"Follower of Jesus" or "Christian"?

11 Thoughts on Whether It’s Better To Be a “Follower of Jesus” or a “Christian”

In February, I attended a missions conference with 3 main speakers who have ministered throughout the world. The man who spoke on Sunday morning is someone who has ministered for over a decade in the Arab Muslim world (I’m not giving his name or location in this post, I ask that anyone leaving a comment do the same please). His sermon was thought provoking, and perhaps a “feather-ruffler.” He asks the question: should we replace the term “Christian” with “Follower of Jesus” in order to communicate more effectively who we are what we do? I wrote down his 11 thoughts while he was preaching, and soon after typed out some thoughts of my own. I’ve since gone back and listened to the sermon again in order to make sure I did not misunderstand him. What follows are my thoughts on his thoughts.

This sermon addresses the issue of communication. He claims that the word “Christian” does not accurately reflect our faith, therefore we ought to consider replacing it with the phrase “Follower of Jesus.” He gives 11 reasons why, which I address below. Some of them overlap, so I don’t give responses to each of them. Each point deserves a more thorough response, but this will be plenty long as it is. I’m addressing this issue from the perspective of what we should do here in America. I recognize that there are good reasons not to use the term “Christian” in other contexts (such as the Arab Muslim context the speaker ministers in). But he also states he thinks we need to rethink this issue in our own culture. So, I take him up and examine it. Anyway, here are his 11 points, with some of my comments, as well as some follow up thoughts.

1. Being a “Follower of Jesus” is dynamic rather than a static noun
I like this thought. The term “Christian” is rather static: I am a Christian, period. While this is true, it could lead to the thought that once you become a Christian, that’s it. But we are on a “journey” (that sounds so cliché and corny), one that ends in our reception of a resurrection body, just like Jesus (1 Cor 15). Our sanctification is ongoing. We are trying to become more and more like Christ everyday. In that sense, our relationship with Jesus is dynamic rather than static. It’s not that I think anyone is more or less a Christian, but we are more or less like Christ. And I think this is what he is getting at here.

2. If a “Follower of Jesus”, you are forced to talk about Jesus
True enough. Of course, this can easily be done with the term “Christian.” It depends more on the person talking rather than the term that is used. The advantage to the term “Follower of Jesus” is that more than likely people will ask something like “huh?” That opens the door to talking about Jesus. I suppose this could be what the speaker is saying. But we don’t have to stop using the term “Christian” in order to be forced to talk about Jesus. Talking about Jesus will do that just fine.

3. Places us back in company of the 12
I’m not convinced this is true. I mean, I could call myself an apostle, that doesn’t mean I’m in the company of the 12, does it?

4. Suggests process rather than completion
“Even though we are completely in the kingdom… all of our life is a process.” This is essentially the same as #1.

5. Shows you’re trying to follow Jesus rather than agreement to facts
I understand that he believes theology is important and that there are necessary beliefs one must hold (resurrection, deity of Christ, etc). So, why the false dichotomy? It certainly seems Paul thought agreement to doctrine was important (read his letters to Timothy). Jesus Himself knew there to be certain facts that His followers must agree with. He argued against the Sadducees about the resurrection of the dead. He praised Peter for his confession of Jesus as the Messiah (which is a statement of fact- “You are the Messiah”). Agreement to facts is important. It is not everything, but it is something, and we should never lose sight of that.

6. Being a “Follower of Jesus” means Jesus at front, me following
This could still be true if you call yourself a Christian. The speaker claims this helps us realize that we are following Him, rather than Him following us. I suppose calling oneself a “Follower of Jesus” might help some do this, but that won’t automatically be the case. His main point, however, is quite valid: we are not leading in our relationship with the Lord, He is leading. I’m just not sure calling ourselves something other than “Christian” helps us avoid this. Or let me say it this way: if you have trouble letting Christ lead while calling yourself a “Christian”, you’ll continue to have problems with it no matter what you call yourself.

7. If a “Follower of Jesus”, you don’t have to explain what kind of “Christian”
That would be nice, wouldn’t it? The variety of “Christianities” is an unfortunate fact in our world. That the one Church of God is divided is something we can’t avoid this side of eternity. Actually, I think by calling yourself a “Follower of Jesus” you introduce a new “kind of Christian”, thereby compounding the problem rather than solving it.

8. If a “Follower of Jesus”, I don’t have to defend 2000 years of Christendom
This sounds wonderful at first. After all, there have been all sorts of evil done under the banner of Christianity. However, if you decide not to associate yourself with 2000 years of Christianity because of its dark side, I say that you must not associate yourself with 2000 years of triumphs. You can’t associate yourself with the foundational councils of the early church (that doesn’t bother some, but this simply shows their ignorance of the debt we all owe to them). You can’t associate yourself with the missionary movements (William Carey, etc). And so on. This may be helpful in some contexts (Arab world, for example), but not necessarily in ours.

9. Being a “Follower of Jesus” encourages me to follow His model of how to live
I’m not sure by calling yourself a “Follower of Jesus” that you make yourself a follower of Jesus. Only by following Jesus is one a follower of Jesus. What you call yourself means little in this regard. Does it encourage you to think about what Jesus would do? Perhaps for some, but again, not necessarily. The speaker notes that Jesus didn’t always snap off theological answers, so we don’t need to. Agreed, but Jesus did in fact get into some theological debates. What He did is often answer with parables and other things. That isn’t less theological, but it is a different form of communication than we commonly use. In this sense he is correct, we should look for ways to communicate other than debate. But, as I’ve said, how successfully this is done is not determined by what you call yourself.

