Another Sports Rant

 Thankfully, I've been able to watch a little bit of college football this season. I have especially enjoyed the late season games leading up to the bowls and the added playoff games. Even though I do enjoy football, especially college football, it's time for another rant. Now, you might think 'why rant? Just stop watching if you don't like it.' Well, it may come to that some day. I know quite a few people who stopped watching pro sports all together. However, I would rather see the game become more sportsmanlike than just stop watching it completely.

Here goes the rant. Frustration number one for me is how redundant the commercials are. A similar group of businesses sponsor NCAA football coverage year to year and they mostly use the same commercials all season. Sometimes they use the same commercials season after season. After two or three weeks of seeing the same commercials during every media timeout they get old, really old; and they stay that way for months.

Frustration number two is pass interference. The rule book certainly has an official definition of what constitutes pass interference. That definition certainly means nothing. I'm convinced that not a coach in the country bothers to teach their players to cover by the rules. In a way, you kind of can't blame them because the truth is that it really doesn't matter what the rule book says. What matters is what any given official is going to enforce, and that tends to be a mystery on any given play. It feels like every play that PI is not called the receiver is complaining and every play that it is called the defensive back is complaining. Basically, someone is going to whine no matter what; and the whining is annoying in and of itself. Why can we not get it right more often? Why can we not complain when the rules are enforced? Why have rules if we are not going to utilize them?

Come to think of it, holding by offensive lineman is a very similar situation. The rule book defines it, but there does not seem to be any consistency is what the officials call. Further, it does not appear that coaches teach players not to hold. I suspect they teach them to keep their man off the quarterback and maybe just warn them to make the holding discreet in hopes it will not be flagged.

Now, I think I have written about this before, but this whole idea of not enforcing rules is something that just bugs the hound out of me. I come at it from a Christian viewpoint. Of course, I realize that the sports world is not a Christian organization (although I'm pleased with how many NCAA football programs do have a strong Christian presence.) Yet, we are supposedly a civilized society. We are supposed to value respect, courtesy, the rule of law, sportsmanship, and so forth.  Therefore, if you are going to have rules then you should enforce them.

We hear players, announcers, coaches, and even officials talk about not throwing a flag for infractions that happen "away from the play" or that "do not affect the play." That mindset makes absolutely no sense to me at all. If something is defined as wrong, then it is always wrong. Wrong is not defined by it's effects. Wrong is defined by the rules. When the rules are violated an infraction has occurred. 

"O but if they call every foul on every play, the game would take forever." Boo hoo. Teach the players not to break the rules. "But sometimes fouls are strategic." That does not make it okay. "O but it is better to foul than to get beat for a score." That's what is wrong with sports these days. People care more about winning than winning ethically. I look at it from the perspective of the old adage "cheaters never win." If you did not get scored on because you broke a rule, then you really got scored on. If you win a game but you broke the rules, then you really did not win the game. By definition, breaking the rules is cheating and by definition players who break the rules are cheaters. We currently have a whole bunch of cheaters playing at every level of football and probably most other sports. Sadly, it does not seem like too many people care. Few parents, coaches, or announcers are interested in training players to compete according to the rules. Kind of ironic, isn't it, considering the oft' repeated mantra that "sports builds character."

Next point of frustration:  sideline reporters. Are they not a waste of time? I mean, it is nice when they report during the broadcast about an injury or something. However, when they give them the stage for their little pregame, pre halftime, pre second half, and post game interviews, they are not adding anything to the experience. Sideline reporters are masters of asking meaningless questions. And coaches are masters of giving meaningless answers. Nobody benefits from those miniature interviews. Why do we keep doing them?

Moving on to another annoying subject: coaches throwing conniption fits (I was not going to say anything about this, but I'm watching the Sugar Bowl and they just showed Kirby Smart acting like a two year old.) I do not care that they are under pressure to win. I do not care that they have to try to manage youngsters (which surely is frustrating.) These men are supposed to be professionals. They are the leaders in their fields and on their campuses. They make obscene amounts of money. Why do we excuse them for acting like toddlers? Think about it. We would not be comfortable with this type of behavior from other professions. You would not be okay with your banker, your doctor, your mechanic, or anyone else in your life acting like that. Why is it considered acceptable from coaches? The Bible warns us to get rid of wrath and anger, yet even Christian coaches are excused for this behavior. It does not make sense.

