Is Golf More Honorable Than Football?

USA Today has an interesting juxtaposition of stories in the Sportsline column of their October 14, 2009 print edition. If you read the online edition, you may have missed it.

Kentucky high school golfer Emma Talley made a mistake. She signed an incorrect scorecard for the final round of the state high school golf championship. She recorded and signed for a 5 on the final hole but she really made a 6. Her playing partner recorded a 5 for Talley, too. A zone-out moment. Only she and her family knew, but she turned herself in. No hiding, no lying, and no request for an exception. Oh, yeah, she won by 5 shots, so the one-shot reporting error didn't change the outcome. The state champion by actual play, but disqualified by honoring the rules of scorekeeping.

Oklahoma State football player Dez Bryant made a mistake. He lied to NCAA officials. NCAA has asked him about a meeting he had with Deion Sanders, who is a friend of Bryant's and a former NFL player. Bryant assumed the meeting had been a violation, so he lied. He says he "panicked because I was scared." The NCAA declared him ineligible. Now Oklahoma State wants to reinstate Bryant, asking for a lighter punishment.

I don't know what the NCAA rules say about lying to investigators. I don't know if there is a definite consequence for lying to investigators. In golf, if a player signs and turns in an incorrect scorecard, the rules say they are disqualified for the whole round, no matter what the real play was. In the NCAA, who knows. the punishments don't seem to be spelled out.

But the contrast doesn't stop there. Tournament golfers will disqualify themselves from a round for an infraction that only they see. Golfers will come back days later and say, "I should have added a penalty stroke at hole X, so I signed an incorrect scorecard."

On the other hand, football (and most other team oriented sports) never self-report fouls or penalties. If the official misses it, ignore it, even though the player (and often the coach) knows better. but those are the rules. Players don't call fouls. Officials do. But oh, if the official makes a mistake, let the whining begin.

Now, which sport has honor?

How Dark Is It?

Yale University President Richard Levin had the following to say about the recent murder of graduate student Annie Le on the campus of Yale:

This incident could have happened in any city, in any university, or in any workplace. It says more about the dark side of the human soul than it does about the extent of security measures.

Yale University started as a school in New Haven, CT, in the 1640's as a school "wherein Youth may be instructed in the Arts and Sciences [and] through the blessing of Almighty God may be fitted for Publick employment both in Church and Civil State." It was renamed in 1718 as Yale College. Somewhere along the way, Yale departed from the idea of the "blessing of Almighty God," and despite having a Divinity School, is considered somewhat less than evangelical.

That departure makes Dr. Levin's quote all the more interesting for it sounds more like something Jonathan Edwards would say than the current President of Yale. Here are some questions I would like to ask Dr. Levin:
How dark is the human soul?
Is every soul dark, or many, or few?
Why do you believe in the soul?
Is there a solution to the darkness of soul?

I believe Edwards (scholars please forgive me) would say something like "The soul is dark beyond human hope, with all of humanity bound in darkness. Any light which might soften this darkness comes only by God's grace, but apart from God we fail to understand this. In addition to the testimony of Holy Scripture, the soul is evident in the distinct ability of each person to be creative, investigative, corporate, solitary, compassionate, and evil, all within the space of a single day. The singular solution to the darkness is the Gospel of Jesus Christ in which God lovingly and sovereignly bursts eternal and overwhelming illumination upon the soul which responds in grateful repentance, now understanding how dark it was, and in faith for the work of Christ which made possible the illumination through the forgiveness of sins."

If Dr. Levin answered similarly, either Yale is headed back in the right direction or he would be hounded out of a job for being so narrow-minded. And whatever his answers would be, it will be interesting to see if anyone else pays attention to his dark-soul quote.

Hubble, No Longer Hobbled

You may remember that back in May, a Space Shuttle Mission was dedicated to implementing some upgrades and repairs to the Hubble Space Telescope. NASA/ESA has released new images from the upgraded instruments that now reside on Hubble. As the Chief Scientist for the Hubble Mission told me back at the first of August, "You won't be disappointed"

Are You Really "In Love" With Jesus?

Timmy Brister has posted an interesting interview segment of Matt Redman talking about the use of culturally romantic phrases in Christian worship songs. I don't really care for the "under-fathered, over-mothered" adjective, but I understand and agree with the sense of it: we try to appeal to the softer side of life, taking the militaristic idioms away (that destroys the whole concept of 'Lord of Hosts'), much in the same way that liberal non-churches try to eliminate any talk of sin, sacrifice, or crucifixion. Somehow, things that aren't warm and fuzzy are considered harsh and mean-spirited. This trend is something we need to think about regarding the songs we sing.

I'm not saying that I believe everything has to be sung to "Men of Harlach" or "Ein feste burg" and talk about the annihilation of demons and pagans. I think Thomas Clay, the first commenter on the post, hits a home run. Thomas is the music minister at Grace Life Church of the Shoals where Jeff Noblit is pastor. Thomas says

I constantly ask myself in looking at songs this question: Does this song I’m considering, so unmistakeably declare biblical truths about Christ that it would be difficult to sing it to/about anyone else?

Sounds like a good analytic principle to me. It could also serve as a good question for pastors to use while preparing their sermons: Does this sermon I’m considering, so unmistakeably declare biblical truths about Christ that it would be difficult to say it to/about anyone else?