10. Being a “Follower of Jesus” helps start the day to find out where He’s going
Again, I’m not sure how calling yourself a Follower of Jesus makes this so. You can do this whether you call yourself a Christian, Follower of Jesus, Baptist or Red Sox fan.

11. Being a “Follower of Jesus” means we check in multiple times a day to find out where He’s going
See #10.

------------------------------

Further thoughts

1. My friend Lisa noted that calling yourself a “Follower of Jesus” rather than “Christian” can be seen by some as dishonest. I think this is a great point. Imagine if someone asked you if you were a Christian, but you replied that you were a Follower of Jesus. As they get to know you, see that you read the Bible, pray, go to church, etc., there’s a chance they’ll think you tried to slip in the back door. These are things that Christians do! So why are we avoiding the obvious- we are Christians. Refusing to call ourselves Christians could be seen as attempt to slip in under the radar and trick them into accepting us.

2. How long would it be before we need to come up with a term other than “Follower of Jesus”? After all, eventually someone who calls themselves a Follower of Jesus will do something not befitting that name and ruin it for everybody, just like we see now with the term “Christian.” Are we then to come up with a new name? How long will this cycle go on? Why not just stick with what we got?

3. Not calling yourself a Christian separates you from the body of Christ. I think this is the number one reason we should be careful about doing away with the term. This reminds me of something the Lord convicted me of a few years back. I was working at a bookstore with people who were not predisposed to like Christians. While I was working there, a well known evangelical Christian leader said something in the media that was, well, stupid. Of course the media jumped all over it, and I found myself in the middle of the firestorm at work. So, I separated myself from this man and tried to let them all know that I was not like him. But something hit me (I’d say this was a slap from the Lord): he is my brother in Christ. No matter how much I disagreed with him, he is closer to me than any of my non-believing coworkers. The same Spirit that lives in me lives in him. Here’s the point: many Christians may be idiots, but they’re our idiots. We don’t have to defend what they do or say, but we must stand by them. The same Blood that washes away my sins washes away theirs.

---------------------------------------------------

There are two ways to take the speaker’s points. First, as I point out a few times above, one could say that calling oneself a “Follower of Jesus” will help you do things differently (checking in with the Lord throughout the day, etc). I’ve stated multiple times that this is not necessarily true. What you call yourself has little bearing on whether or not you do these things.

Second, his main point throughout the sermon is the issue of communication. Are we accurately communicating who we are and what we do/believe? He suggests we change our self-designation from “Christian” to “Follower of Jesus” in order to communicate better. I have attempted to show that this might not actually be helpful, it could in fact be counterproductive. He seems to think that by calling yourself a “Follower of Jesus”, then you communicate reality better. My main point is that this is not necessarily true. In fact, you might just muddy the waters even more. I would ask the speaker this: is the term “Christian” beyond saving in our culture? It may be in other contexts (remember, he works in a Muslim context, where this may be true). I maintain that in our culture, “Christian” is still redeemable. There are enough godly men and women who proudly wear the name “Christian” that we can win it back from those who have tarnished it.

But I do want to note that I think the speaker is right in his overall point- we need to learn how to communicate our faith better. He uses the example of inviting someone to church. What will that person think when you invite them to “church”? Their notion of church is probably far different than what you want to communicate. So why not describe what it is to them in order for them to gain a more accurate understanding of what we mean? It’s doubtful we’re both thinking the same thing, so we ought to bridge that gap. He stated that his sermon was really about “communication style.” And in that sense he is right. We, meaning American Christians, rarely do a good job of communicating our faith. We speak in Christianese, as well as its close cousin, Biblish. We use words and phrases that are not commonly used in our language. Some of this is okay- I’m still searching for a word that can replace “justification”, but I doubt I’ll ever find one.

Jesus often used words to create pictures to teach concepts (dare I say, theology). These were effective and memorable (as evidenced by the fact that someone remembered them well enough for them to end up in the Bible). And He lived out what He taught in such a way that communicated His message. This is where my brother and I undoubtedly agree- we ought to strive to do the same.

We're Not in Kansas Anymore: what will Christianity look like in the future?

Back in December, I bought a book by Philip Jenkins, Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies at Penn State, called The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. I am now finally getting around to reading it. I could have read it before now, but I wanted to be able to give this book more attention. What Jenkins attempts to do is look into the future and see how the religious makeup of the world will be different than it is now. He produces some interesting figures (though I'm still in the early parts of the book, so I'm sure there's more to come).

I have great interest in this for a few reasons, but mostly because I hope to be involved in missions in the future. Jenkins looks at worldwide growth rates of Christianity and comes to some interesting conclusions:

In 2025, if current growth rates stay the same as now, “there would be around 2.6 billion Christians, of whom 633 million would live in Africa, 640 million in Latin America, and 460 million in Asia. Europe, with 555 million, would have slipped to third place.” (3)

“By 2050, only about one-fifth of the world’s 3 billion Christians will be non-Hispanic Whites.” (3)

Think about that: by 2050 only one-fifth of Christians will be non-Hispanic whites. Ask your non-Christian coworkers to describe the average Christian and I'll doubt that's what you will get. It's interesting, many people that I talk to assume that Africa is a Muslim continent, but statistics show that Christianity is growing quite well over there. And any claims that missionaries are importing a "foreign" religion to Africa are difficult to support in light of the fact that North Africa was largely Christian before the Muslim Arabs swept in (and obviously something other than Christian before that).

