saying, “Why are you hitting yourself?” God is not this bully. God does not tell us to avoid doing something and then decree us to do it. Instead, God gives us freedom, and a necessary consequence of freedom is evil. This isn’t because God created evil or caused evil, but simply because inherent in free will is the ability to do evil.

The danger in determinism is that we relinquish our responsibility for human choices and place the blame on God. Rather than realizing humans made mistakes, determinism allows the excuse of “I guess that’s just God’s will.” Not only does it allow God to receive blame for something God shouldn’t, it also allows humans to rely on what ought to be an invalid excuse for their actions. “That’s just the way God made me” isn’t and shouldn’t be an excuse.

So how does the understanding of human freedom affect the way we live? In several ways. First, we must each understand that we are responsible for our own actions. Because we have the ability to make decisions without being coerced or forced into doing so, it means that our decisions are important. It would be easy to be lazy and just sit back for the ride if the script of our life was written without our control. This isn’t the case, though. Second, when bad things happen to us or to others, we must understand that evil in the world is a necessary consequence of freedom. Why does God allow evil to happen? Because of God extinguished all evil, God would remove human freedom. We would no longer be beings with the ability to love; we would instead be robotic minions. Just as evil is a consequence of freedom, love is also. Love can only exist when given the option to do otherwise. God calls humans to love Him and others, but this is only possible with freedom.

What, then, should we do? We should make wise choices and we should love, because our choices matter.

Is God in Control? Part 2: Debunking Determinism

October 22, 2011 Uncategorized 11 comments

(Note: If you haven’t read the first part of this discussion, you may wish to do so before reading this post. You can find it here.)

Previously, I offered two models of God’s control: the roller coaster (strict “determinism”) and the Tin Lizzies (a more traditional view allowing for a degree of free will). One thing I have noticed over the past year or two is that is seems like more and more people are espousing the “roller coaster” view of God’s control. This troubles me, because I don’t find this view consistent with the teachings of the Bible. So with these definitions of “control” in mind, why is the “Tin Lizzies” view preferable?

But What About Control?

One of the most prevalent arguments I’ve heard from those who hold the roller coaster view (we’ll just refer to them as “determinists” from here on out) is that all other views compromise God’s sovereignty. In other words, determinists don’t believe that other views of God view God as in control. But is this really true?

Jack

Jack, My Sister's Dog

When I go to Tennessee to visit my family, I love playing with my sister’s dog Jack. Jack is rambunctious and energetic and loves to explore. When I take him out for a walk, I frequently have to stop him from running out in the street or pooping in the neighbor’s yard. But this doesn’t mean I carry him around. My sister has a great leash that we use for him. Similar to the Tin Lizzie example, this allows Jack to run freely, but it allows me to maintain control of where he goes.

This example provides three important insights about control. First, control isn’t always perceived. I’m sure as we run around the yard, Jack thinks he’s in control. He decides if we walk around the bushes, in the grass, stay in the front yard, or go to the back yard. He does have a degree of control, but ultimately, I’m the one in control. If he wants to go somewhere I don’t think he should go, I can stop him simply by locking down the leash. Second, control can be flexible. If Jack decides he wants us to go to the back yard, I can go with him but remain in control. I don’t have to pre-determine where we go to be in complete control. I can always say no, but even if I let him have his way, that doesn’t mean he has taken control away from me (one important thing to note here is that the metaphor breaks down somewhat because God has foreknowledge and I don’t; I’ll talk about this later). The third thing to note is that control is maintained until it can no longer be regained. The only way I lose control of Jack is if I either let go of the leash, it breaks, or Jack somehow squirms free of it. This hasn’t happened to me before, but if it did, Jack would truly be free of my control. He could run wherever he wanted and all I would be able to do would be to shout his name and hope he would come back. This illustrates a loss of control. Flexibility, however, doesn’t.

The So-Called “Paradox of the Free Will”

Historically, some have argued that people don’t really have any free will; we only perceive that we do, but God instead is the one dictating our actions. It’s important to note that this differs from my first point. The view of sovereignty and control that I espouse (the “Tin Lizzie” view) maintains that God is in control, but we are given a degree of free will (the flexibility to which I previously referred). In other words, we’re like Jack. God is in control, but God is not controlling. There’s a small but important difference here. Using the dog walking analogy, if I was controlling, I would carry Jack everywhere we wanted to go to ensure that he did exactly as I had planned. This isn’t the only way to be in control, however. I can still be in control and allow Jack to make decisions on where he goes. This does not compromise the fact that I’m in control; it only means I’m not controlling. Similarly, God does not have to actively make every decision for us to be in control. God can be in control without being controlling.