One more frustrating thing about college football and I will stop. I am sick and tired of what we used to call "hot-dogging" or "show boating." Now, it is just considered "celebrating." Perhaps this is the most subjective of my beefs. Clearly, it is not a problem for most people. To me it seems prideful, undignified, and unsportsmanlike. I can understand some cheering and jumping up and down after a big win, but the "celebrating" has gotten out of hand. Pretty much after every single play somebody is involved with some type of animated gesturing that draws attention to themselves and (to me) looks stupid. Again, we would not accept this in other venues. Imagine if your checker at the grocery store starting pounding their chest, pretending to rip open their shirt, and howling at the ceiling after they handed you your receipt. Okay, you did your job, congratulations. Why do you have to act like you just saved the free world? Seriously, these guys are just carrying out their assignments and they act like they cured cancer. Have some class and dignity. Make the play and go back to the huddle. Save the celebration for after the game.

Okay, I'm done for tonight. Maybe you were entertained, maybe you weren't. But I feel a little better ;-)

Need to Vent a Little about the BGCT

 It's been a long time since I posted a blog. It's been an even longer time since I had been to a BGCT annual meeting, until yesterday anyway. I'm frustrated about how the business went down this time and I want to express it. However, I don't want to be negative or divisive, so I'll just vent a bit here and I won't have to worry about anyone actually seeing it.

Soooo, what's the deal pickle? Well, yesterday someone made a motion that the BGCT affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 edition. This is a statement of faith or confession of faith meant to encapsulate basic doctrines that Baptists hold. Throughout the history of Baptists, there have been many such confessions which served their purposes for the times in which they were written. The Baptist Faith and Message was written by Southern Baptists in the 1920s, updated in 1969, and revised again in 2000. The 2000 version was authored by a committee which included several members associated with "the conservative resurgence." In my opinion, the 2000 version of the document did a very good job of updating language and clarifying some topics in a manner that made the confession more relevant to the cultural context of the 21st century.

One change the 2000 iteration made was to actually spell out that, biblically, the office of pastor is reserved for men. It was also revised again in 2023 to say the office of pastor/elder/overseer is reserved for men. Over the past few years the question of whether or not women are biblically qualified to serve in vocational ministry has been a source of contention among Southern Baptists. I suppose it was inevitable that Texas Baptists would also deal with it as the BGCT, Truett Seminary, and many churches in Texas are in favor of women serving as pastors (as in the senior pastor of a church, not merely "children's pastor" or something like that.) However, a number of individuals and churches still understand Scripture to teach that the office can only be held by men.

Back to the motion made in Monday's business session. The person who made the motion stated that the reason he brought it was simply so that BGCT churches who wanted to could partner with the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. He made it clear that for the convention to affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 in no way bound an individual church to adopt it. Local church autonomy would still be clearly in play.

I believed the motion would be rejected, as the climate of Texas Baptists has clearly leaned left recently. However, I thought the vote would at least be kind of close. It was not. I am upset that so many folks do not understand the Scripture to teach that only men can be elders, but my concerns are far beyond that. First of all, as I said above, the 2000 version addresses issues that needed to be addressed in today's world. For a person, or church, to ignore these issues simply because they disagree with one or two other things in the treatise is inconsistent to me UNLESS you are fully convinced that the work is blatantly heretical. However, few Texas Baptists really think it is heretical; they claim it is just a matter of misinterpreting a few difficult texts that are heavily nuanced. They claim it should be a matter of local church autonomy. I think they are not being honest.

I do not think they are being honest with themselves based on what I heard in the business session today. Essentially, in my opinion, a whole bunch of Texas Baptists who want to be progressive (and creative in their hermeneutics) are still frustrated and upset about the conservative resurgence. They are not going to give one inch of ground to conservatives even if it makes sense to do so. They are going to fight with their feelings and try to convince everyone around them that they have some kind of higher understanding of Scripture and we better not try to tell them otherwise.