Anyway, I'm not sure I'm trying to make a definite point just yet, I'm simply noting certain trends. I'm still trying to figure out what all this means for us today. I've maintained for some time now that in the future Europe will become a frontier for preaching the gospel. I think this is true for two reasons: Christianity is fading rapidly in the lives of Europeans (especially in Western Europe) and Isalm is on the rise due to immigration and out-breeding the Europeans (note the problems with Arab Muslims that have arisen in the last year in some European nations).

This may change, however, because European countries might make efforts to stop the inflow of Arabs into their countries. That's one thing that studies such as this one by Jenkins can't always do accurately: predict outside variables that factor into making the future what it will be. Nonetheless, his thoughts are insightful and need to be taken seriously.

I want to mention two points Jenkins makes in his first chapter about the difference between the "Southern Church" (meaning from the Southern Hemisphere, specifically, Latin America and Africa) and the "Northern Church." First, he notes that Christians from Africa and Latin America tend to be among the poorest peoples of the world. Many from the more affluent countries have tended to think they would then be among the more liberal Christians, since liberalism often sees itself as the champion of the poor and oppressed (I'm speaking more of theological liberalism here, rather than political, the connection is, contrary to the belief of some conservative Christians, not necessarily always there).

This is partially true, but not to the extent that some might imagine. In fact, while these churches are concerned with the poor (since they are poor themselves), they tend to be among the most conservative morally and theologically. This was seen a few years back when the African Anglicans voted against the liberalizing tendencies of other Anglicans (especially those from America and Britain), particularly in regard to the issue of ordaining homosexual priests. I remember reading a letter from an African pastor who began to refuse money from American churches of his denomination because he feared they would try to use that to "buy" his influence. If this isn't evidence of the downfall in mainstream Western Christianity I don't know what is.

Second, like it or not, these newer churches live in a world where the supernatural is real. Our culture and worldview do not allow much room for demons, angels, healings, exorcisms, and so on. These Christians, however, consider these things basic. Again, I note that many feel that opening Christianity to these things simply makes liberalizing the faith that much easier. But the opposite has happened. This fear is at times true, because there are certainly churches who have syncretized pagan practices with Christianity. But there are just as many who believe in casting our demons and healing the sick who are faithfully and effectively preaching the gospel and demanding repentance from sin. Dare I say that these Christians are much closer to what we see in the New Testament than we are?

Finally, I also want to note another interesting point that Jenkins makes regarding the rise of Pentecostalism. In 1900 there were only a handful of Pentecostals, but now there are several hundred million. By 2050 there will be over 1 billion. If you were to ask just about any educated sociologist which social movements have been the most effective in the last century, it is doubtful any would mention Pentecostalism. You might hear them talk about feminism, the civil rights movement, and so on, but Pentecostalism probably won't make the cut. Yet, the numbers show that it is growing at a phenomenal rate. Why is that?

Like I said, I'm not really trying to put out answers right now, I'm still attempting to sort through everything. It is thought provoking, to say the least. I pray that we all seek wisdom for the future as the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord (Rev 11:15).

thoughts on pride

I mentioned in my last post about the book Humility: True Greatness that pride has been an issue for me. I also said that I'd clarify later in the post if I was in the mood, but it was getting long enough so I didn't. So here I am, home sick from work (which won't keep me from going to the Sox-Yankees game tonight, don't worry), so I have the time to write.

The way I see it, there are two types of proud people: those who think they are better than everyone else, and those who don't want everyone to know how many problems they have. The first is heavily involved in comparison (I don't struggle with that, but he does, etc). The second is unwilling to admit to everyone else when they are struggling with something. Obviously there is a good chance the first person is also guilty of the second, but the reverse isn't necessarily true. Anyway, that's a quick rundown of that.

I'm someone who fits in the second category, the one who doesn't want to admit struggles. I don't think I'm guilty of thinking I'm better than others very often. I know myself way too well to think very highly of who I am. I may be many things, but self-delusional is not one of them.

But I certainly am guilty of not being open about my struggles. I enjoy being seen as someone who has it all together, I enjoy being asked for help rather than being asked if I need help. And by the way, I'm not just talking about struggles with sin, although that would be included. Pride is a sin and tries to hide sin, but it also tries to hide anything that might show weakness or a lack of self-sufficiency.

I think we can also word these two groups in another way: those who don't think they need prayer, and those who won't ask for prayer when needed. Again, I find myself in the second category. I can't count how many times I thought, "I really should ask for prayer for x" but didn't. I know I need to ask for prayer, but I hold myself back because I am proud (I started to write, "but my pride holds me back", but I want to be clear that I alone am responsible, not some abstract notion of pride, no matter how real it is). I have had moments of pain, conviction and desperation that went unnoticed by others because I couldn't bring myself to lay down my pride and take on humility.