The Problem with Determinism

So what’s so wrong with the idea of God being controlling? It’s the notion of responsibility. If God controls our every action, God is responsible for the choices we make. If God pre-determined Adolf Hitler to kill millions of Jews and Hitler only had the perception of free will, then it is God, not Hitler, who is responsible for this decision. This flies in stark contrast to what the Bible teaches. The Bible repeatedly tells us that God is good (for a few of the numerous possible examples, see Psalm 119:68 and Psalm 116:12; also, God refers to his own goodness in Exodus 33:19, and in John 10:11 Jesus refers to Himself as the “Good Shepherd”). Why, then, would God specifically decree something that no right-minded human would call good? Are we to simply understand the concept of God’s goodness to be completely different from our own? This would make no sense. John Wesley, founder of the Methodist church, said in his sermon “On Free Grace,” “No Scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works.” In other words, if something in the Bible leads you to believe that God is not completely loving, you’re misunderstanding it. And this is exactly what happens with determinism – God becomes the author of all evil. In the words of Truett Seminary professor Dr. Roger Olson, the implication of determinism is that “God is not good but a monster worse than the devil because at least the devil is sincere.”

Viewing the world through the lens of determinism means that free will is only an illusion. This ultimately holds God responsible for everything that happens, good and bad. Stepping outside this lens, however, helps us to see the world the way the Bible explains it and we understand it. I’ll elaborate on this further in my final post on determinism. Look for my next post soon, discussing how we should live differently within the context of this understanding of God’s control.

Is God in Control?

October 10, 2011 Uncategorized 6 comments

It’s what many said when hurricanes threatened the Northeast this year and devastated the Gulf Coast region a few years ago. It’s what many Republicans said when Barack Obama was elected President. It’s something many say after a car wreck, relationship break-up, or hospital visit. Maybe you’ve said it yourself. Even if not, you’ve probably heard it. It’s a common response to evil, misfortune, or uncertainty: “God, we know you’re in control.”

We Christians seem to love this phrase whenever something doesn’t go precisely as we would have designed it. But what does it mean, and when the rubber meets the road, do we truly believe it?

I’ve discovered a lot of the discrepancy with this phrase stems from different understandings of the word “control.” In fact, it’s a means of division between many Christians. How you understand the meaning of control often can say a lot about what and how you believe.

So let’s get to the bottom of this and answer the big questions. What do Christians tend to mean when they say “God is in control?” Which definition matches most closely with what the Bible teaches? And perhaps most importantly, how do we live as a result of the previous two questions? Today I’ll address the first. Look for follow-up posts about the second and third questions soon.

Defining Control

When I was a kid growing up in Nashville, I loved going to Opryland theme park. Unfortunately, the owners of the park got greedy, electing in 1997 to tear it down to build a mall because it wasn’t making enough money. Nashville has several nice malls. It only had one theme park. It was a bad decision. Anyway, Opryland didn’t have as many roller coasters as some of the major parks (Disney World, Six Flags, etc.) but it had a few great ones. My favorites were the Hangman, a coaster in which your feet were left dangling during the ride; the Wabash Cannonball, the first corkscrew coaster I ever rode; and as a child, the Tin Lizzies. They removed this attraction in 1995 to make way for the Hangman, but when I was young, the Tin Lizzies was one of my favorite things to do at the park. This wasn’t a roller coaster. Instead, it was a little concrete track on which you could drive (albeit slowly) cars resembling Ford’s Model T. Obviously, my fifteenth birthday (and subsequently obtaining my learner’s permit) removed the need and desire for the Tin Lizzies, but as a young boy I loved driving those cars. My parents also loved it because they knew it was safe. A metal rail ran in between the wheels of the cars, keeping them on the track no matter how badly the driver steered. This is what enabled a six-year old boy to sit behind the wheel of a “car” without having to sign a liability waiver. It was great for everyone.

So what does my reminiscing about riding roller coasters and driving at 5 miles per hour have to do with how God controls things in the world? I’ve been trying to come up with a simple metaphor to explain different views of control, and the best example that comes to mind is found at Opryland.