The ironic thing, and the second concept that irks me about the vote, is that the moderates/liberals are crying foul without recognizing that they are the ones guilty of the crimes they accuse others of. They want to say that conservatives are violating local church autonomy, when they are actually dismissing it in their arguments. They want to accuse conservatives of being exclusive, when they are actually the ones drawing lines and shutting people out. Maybe I am extra sensitive because we have just come through an election cycle and I've been flooded with leftist political pundits doing the same thing, i.e., accusing the right of crimes they themselves are guilty of. Frankly, though, I'm really tired of that tactic and seeing it on display from some of my fellow Texas Baptists has left me frustrated to the point of not wanting to be a part of their hypocrisy anymore. {You may tell me to just leave then, but it is not that simple. I have a church to consider. I am not going to try to move a church simply over my battle fatigue. I will have to pray and see what God may do.}

Let me end with an illustration of my first problem, how can the moderates ignore the really good things in the 2000 document just so they can get their way about one issue (women pastors)? Article 15 updates some concepts about secular culture and how the church relates to it. The 1969 account of this article was solid for its time. However, by the year 2000 our culture was under assault from homosexual activism, Roe v. Wade had resulted in millions of babies being legally murdered, euthanasia was gaining acceptance, internet pornography (and other types) was ruining many lives and families, and we were still battling racial prejudices. As a response to these atrocities, the 2000 version enlarged a section as follows, “in the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography. We should work to provide for the orphaned, the needy, the abused, the aged, the helpless, and the sick. We should speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death.” It seems clear to me that in our current cultural climate, the 2000 version is much more applicable to following Christ in such a time as this. However, the moderates are willing to jettison important statements like that rather than admit that the Bible clearly teaches only men can hold the office of pastor. It turns my stomach. I lost a lot of respect for some people who spoke today and who voted against the motion. 

Okay, end of rant. Maybe I feel a little better. But I don't think so. Not yet anyway.

Covid-19 Circa 2022

 Almost two full years since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic and I have finally contracted the disease. I told you I was slow. Sometimes it is good to be slow! The nurse did not tell me which variant I have, but based on what I've read, I think it is the Omicron variant. Terrible headache, scratchy throat, fever, cough, stuffy nose, body aches, malaise, and extreme fatigue. I have had no loss of smell or taste, thank God.

Am I vaccinated? Yes I am. I got the two initial shots in March of 2021 because my doctor said it was important. I wish I had researched it more before I did that. However, I am now one more data point indicating the jab is not efficacious despite what the media and big pharma insist. (The negative about the jab goes way beyond the fact that they do not prevent the disease in the way that the polio or mumps vaccinations prevented those infections. I know embalmers who swear they can tell whether or not someone has had the jab based on how their blood behaves. Friends, that is not good.)

Since spring of 2021 I have heard multiple interviews, and read multiple articles and blog posts, by MDs, PhDs, nurses, and others discussing how the events surrounding this pandemic have opened their eyes to how our medical system has been commandeered by corporations and institutions with a very left-leaning agenda. So yes, I'm one of the conspiracy theorists who think that these new mRNA "vaccines" really do not protect us from Covid-19, they simply serve as a way for the elites to exercise more control over us. Along those lines, I encourage you to browse around over at https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/ and https://www.cchfreedom.org/about.php.

Thank God I am recovering nicely so far. My fever broke today and to this point I have had no trouble breathing. I went to an express care clinic on Saturday (today is Monday). The clinic tested me for strep-throat, seasonal flu, and Covid-19. All the rapid tests were negative. The provider suggested I get more thorough tests for four or five specific viral diseases. The clinic called me back Sunday night to tell me I was positive for Covid. I asked if I had missed the window for an anti-viral. The nurse checked with the doctor and came back and said I could get it if I wanted it (I don't remember which one she said) but that since I was healthy with no risk factors it was probably unnecessary. Even though I suspect the clinic may get government money for treating me as a Covid patient, I am trusting the test results are true. This definitely feels different than other respiratory viruses I have had.

I asked about the anti-viral specifically to see what she would say. I already know that, because of managed care and big pharma, none of the providers in my area will prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine. The closest doctor that will do this is 30 miles away and she has a long waiting list. What's my point? My point is that I'm worried about my wife and son. Both have risk factors that I do not have and should they catch this from me, it will be difficult to get them the medicine they need within the 48 hour window.