I noted in the last post how pride is in reality attempting to steal glory from God. Here is a perfect example. I think in refusing to admit struggles and ask for prayer, I steal glory from God in two ways. One, I am keeping glory for myself in that I am not allowing others to see my desperation. Of course this "glory" is no real glory, it is illusional, but it is comfortable. And sometimes that's enough to keep up right where we are.

Two, I am not allowing God to work on my heart in a way that is desperately needed. I am robbing Him of the opportunity to glorify Himself by leading me through difficult times. His mercy is not seen as it should be, His power is not seen as it should be. These are the things the Lord delights in- seeing His children give themselves completely to Him and allowing Him to carry them. I have robbed God of His glory. I have robbed Him the glory of using my brothers and sisters in the Lord to minister to me and build me up- I'm not allowing them to use the gifts that God has given them in order to glorify Him.

The Lord delights in those who are broken before Him and before His people. Those who are broken in heart and contrite in spirit are not despised (Ps 51:17). The proud, on the other hand, are opposed by God (James 4:6). I've been very weary spiritually speaking for a while. That's to be expected, I suppose, when God opposes the proud. I'm pretty good at wrestling, but even on my best day I don't stand a chance against Him.

Suggested listening for this topic- Hands in the Air by The Waiting

Humility: True Greatness

Okay, after a ridiculous number of sports related posts (at least compared to the number of eternally relevant posts), it's high time I return to bigger and better things. In this case, a book review of sorts.

Back in January, my friend Kurt and I decided to go through a book together. I was really wanting to read a book by C J Mahaney (pastor, author, sports fan) called Humility: True Greatness. I am one of many who struggle with pride (maybe more on that later, we'll see how long this turns out to be) and I thought this book might help me in this area. Kurt was all for it (because he's way more prideful than I am, hehe) and thus began our journey with C J.

First, let me break book review tradition and start with a negative or two. Normally these are saved for later in the review, and then the reviewer ends with something like "these caveats aside, this is a helpful book" or something. I prefer to start low and move high, especially since the lows aren't really all that low. In fact, they're fairly minor.

Actually, there are two Bible related issues I had. One, I disagree with those who read Isaiah 14 as referring to the sin of Satan and his rebellion against God (pg 29-30). I think this is a poor understanding of the poetic nature of the text- it isn't meant to be completely literal (actually, I was surprised to see Mahaney read it in this way). So when Isaiah writes against Babylon, "But you said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven, I will raise my throne above the stars of God... I will make myself like the Most High" (vv13-14), he isnt' referring to some fallen angel (Lucifer, as is commonly thought), but is showing the pride of the Babylonians (especially her rulers) in strong, poetic language. Again, this isn't a huge deal or anything, I'm just a little disappointed.

Two, in chapter 6 (entitled As Each Day Ends), he encourages the reader to thank God for the gift of sleep and to see this as another way we depend on God. I love this thought, it is something we overlook. But C J states, "Too many Christians fall asleep night after night without being informed and inspired by what Scripture teaches on it" (pg 83). The problem: Mahaney never tells the reader what the Bible says about sleep. He asks on page 82, "Do you realize how often sleep is referred to in Scripture?" If the reader answers "no", they'll still have to say "no" at the end of the chapter because Mahaney never tells you what Scripture says about it or how often it refers to it. The one Scripture he quotes in regards to sleep is Ps 121:3, which speaks of God as the One who "will neither slumber nor sleep." That's about it. This chapter is good otherwise, it is an excellent example of how practical Mahaney can be. I just wish he would have included more verses.

Now for more of the good stuff. There is very little to dislike about this book, but tons to enjoy. Mahaney is a master at practical outworkings of theology. Whenever I read something by him I keep thinking, "I wish I were that good." He gives practical ways to begin your day (reflecting on the cross, acknowledging your dependence on God, expressing gratitude, etc.). I know Kurt took Mahaney up on his challenge to "seize your commute time to memorize and meditate on Scripture" (pg73) and it has helped him tremedously. I've already noted Mahaney's chapter on how to end one's day, and I hope I don't give the impression I thought the chapter was bad. It is another example of just how practical Mahaney can be, and I find myself taking the opportunity before I go to bed to thank God for another day and to thank Him for the grace bestowed upon me. What a wonderful practice to finish the day with!

His chapters on "Identifying Evidences of Grace" and "Encouraging Others" are especially helpful, particularly for those who are in leadership (but not restricted to them). How many of us find ourselves quick to criticize? If this is the case, well, someone has a pride problem. We need to practice encouraging others and sharing with them the evidences of God's grace that we see in their lives. This is what Mahaney has helped me realize: doing this is an attack on pride. When we practice encouragement, we are attacking the pride within us that spurs us on to be critical. Get into the habit of encouraging others and you'll see how pride is weakened in your heart.

His chapter entitled "Inviting and Pursuing Correction" was especially convicting. Let me quote from page 129:

"If you're in a small group for fellowship and accountability, are you humbly and aggressively participating or merely observing? Are you actually hoping to avoid correction? Do you experience a certain perverse relief when your sin has gone undetected? Are you regularly informing others of your temptations and sins, or do you present to them a carefully edited and flattering version of yourself?"