The Roller Coaster

Opryland USA

A roller coaster at Opryland

Some people think of God’s sovereignty (another word for power or authority) much like a roller coaster. Life is full of twists and turns, and sometimes it may give you a funny feeling in your stomach. You may even feel like you’re upside-down. But the path has already been laid out for you. No matter what you do as a passenger on a roller coaster, you can’t alter its course. Similarly, those who hold the “roller coaster” view don’t believe we have any active part in God’s plan. God lays out the pathway, and we simply fasten our safety harness and hang on for the ride. God being “in control” means that God actively controls every detail of life. What you eat for breakfast, the clothes you wore today – it’s all part of God’s plan laid out for you. Some but not all Calvinists hold this view, and it is distinctive from Calvinism. It is commonly called hyper-Calvinism.

The Tin Lizzies

The Tin Lizzies

The Tin Lizzies (that's not me in the picture!)

Others view sovereignty more like the Tin Lizzie attraction at Opryland. Much like the metal rail that keeps the cars on track, God exercises a certain degree of control. But the difference is that the Tin Lizzie view allows for a degree of flexibility – what we call free will. Those who view God in this way believe that God allows us to make decisions and God holds us responsible for the choices we make. While the degree of free will we have is often a source of debate, Arminians and many Calvinists alike hold this view.

So which definition of control most closely resembles the teachings of the Bible? What do these definitions mean for us, and how do they affect our understanding of God being in control? Stay tuned!

In the mean time, what are your thoughts on the two definitions of control? Which one most closely resembles what you understand God to be like?

Theology and Football: Must Be the Money

August 17, 2011 Uncategorized No comments

One of the biggest problems currently facing football (college or professional) is that of money. The NFL recently ended a four-month labor dispute centered primarily on distribution of revenue. Even with the work stoppage no longer lingering, questions remain about money. Several star players, most notably Titans’ running back Chris Johnson, have failed to report to work because of contract disputes.

In college football, the situation is seemingly even worse. Many of the scandals that have recently rocked institutions have centered on illegal benefits. Ohio State suspended several players and lost its coach because the players were believed to have received money for autographs and free or discounted tattoos. If proven true, the University of Miami faces a potentially much larger issue, as a booster claims to have given money and illegal benefits to 72 players over the course of the last nine years. Several former players who are now notable figures in the NFL are included, but the list also includes some current players, including starting quarterback Jacory Harris.

On a separate note, Texas A&M University has all but expressed its desire to leave the Big XII conference and join the SEC. Two primary issues seem to be driving the decision: first, that A&M could make more money as a member of the SEC; and second, the school seems to be upset that priority has been given to the University of Texas in allowing the school to create its own television network. In the words of ESPN’s Pat Forde, “Tradition is up for sale.” Baylor president Ken Starr submitted a guest column to the Waco Tribune-Herald this past Sunday criticizing Texas A&M for wanting to leave. His words included the following: “This week we learned of plans that would tear Texas A&M from the fiber of the Big 12 and place it within the Southeastern Conference where it would no longer face its sister institutions from the Lone Star state.” He continued, “Baylor, Texas and Texas A&M have been competing against one another for more than a century, while Texas Tech has been facing these foes for more than 80 years. Quite frankly, I can’t imagine having a Baylor football season without a game against A&M with the Midnight Yell and the pageantry of the Fighting Texas Aggie Band marching at halftime. Any change that disrupts our current athletic affiliations will create aftershocks throughout our conference and others. I shudder to consider a future gathering of my fellow university presidents in which conversations about the disappearance of our historic rivalries lead us to consider what we were thinking back in 2011 when we let something so valuable slip away.”

It is the “aftershocks” Starr referenced that have been creating the largest stir among college football analysts. The concern is that if Texas A&M leaves the Big XII, it would need to bring another school with it to create an even number of teams in the SEC. The leading candidate seems to be Missouri, which would leave the Big XII with only 8 teams. Despite the fact that the Big XII started out as the Big 8 Conference, many are concerned that an 8-team Big XII conference would not survive. Some teams would likely join the Pac-12, Mountain West, or Big East conferences. Other teams – Baylor considered the most likely candidate – would struggle to find a new home. With this in mind, it is easy to understand Ken Starr’s passion for keeping Texas A&M where it is.

I’ve mentioned several different issues facing football at the college and professional levels. Despite the variety, however, I believe that all of these situations can easily be summed in one word.

Selfishness.

Why would the NFL and its players’ association argue for months about revenue sharing, what many described as a conflict between millionaires and billionaires? Selfishness.