So my fellow Americans, join me in speaking out against undue government control, join me in speaking out against scientific journals and institutions that have bowed to the environmental and leftist agendas, join me in praying for revival. And join me in supporting, to whatever extent you can, healthcare professionals that operate outside the current managed care structure. Look for doctors that offer concierge services or are affiliated with groups such as America's Frontline Doctors.

Convince me I'm wrong

 I'm afraid I've been browsing church websites again. I'll stop short of using the phrase "I defy you to," but I think you will have a tough time finding a church website whose youth ministry page does not say something about "fun," "excitement," "high energy," etc. Those things are not wrong or even necessarily bad, but why do we have to insert those into most children's and youth ministries? Why can we just not make our ministries about exalting Jesus?

Why do I even care? Because we spend 12 years conditioning kids to feel that church (and therefore Christianity) is all about fun, excitement, energy, and feeling good. After that, they get into the "real world" and adult discipleship programs and suddenly they are no longer having fun. It's no wonder so many of them end up dropping out of church. How could we expect anything less when we've worked so hard to get them in the doors and keep them coming back with food, games, parties, trips, and big events but no expectations of what discipleship really means?

Family Discipleship Minute 10: A Theology of Church

 We're rolling through a series of posts intended to help parents be the primary spiritual trainers of their children. The last three editions have encouraged you to think about your theology of family. We turn now to a theology of church. My premise is that you need to know what you believe about family and about church in order to determine how the two should work together in the disciple-making process, both generally and in relation to children.

We live in a time during which one can find many ideas about what church is and what it should do. Further, sometimes the Bible is very specific in prescribing things for the church and other times it provides only general descriptions. Some leaders believe churches today should align with the descriptions as well as the prescriptions, whereas others think church should follow the prescriptions and exercise freedom regarding the descriptions. Of course, there are churches that really do not adhere to either; rather they allow themselves to be guided by societal norms. Therefore, coming up with a theology of church may be a little more complex than sketching out your theology of family.

I will point you to some important passages and share some conclusions I have drawn. However, since these posts are supposed to be very short reads, I will not include much  detail or spend time supporting my claims. Please spend time prayerfully studying these ideas on your own. Definitely read what experts have written and then draw your own conclusions.

As you begin to think about church, what it is, what it does, and what your role in it should be, please study the following passages. Note, this is just to get you started. You will want to study others as well as your thoughts develop more fully.

• Matthew 16:13-20
• Matthew  18:15-20
• Matthew 28:16-20
• Acts 1:8
• Acts 2:42-47
• 1 Corinthians 5:9-13
• 1 Corinthians 12:12-31
• Ephesians 4:11-16
• Ephesians 5:19-33
• 1 Timothy 3:1-13
• Titus 1:5-9
• Hebrews 10:25
• James 3:1
• 1 Peter 5:1-5
• Revelation 2 and 3

In my opinion, many, if not most, Christians today do not put enough thought into church. Many seem to think it is a place to go once a week. Further, many tend to choose a church like they would choose a country club, social organization, or theme park. Beloved, this ought not be. Develop your beliefs about church based on Scripture and then put those beliefs into practice. Do not go to church solely for what you can get out of it. Be an active participant in your church as part of your service to Christ. As Rick Warren has famously written, "It's not about you."

I know that you will want to work out your theology of church on your own. However, allow me to share a few of my conclusions. I hope they will help you. Even if you disagree with me on some points, at least maybe I can help you think through things and form your own conclusions. Here are some of mine:

• Jesus is the head of the church.
• Jesus loves the church as evidenced by the fact that He died for it.
• The church is important in God's mission to redeem the lost.
• God builds the church as He sees fit.
• The church is made up only of individuals who are born again.
• People who are born again are adopted by God and as such have solidarity with Him and with the rest of those whom He has adopted. This solidarity is with all the redeemed; however, it can only be lived out among a local body of believers. Therefore, church membership and active participation are vital for anyone who is in Christ.
• Churches should be led by a plurality of elders. Elders should be biblically qualified (which includes them being male.) Even though elders are important leaders, they should act as shepherds, not managers. While elders lead, churches should be governed congregationally.
• Churches should focus on five major activities: discipleship, fellowship, ministry, evangelism, and worship.
• Churches should be very careful who they allow to teach within the body.

Hope this helps. See you next time. Thanks for stopping by.