Ouch. I found myself cringing throughout that paragraph. And notice the two verbs Mahaney uses in the title of this chapter: "invite" and "pursue." These are proactive. It places the onus on us to go after correction and rebuke. It reminds me of my associate pastor, Jeff, who encourages us not to wait until we are asked to confess sin, but to offer up our confession before prompted. I find myself offering "carefully edited" confessions. A true sign of pride.

Finally, let me end with this. One thing I love about Mahaney is that he has no problem calling sin what it is: rebellion against God. Too many people view sin as an unfortunate aspect of humanity, something that we need to work against, but something we need to accept. Mahaney thankfully is willing to see through this error, and this book shows how pride is rebelling against God. "Pride is when sinful human beings aspire to the status and position of God and refuse to acknowledge their dependence on Him" (pg31). He encourages the reader, when recognizing and instince or pride, to confess to the Lord "I was contending for supremacy with You" rather than simply saying "I was proud." This has helped me personally to see what my pride is, a refusal to acknowledge God's rightful place in my life. That is far more convicting than the often ambiguous "pride." I've opted for "Lord, I attempted to steal glory from You" when I am confessing pride. It makes it much harder to breeze past pride when worded that way.

The goal is humility, which Mahaney defines as "honestly assessing ourselves in light of God's holiness and our sinfulness." May we all learn to see ourselves as those undeserving of God's grace and worship Him humbly.

Bill Simmons at his best

If you've ever looked at my links to the right, you'd see that I have a link to Bill Simmons, also known as the Boston Sports Guy (writer for ESPN). I started reading his stuff back in college, when he was still new for ESPN (after building quite a following on his own website). Don't let the "Boston Sports Guy" monicker fool you, he is quite capable of writing about more than Boston sports. In fact, he now lives in LA (leaving Boston to write for Jimmy Kimmel's show, then staying there after he quit) and is often referred to by ESPN as simply "Sports Guy."

Here's why I like him: he's just like one of us regular guy sports fans. He grew up going to Celtics games at the Boston Garden with his dad, being killed by the Red Sox and learning to hate Bruins management. He includes his wife (the Sports Gal), his dad and his friends in humorous parts of his columns, often at their expense. He has season tickets to Clippers games now (but not guilty of sports bigamy), refusing to take seats designated for the press because he wants to watch the game with the regular fans, not overweight sports writers with an axe to grind.

Anyway, I'm only writing this post for one reason. Occasionally on his site (sportsguy.net) he posts an older column (from the Sports Guy Vault) that is otherwise inaccessible unless you are part of the ESPN Insider deal, which may or may not cost money- I've never checked. The last couple days he reposted on of my favorite Sports Guy columns, on the Sleepy Floyd Game.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/vault

This is Bill at his best. He does a great job of setting the situation for you. In this case, the Lakers and the Warriors in a mismatched playoff game (the Lakers with Hall of Famers, the Warriors with, well, no one). He gives enough info about the players involved that someone who doesn't know them can follow along. For instance, he refers to Michael Cooper as the best defensive player of his day, and he's right. Larry Bird called Cooper the best defensive opponent he ever faced. This kind of knowledge is crucial to understanding how incredible Floyd's performance was. Scoring 29 points in the fourth quarter against the team that was to win the title is remarkable, it's unimaginable against defensive stoppers such as Cooper.

Unfortunately, this column will only be up for a couple more days at most. Eventually they will replace it with another classic column and you'll have to sign up for ESPN Insider to read it, which should be illegal. So, if you get a chance, check out the column. I'm sure you will laugh and learn, which is rare in today's sports writing.

one of the good guys

Being a Red Sox fan means that I must hate the Yankees. There's really no choice, and that's fine with me. However, over the years there have been plenty of Yankees that you had to respect, as ballplayers and/or as the quality people that they are. For instance, Bernie Williams is a great guy, a good musician (I would buy his cd, but I can't bring myself to do it), a solid Christian and a very good baseball player (a batting title, couple Gold Gloves). If he wasn't wearing pinstripes I would root for this guy.

There are others. I always respected Paul O'Neill as a baseball player (although his attitude made it hard to like him personally). Jorge Posada. Derek Jeter (though overrated in many areas, is a true clutch player). Mariano Rivera. And so on. Some of these guys would be among my favorite players if they were on the Red Sox (come one, Rivera would be worshipped in this town). Alas, they wear the wrong uniform. Some of you may have heard the phrase: you root for laundry. It's completely true. No matter what, you always root for your team, it doesn't matter who is wearing the uniform. And you cheer against those wearing the wrong laundry.

The other day Hideki Matsui, the Yankees left fielder, broke his wrist against the Red Sox. He was trying to make a sliding catch coming in on the ball and his glove hand snapped backwards. You couldn't really see the break itself, but when he ran after the ball (that got behind him) you could see his glove hand just dangling loosely. It was one of the nastiest things I've seen in a while (but probably still not in the top 5 nastiest sports injuries I've ever seen- that's another post for another day).

Matsui is one of those guys that absolutely kill the Red Sox. I swear that if he could play all 162 games against Boston, he'd break every record in the book. In fact, when the Red Sox let lefty-specialist Mike Myers go this offseason, the first thought in my mind was, "how are we going to get Matsui out?" There's a reason the Yankees signed Myers, because he was one of the few Sox pitchers who could get Matsui out. Good strategy.