Why would players making millions (or at the least, very close to it) hold out from training camp in hopes of a better deal? Selfishness.

Why would college players seek illegal benefits at the risk of harming their institutions and potentially losing eligibility? Selfishness.

Why would a school seek to destroy century-old tradition and possibly cause other schools great financial harm to potentially gain more money for itself? Selfishness.

In each of these situations, the people involved are risking great hurt to others (and potentially themselves) in the name of the Almighty Dollar. The question that you and I must ask ourselves is this: are we, deep down, willing to do the same?

We may not end up on the front page of a newspaper as a result of such decisions, but integrity is still an issue regardless of fame. The choice to live a selfless life is not an easy one, but it is the call Jesus gives us in Luke 9:23: “Then he said to them all: Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.” It’s also the call that of Matthew 7:12 (“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”) and Matthew 6:19-21 (“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”), both from Jesus’ sermon on the mount.

Instead of pursuing wealth at any cost, we are to be selfless and love others as ourselves. It’s a difficult call to follow but it is at the very heart of Christianity. I’ll likely address different aspects of this topic again in the future.

What is the most difficult part of being selfless?

Fixing College Football

August 15, 2011 Uncategorized 2 comments

I designed this blog primarily as a place to discuss theology, and I plan to keep it that way. However, I’m going to take a short break with this post to discuss another personal passion: college football. Last summer, the college sports landscape was shaken as several teams changed conferences. This past week, the chaos almost resumed as Texas A&M threatened to leave the Big XII and join the SEC. Even though the move did not materialize, it seems likely that A&M will pursue the move again in the near future. Many other questions also remain about college sports, especially football. The NCAA is hosting a panel to discuss these issues and others, and ESPN has assembled its own panel to discuss the same issues. Should players be allowed to receive money or other benefits? Should the NCAA institute a playoff for Division 1-A? What will happen if Texas A&M does decide to change conferences?

Given all the questions surrounding college football, I’d like to propose a few answers. Before that, though, let’s begin with a few problems in the current system the NCAA is using.