Local Churches, the Community and the Great Commission

A close friend sent me a quote today: "Any church that is not seriously involved in helping fulfill the Great Commission has forfeited its biblical right to exist." – Oswald J. Smith

The Great Commission refers to Matthew 28: 18-20

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. " [NASB]

Indeed, Jesus's words to his disciples carries down to us, otherwise there is no point in even having an "assembly of the called" (ekklesia). One of the difficulties that churches fail to engage is how to properly balance the different aspects of being "seriously involved" in the Great Commission. A simple recipe of "go, tell, win, baptize, teach" not only fails for most churches, but is not the correct process (mentally, physically, or spiritually) called for by Jesus. I believe that fulfilling the Great Commission involves a more "holistic" rather than cookie-cutter, first-, second-, third-step approach. It is not a scientific process; it is a supernatural undertaking.

The action demanded is "make disciples." Christ wanted his immediate disciples to do for others, temporally, what he did with them. The other actions ("go", "baptize", "teaching") are participles which help explain when, what and how the disciple-making process is to happen. It's probably a reminder process. "Go" actually would be better translated "while you are going about," similar to the way that Jesus was continually confronting, encouraging, teaching, etc., on their journeys around the Middle East. Baptizing refers to identifying (I'm not discussing methods here) the new disciple as embracing the commitment and discipline required to follow Christ. Teaching is the continual process ("all things") that is required for the new disciple to mature into one that "loves the brethren."

Some churches believe that maximum rapid exposure of the masses to their need for salvation (possibly a poorly defined idea in the presentation) should be the focus of their ministry. This is good because they are publicly identified with Christ. This can become dangerous because they deliver only the simplest of Gospel concepts and come up short on long-term sound theological teaching, encouraging, and commitment. Public, corporate proclamation is sufficient.

Some churches focus on sending agents to areas with little Gospel exposure. This is great because many churches have become comfortable working in "Christian" environments. This can become dangerous is that sending becomes the church's entire participation, and those who have provided funds feels absolved from daily participation in the Great Commission. Moral living and giving money is sufficient.

Some churches focus on individual evangelism with training programs to equip their members with good Biblical knowledge of the sinfulness of man, the work of Christ, the necessity of repentance and the beauty of redemption and forgiveness. This is good because it involves individuals personally in delivering the Gospel to lost people, often with more than a simple understanding. This can become dangerous because most of the theological training is geared toward the evangelism program. The experience is usually more "conversions" are recorded and reported than ever become disciplined disciples in a local church. Personal evangelism is sufficient.

Other local churches focus on teaching and training the membership in sound theology. This is good because individual maturity and discernment is encouraged and corporate bonds are strengthened. This can become dangerous because personal evangelism, while encouraged, is left to the individuals in their lives lived away from church meetings, with little or no corporate involvement or sponsorship of evangelistic effort. Also, numbers of "baptisms" are low and the church may be perceived by the above churches (and the public) as insular and unconcerned for the "lost." Growth and maturity of believers is sufficient.

At least these types of churches see that a serious involvement in the Great Commission is important. There are many who have relegated the Gospel message of sin & salvation to the "ancient religion" trash heap and focus on raising the dignity of man. They rightly should no longer be called churches.

Now my questions. Is it acceptable for a local church (FBC This Town, 3rd & Grafton, X Memorial, Grace) to have a certain focus as long as there are other churches in the community with the other focuses? One might argue that just as there are different gifts within a church, there are churches with different "gifts" within the community. On the other hand, how is it good for a church to have members who are all focused and committed to a singular participle/principle in the Great Commission?

I believe that churches need to continually examine not only their doctrinal, theological moorings in light of the Gospel, but also their practical balance in fulfilling each aspect of the Great Commission: while participating in the community and the world, make disciples (which involves telling and defending the Gospel, calling individuals to a commitment, identifying them with Christ and teaching the glories of God and how we, as ambassadors for Christ, are to reflect those glories).

None of us have arrived, and while striving to become better representatives of and disciple-makers for Christ Jesus, we should make sure that we don't become proud in the fact that "we do (insert your focus here) better than they." As Paul says, "Press on."

Cornerstone Songs for 7/12/2009

One of our 3 elders, Nathan Young, will be preaching this Sunday from Psalm 96. This is a great song of praise, calling all of creation to recognize the majesty and power and goodness of Yahweh. It is also a reminder to avoid the attitude of doom and gloom about the situations thrown about in the world: disease, poverty, greed, nuclear weaponry, health care, climate change, materialistic naturalism or New Age mystics. "The Lord reigns; Indeed the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.He will judge the peoples with equity." In other words, God is in control, not man. Be glad and sing!

All Hail the Power
To God be the Glory
Praise to the Lord, the Almighty
He is Exalted
Shout to the North
Song of the Lamb

What about This Week's Songs?

You might be wondering why I haven't posted the songs for July 5, 2009. That's because Lee didn't preach last week, and I wanted to keep those songs for his Daniel 9 sermon. So we're singing those (from 6/28) this week.

Just as Lee was leaving Louisville from the SBC, he got a call asking him to preach a funeral in Michigan. He made arrangements with Ray Van Neste, one of our Cornerstone elders and a Bible professor at Union University to preach on Sunday. Long story short, I could use the songs I had planned originally (nope...) or choose what I wanted. He wasn't sure of the specific text yet.

After talking with one of the other musicians, I chose the following:

Christ the Lord is Risen Today
Redeemed, How I Love to Proclaim it
Fairest Lord Jesus
How Deep the Father's Love For Us
Jesus, I Come (igrace version)
On Jordan's Stormy Banks (igrace version)

Ray preached on Isaiah 42:18-43:end, emphasizing how we often see our sinful condition, understand the work of Christ, but then we sometimes shy away from approaching God because we feel unclean. The text reminds us that it is because of the character and work of God that we can come to him. He is the Holy One of Israel, our Savior. You can listen here.

I am continually blessed to see how the Lord blends separate works to glorify himself.