In the 2004 playoffs Matsui was crushing the Red Sox. What was the counter strategy? Throw at his head. That's what Pedro did, and after that Matsui calmed down. That was what we had to resort to in order to get him out.

The reason I'm posting this is because I just read his comments after his injury. Matsui, displaying tremendous character, apologized to the fans and his teammates. Apologized! He feels bad for getting hurt, like he's let everyone down. This is a man who has a completely different mindset from the rest of the sports world. He had a consecutive games streak that extended back to 1992 in Japan (with some 580+ games for New York) that will now be ended. It's obvious that he's the type of guy who takes pride in playing for his fans and his team everyday. That's his job, and he's work as hard as he can to do it well.

You hate to see a guy like this get hurt, no matter what uniform he's wearing. Here's hoping he recovers well and returns to left field. But I hope in this time away from the game he forgets how to hit the Sox pitchers.

danny's lifetime all-star team: installment #1- the infield

Okay, I haven't posted anything about sports in a while, and my fans have been clamoring for me to catch up. And by "fans" I mean "no one." Here's the deal, what follows is three installments of my baseball all-star team of players that played within my memory. In other words, the best players of the past 20 years or so at each position. It's a bit subjective, and I play with the boundaries a bit, but that's my prerogative, right? I invite discussion, although I'm sure that you will find that my picks are impeccable.

Just a note, this self-imposed task is possibly more difficult than any other era simply because of the steroids controversy. I mean, it isn't fair to compare Sammy Sosa to Jim Rice when Sosa cheated and Rice was "all natural" (another case for him to be in the Hall of Fame, but don't get me started). Even beyond the steroid use, the game has been changed in a way to favor the hitters over the pichers: a smaller strike zone (the most underrated reason for the rise in homeruns over other eras) and a more tightly-wound ball (allegedly) have also changed numbers. But, I think I'm up to the task. And since I'm setting the rules, please note that I am factoring in steroid use. Some guys we know took (or are taking) steroids, others are suspected, etc. I factor all that in. All statistics do not include this season. Enjoy.

1st base: Here's a position that is hurt by the steroid controversy. Mark McGwire is off my list, as is Rafael Palmeiro (who wasn't on it anyway). There have been a number of good 1st baseman (Mo Vaughn and Cecil Fielder), but few great. Frank Thomas is one of my favorites, a huge man sans steroids and one of the best all around offensive players of his generation (many forget how great he was). The problem is that he couldn't field and threw like a girl. So I can't choose him. Finally, I am going with Albert Pujols. What's that you say? He's only played 5 full seasons? He's only played 1st since 2004? Who cares? This is my list, so get over it! In his first 5 seasons he's batting .332, hit 201 homeruns (40.2 average) with 621 RBI (104.2 average). That is unbelievable! He was the Rookie of the Year (ROY) in '01, MVP in '05 and batting leader in '03. He's already a 3-time Silver Slugger winner (award given to the best hitter at each position) and a 4-time All Star. And though I'm not including this year, I'll just mention that he has already hit 14 HR in April, which is a record. He's only getting better.

2nd base: There aren't a lot of great options here, I must admit. In fact, I wanted to get sentimental and mention Marty Barrett (2nd baseman for the Red Sox in the '80's), but I won't. Instead, I think this honor clearly goes to Roberto Alomar. He won the Gold Glove in 91-96 and 98-01. He won 4 Silver Sluggers, he's a career .300 hitter and a 12-time All Star. I'll remember him most as one-half of what may have been the greatest fielding SS-2B combo ever, with Omar Vizquel. I think God gave us highlight reels just to watch these two guys.

SS: This has been the greatest era of shortstops ever. In the past, great shortstops came around every so often (Honus Wagner, Luke Appling, Joe Cronin, Ernie Banks), and that's if we define "great" broadly. However, in my lifetime I can name a few. Ozzie Smith is generally regarded as the greatest fielding shortstop ever, and Omar Vizquel is not far behind. In fact, Vizquel would have been more highly regarded if it weren't for the fact that he played at the same time as the Big Three. Nomar Garciaparra, Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez have revolutionized the position. If I would have made this list back around 2000, Nomar would have been my guy for this position. He was the best hitter in baseball in the late '90s. Jeter was never the best, but he is a sure Hall of Famer. And although I think he's been overrated in some areas of his game (he's no where near a Gold Glove caliber shortstop, what a joke), you have to admire his ability to perform in the clutch and make plays when needed. We Red Sox fans know that all too well.

But I have to go with Alex Rodriguez with this one. I realize that he is now playing 3rd base, in fact Jeter is the shortstop on the Yankees, not A-Rod. But, that's more out of respect for Jeter (the captain of the Yankees), I have no doubt in my mind that A-Rod is a better shortstop. Anyway, it pains me to put Rodriguez here. I don't like him. He wears lipstick, can't hit in the clutch and girl-slapped Bronson Arroyo (which isn't so much loathesome as it is funny). At any rate, here's his credentials. He's a career .307 hitter with 429 HR (in just 12 seasons). He's won 2 Gold Gloves, 4 HR titles, 1 batting title, 8 Silver Sluggers, 9 All Star games and won the MVP in '05. And he's still going. But, both teams he's left (Seattle and Texas) got better the year after he left, and of course let's not forget he wears lipstick.