  1. The NCAA allows some schools to receive preferential treatment over others. Specifically, this takes place in several areas. First, schools should not be able to create their own television networks. This past year, the University of Texas partnered with ESPN to create the “Longhorn Network.” The success of this network remains to be seen, but the problem is that Texas receives benefits that other schools in its conference do not. This is part of what has angered Texas A&M. Conference TV networks (the Big Ten Network serves as an example) are good for the conference, but single-school networks are not. Second, schools should not be allowed to only join a conference for some of the sports they offer. Recently, BYU elected to become an independent school in football only because it could sign better television deals on its own than it could as a part of a conference. Similarly, Notre Dame has long been an independent school in football only because of its TV deal with NBC. These independent schools harm the landscape of college football because they can create whatever schedule they want and they can avoid tying themselves into conference television contracts. This gives schools like BYU and Notre Dame preferential treatment over other schools. It’s bad for college football as a whole for the same reason as the Longhorn Network. Third, the NCAA should not make special rules for independent schools. If a school elects to be independent in every sport, the avoidance of conference regulations to which I previously spoke do not apply. However, Notre Dame has special rules in place that apply to no other team in the BCS. This gives schools more incentive to become independent. Not only do I think schools being independent in football only is a problem, but I also do not like the idea of independent schools at all. As a result, I believe they should be given the same rules as non-automatically qualifying conference teams. If the current BCS system is kept, independent schools such as Notre Dame should only be guaranteed a bid into the BCS if they finish in the top two spots in the BCS rankings, as this is the rule in place for non-AQ schools. If schools elect to be independent in every sport, so be it, but the NCAA should not make it easier for these schools to qualify for the BCS than they do other schools. Hopefully this equal treatment would create additional incentive for teams like Notre Dame and BYU to join a conference. Conferences are important for several reasons, and I’ll discuss this in greater detail later.
  2. Conferences are given preferential treatment without merit. Presently, six conference have contracts with the BCS to have the conference champion automatically qualify for a Bowl Championship Series game. These are the “AQ (auto-qualifying) conferences” of which I previously spoke. The problem with this setup is that the champion is guaranteed a spot regardless of how strong or weak the conference is. Recently, the Big East Conference and Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) have struggled, and their respective champions have arguably been unworthy of a qualifying spot. I will later propose a system to replace to the BCS entirely, but even if the system stays in place, this policy should change. Guaranteeing the conference champion a spot in the BCS encourages teams in AQ conferences to schedule weak non-conference opponents. If the BCS wants to guarantee automatic bids to champions of some conferences, it should come up with a conference ranking system and use this to determine which conferences automatically receive bids. I’ll discuss this more later on.
  3. Not enough guidelines exist for conferences. Presently, a conference can have as few or as many teams as it wants. The Big East only has eight teams competing for an auto-bid in college football. The Big East and 10-team Big XII do not require a conference championship game. On the other hand, the other AQ conferences have 12 teams competing for the conference title and the winning team must also win a conference championship game because this is required for conferences with at least 12 teams. This creates an unfair balance, as it is mathematically easier to win the Big East, even if the level of competition between conferences was even. On the other hand, there have been several threats of 14- or 16-team “super-conferences.” A conference of this size would be unmanageable and would really be more like two conferences competing for one auto-bid spot (and this is the reason why many argued that the proposed “Pac-16″ would deserve two auto-bids). The NCAA should require teams seeking an auto-bid into the BCS (or any future system that could replace it) to have exactly 12 teams – split into two six-team divisions (ideally geographically named to prevent future embarrassment from the Big Ten) with a conference championship game. If the Big East wants to keep only eight teams competing for its football title, that’s fine, but their chance for an automatic bid should be taken away.
  4. Illegal player benefits are getting out of hand. This problem exists for several reasons. One of the main problems in college football is agents. Because they are regulated by the NFL and not the NCAA, agents are quick to follow NFL guidelines but don’t care about NCAA rules. This gives agents little accountability in the way they interact with NCAA-eligible players. Why would an agent have second thoughts about giving a player money or throwing a party that deems a player ineligible for the NCAA when the agent is only accountable to the NFL? The other main source of trouble in this area is that many players feel desperate to earn money and often find the easiest way to obtain it is through means that violate NCAA rules. But is there a solution that doesn’t cause preferential treatment? Stay tuned.
  5. One more, just for fun: Conferences should not be allowed to use numbers in their names. Presently, the Big Ten has twelve teams and the Big XII has ten teams. Not only is this confusing to people who do not follow football closely, but it’s also a generally stupid practice. Let’s rename the Big Ten something like the Midwest Conference and call the Big XII something like the Southwestern Conference. While we’re at it, even though the Pac-12 changed its name to remain “mathematically accurate” (their own words – a direct shot at the Big Ten and Big XII), if it became simply the Pacific Coast Conference this name-changing business every time teams are added and removed could be ended.

With these problems and others, here are a few ideas:

  1. Create an 8-team playoff. Let’s face it: the biggest problem facing college football right now is its inability to determine a champion. I know not everyone agrees with the idea of a playoff, but I think it is necessary for college football. I certainly don’t think it should adopt a huge (involving 32 or 64 teams) playoff system, but I think 8 teams is a good number. Here’s why. It would allow several conference champions to enter the system and allow for a couple of at-large teams. With only four teams in the playoff, it is possible that the champion of a good conference could be left excluded. And who’s to say a 1-loss SEC champion isn’t better than an undefeated Big East champion, for example? Sometimes the best conferences “beat each other up” along the way, and it isn’t fair to punish teams for that. I believe the best system is to guarantee bids to the playoff for the four conference champions of the “best” conferences (details on what “best” means to follow), guarantee bids to the two highest-ranked remaining conference champions, and allow two highest-ranked remaining teams to receive at-large bids. Teams would be ranked in a system similar to the current BCS standings. Personally, I prefer the original BCS ranking formula used in 1998 rather than the amended ranking system currently used. This formula included losses and strength of schedule in the equation and gave equal weight to human polls and computer rankings. I think this system was better than the system presently used, but either way, a system of this type is still effective in determining rankings. Conferences would be ranked in a separate conference ranking system that determines the overall quality of the conference based on combined records of conference teams and combined strength of schedule. This ensures that all teams in the conference don’t simply schedule all easy non-conference matchups to improve conference ranking. This also elevates the quality of play during the regular season, because teams will have incentive to schedule harder regular season games. It also encourages conferences to maintain quality throughout the conference and not just at the top. The eight teams selected for the playoff could play their first round games in the Fiesta Bowl, Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, and Orange Bowl. This enables conferences to maintain their present tie-ins to bowl games. The Pac-12 and Big Ten conferences are especially tied to this idea because of the Rose Bowl tie-in, so this would preserve this tradition and hopefully satisfy these conferences. In fact, this would do a better job than the current system of preserving this tradition, because conference champions that qualify for the national championship game do not in fact play in the Rose Bowl presently. To me, this means the current system actually destroys their tradition. My proposed system would restore this tradition. The winners of these bowl games would then play in national semifinal games to be followed by the national championship game. The sites of these games could rotate among the current BCS bowl locations, much like the national championship game does now. This would allow the present bowl structure to remain in place (a point of contingency against a playoff system for many). It would also add two additional postseason games, increasing revenue for the NCAA and schools and conferences involved in the games. I think it is a proper balance between the present bowl system and a full “large” playoff system involving 16 or more teams.
  2. Allow players to receive some monetary benefits, as long as they are equal among all players. I think the easiest solution here is video game licensing. EA Sports and other sports video game companies would jump at the chance to have real player names in NCAA video game titles. If the NCAA created an organization (much like the players’ union) that could distribute monetary benefits equally to players, it would be a mutually beneficial agreement. Much of the controversy surrounding giving players monetary benefits is that it would help “big” schools and players. This is true for some forms of monetary benefit, specifically autographs, speaking engagements, etc. But licensing agreements like this would provide an equal stimulus across the board. It would provide players an extra incentive to stay in school, because they would receive at least some money. And it wouldn’t create a competitive edge for some schools or players – the Heisman Trophy winner would receive the same amount of money as a backup defensive lineman for a mid-major school. I wouldn’t even be opposed to the idea of giving players a monetary stipend, as long as it’s guaranteed to be the same for every scholarship player in Divison I and not so high that the smaller schools can’t afford to pay it.
  3. Require conferences to be composed of exactly 12 teams in order for a team to be eligible for an automatic bid. As I previously mentioned, the champions of the four best conferences would automatically receive a playoff bid, and the two highest-ranked remaining conference champions would have received automatic bids. In order for conferences to be eligible, however, they must be composed of exactly 12 teams. This prevents the “super-conference” (which is more like two eight-team conferences with a common championship game) as well as 8-team or 10-team conferences avoiding a conference championship game. In my opinion, this blend of champions of the best conferences, conference champions with the highest team ranking, and overall highest-ranked teams makes for the best blend of teams in a playoff. You can’t argue that your team deserves a chance if they’re ranked highly because they would have made the playoffs based on team ranking. If your team won its conference but wasn’t ranked high enough, however, you also can’t argue that your team missed the playoffs because it was a harder conference and “everyone beat each other up” because the highest-ranked conferences also are guaranteed a bid. It seems to me to be a solution where everyone wins.

To explain how this playoff system might look in reality, here’s an example based on last year.

Let’s assume for a minute that all major conferences had 12 teams last year and thus qualify for automatic bids. Here were the final 2010 BCS rankings (before bowl games):

  1. Auburn
  2. Oregon
  3. TCU
  4. Stanford
  5. Wisconsin
  6. Ohio State
  7. Oklahoma
  8. Arkansas
  9. Michigan State
  10. Boise State

Let’s assume, for the sake of example only, the conference standings were as follows:

  1. SEC
  2. Pac-10
  3. Big Ten
  4. Big XII
  5. ACC
  6. Mountain West
  7. Big East
  8. WAC

The first four teams to receive automatic bids would be the champions of the highest-ranked conferences: Auburn, Oregon, Wisconsin, Oklahoma. Next, the two highest ranked conference champions (that weren’t already offered bids based on conference) would receive bids: TCU (Mountain West champion) and Boise State (WAC champion). Finally, the highest two remaining teams would receive bids: Stanford and Ohio State. The teams would then be paired in the playoffs based on conference tie-in to bowl game:

Rose Bowl: Oregon vs. Wisconsin

Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma vs. TCU

Sugar Bowl: Auburn vs. Boise State

Orange Bowl: Ohio State vs. Stanford

The winners of each game could then be seeded based on BCS ranking and play in the national semifinal.

For sake of example: (1) Auburn vs. (4) Stanford and (2) Oregon vs. (3) TCU.

The winners would play in the national championship game. It could have still been Auburn vs. Oregon, but who knows for sure?

Since this is a theological blog, I’ll be writing a few posts in the days to come on some theological connections to the current state of college football. That will come in the future, though; for now, we’ll stay focused on football.

These are just a few suggestions that could hopefully solve some of the major solutions facing college football. What do you think? What are your ideas?

« Older Entries