3rd base: Like shortstop, I think more great 3rd basemen have played in the last 3 decades than in all of baseball history (especially now that Alex Rodriguez has moved there). There's Wade Boggs, who was elected to the Hall of Fame in 2005. He's a career .328 hitter, with 3010 hits, 2 Gold Gloves, 8 Silver Sluggers, 5 batting titles, 12-time All Star and 7 straight 200+ hit seasons, which is a record. On the down side, it was his much publicized affair that taught me what adultery was.

George Brett is another great one. Career .305 average, 3154 hits, a Gold Glove, 3 Silver Sluggers, and a 12-time All Star. He also won the MVP in 1980, when he batted .390. He also is the only player who won batting titles in 3 different decades ('76, '80, '90). He was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1999, and is worshipped in Kansas City (I know this from first hand experience). Also, the infamous pinetar incident is one of my favorite baseball memories.

But, in the end, I must go with Mike Schmidt. He won 3 MVPs ('80, '81, '86), Gold Gloves from 1976-84 and in '86. He led the league in HR 8 times and had 6 Silver Sluggers. This 12-time All Star's 548 career HR got him elected to the Hall of Fame in 1995. Now, I realize I might be cheating a bit putting him on my list, since his last full season was in 1987 (he played hurt the next two years, suddenly retiring early in the '89 season). But, as I stated above, this is my list, and I love Mike Schmidt.

Catcher: This is a tough one for me. I could choose Mike Piazza, who was selected in the 62nd round (why does anyone even pay scouts?). He was the ROY in 1991, a 10-time Silver Slugger and a 12-time All Star. He has a .311 career average, which is remarkable for a catcher. The problem is that he was (and still is) an awful catcher. I can't accept that. So, I think I'm going with Ivan Rodriguez. This is hard, because there is a lot of suspicion that he used steroids, which wouldn't really be surprising. But, he's a career .304 hitter, 7-time Silver Slugger, 12-time All Star and won an MVP in 1999. Most notable are his Gold Gloves, which he won from 1992-2001 and again in 2004. Now, he was considered a less-than-average game caller (although some say that has changed), but anyone who dared to steal on him was sure to be disappointed. I've never seen a catcher throw out runners like him (and I watched a lot of Tony Pena as a kid, who was probably the best of his era). But, I reserve the right to change this given more evidence of steroid use.

danny's lifetime all-star team: installment #2- the outfield

Here's part 2, which covers the outfielders. This is the shortest of the three installments, so if you've gotten through the first one this one should be a piece of cake. Oh, and for the sake of my friend Greenbow, I want to say that Dale Murphy belongs on anyone's list. It's just that he's so good I didn't think it fair to include him. (I need one of those eye-roll face things).

Outfield: For the record, I'm not really picking these guys based on what positions they played in the outfield. You will not see Sammy Sosa on this list, who can credit his impressive numbers to rampant steroid use (and a corked bat). However, you will see...

Barry Bonds. Okay, here's the deal. I'm not even including his steroid years, starting in '98 or '99. Even before he decided to be a cheater he was the best player in baseball. So, for the sake of my list, we will pretend he hasn't played since the late '90s. He won 3 MVPs ('90, '92, '93), won Gold Gloves in 90-94 and 96-98 and 7 Silver Sluggers (again, before steroids). He won the HR title in 1993, and was an 8-time All Star. If only he didn't ruin his reputation forever.

One player who, in my mind, benefits from the steroid controversy is Ken Griffey Jr. I always thought he was a bit overrated. I've had to reevaluate that, since he was able to put up his numbers without steroids (as far as anyone knows). He won Gold Gloves from 1990-99 (although I'm not sure he always deserved those), 7 Silver Sluggers, 4 HR titles, and an MVP in '97. He's a 12-time All Star and has 536 HR coming into this season. Like I said, if he did all of this without enhancement from illegal substances, I'm impressed.

The last spot on my list is more difficult. I considered Tony Gwynn, a career .338 hitter. He won Gold Gloves in '86-87 and '89-91. More impressive are his 7 Silver Sluggers and 8 batting titles, which includes his .394 in 1994. He may have made a run at .400 if that season weren't shortened by a strike. He was also a 15-time All Star and had 3141 career hits. I love this guy. But, I may have to leave him off (although as I'm writing this I'm having second thoughts).

Instead, I think I'll go with Manny Ramirez. To put it plainly, I think Manny may be the best all around hitter I've seen (although give Pujols some time). Manny is an 8-time Silver Slugger winner, 9-time All Star and the 2004 World Series MVP (remember that one, when the Red Sox swept the Cardinals after they came back from being down 0-3 against the Yankees in the greatest comeback in sports history? do you remember that one? because I do). He has a career .314 average with 435 HR and 1414 RBI. And that's only in 13 seasons (in case you're scoring at home, that's 33.5 HR and 109 RBI per season). He's the best RBI man since, well, maybe Hank Aaron. He's also 2nd all time in career grand slams. Some grow tired of his antics, but I can look past that as long as he hits (many people forget that Ted Williams was not well liked in his time, most now look past it because he was the best hitter ever). Since I don't have a DH position on this list, I could move him there and put Gwynn in my outfield.

danny's lifetime all-star team: installment #3- the pitchers

Here's part 3, covering the pitchers. This is one of my favorite topics, as you will see below. As stated in the earlier installments, statistics are given up through the end of 2005.

Starting Pitcher: I've resigned myself to picking only one man for this spot. Someday I hope to sit down and write out my thoughts about the great pitchers of this era. The past couple decades have seen what I would call the greatest foursome of pitchers in any era of baseball: Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson. That's right, in the era known for homeruns and drug use, I maintain that the true story should be the greatness of these four men. I don't think there has ever been a group of four pitchers who pitched at the same time who were as great as these four. Anyway, here's the quick rundown of each guy, with my choice for this team.

Greg Maddux will forever be known as one of the smartest pitchers in baseball history. He never had overpowering stuff (unlike the other 3 guys on my list), he relied on location, late movement and out-thinking his opponent. In 20 seasons (before this year), he has amassed318 wins, 3052 Ks (which surprised me) and a 3.01 ERA. He has won 4 Cy Youngs, 4 ERA titles, and led the league in wins 3 times. He is the only pitcher in baseball history to have amassed 300 wins, 3000 strikeouts and have less than 1000 walks. He had a .905 win % in 1995 (which I believe is the third best ever) and is an 8-time All Star. And I haven't even mentioned that he has won 15 Gold Gloves (1990-2002, 2004-05), second only to Jim Kaat's 16.

Randy Johnson is one of the most intimidating pitchers ever (especially in his mullet days). He's also been involved in two of the funniest moments in recent memory: throwing over John Kruk's head in the All Star Game and accidentally hitting a bird in flight, causing it to explode. But beyond that, here are his numbers. In 18 seasons he has won 263 games, collected 4372 strikeouts and has a 3.11 ERA. He has won 5 Cy Young awards, 4 ERA titles, 1 wins title and 9 K titles. He's a 10-time All Star and his 10.95 strikeouts per 9 innings is an all time best. He also set a World Series record with 3 wins in the 2001 World Series.

Pedro Martinez is a little different than the other three. Pedro's greatness was for a shorter period of time (I realize he's doing well now, proving once again it's nice to pitch in the National League), but his peak was higher than any of the other three. In 14 seasons he has a career record of 197-84 (he won his 200th the other day), which gives him a .701 win %- good enough for 3rd all time. His 2.72 career ERA is best among active pitchers (Maddux's 3.01 is next) and he has 2861 career Ks (he'll pass 3000 before the end of the year). He has won 3 Cy Youngs (and got robbed on at least one other, maybe two), 5 ERA titles, 3 K titles and 1 wins title. He's a 7-time All Star and his 10.25 strikeouts per 9 innings is 3rd all time. He also won the pitcher's Triple Crown (leading the league in wins, Ks and ERA) in 1999.

But there are a couple other things to mention. First, he had three pitches he could throw at any time. His fastball was nasty, his curveball embarrased hitters and his changeup was quite possibly the best ever. He's one of few pitchers who could throw any of those pitches even when he was behind the count. Second, his relief appearance against the Indians in the 1999 postseason will go down as one of the greatest performances in modern postseason history. He had hurt his back earlier in the series, but came on in relief in an 8-8 game. It was obvious he was hurt and didn't have his best stuff, yet he threw 6 innings of no-hit ball- against a powerful Indians lineup that had beat up on Red Sox pitching. The Sox won that game, which was the final game of the series. Third, and most importantly, his 1999 and 2000 seasons were the most dominant of any pitcher in baseball history (relative to the rest of the league). No one has been that much better than the rest of the league. In 1999 he had 5 more wins than the next closest guy and 113 more Ks. In 2000 he had 72 more strikeouts than the next guy (didn't win the wins title). In 1999 he had a 2.07 ERA, the next closest guy in the American League was David Cone with a 3.44- a 1.37 difference! Shoot, Johnson won the National League ERA title that year with a 2.48, which was still bested by Pedro (even though he pitched in the AL, which normally causes ERAs to skyrocket). In 2000 Pedro had a 1.74 ERA (it's hard to explain how amazing this is in the AL at this time), the next best in the Majors was Kevin Brown with a 2.58 (winning the NL title), and the next best in the AL was Clemens at a 3.70! There has never been a pitcher who was that much better than everyone else (that much better than Hall of Famers!).

But, there is one pitcher who dominated for a prolonged period of time, and that man is Roger Clemens. I've posted about Clemens before, so I don't think I need to bash him again. I hate to admit it, but he's the best pitcher I've ever seen. Pedro's highest point ('99-00) was higher than anything Clemens did, but Clemens was the best pitcher in baseball in the second half of the '80s and is still going strong today. In 22 seasons he has collected 341 wins, 4502 Ks (2nd all time), a 3.12 ERA, 7 Cy Youngs (a record), 7 ERA titles, 4 wins titles, 5 K titles and 2 pitcher's Triple Crowns (1997-98). He's an 11-time All Star and an MVP (1986), which is difficult to do as a pitcher. To give an idea of his longevity, he won his first Cy Young in 1986 and his seventh in 2004. That is what separates him from everyone else (although he did win that last one in the NL, after being just a decent pitcher in the AL before this).

Relief Pitcher: Really, this position is for the best closer of my lifetime. Most people simply say "Mariano Rivera" and leave it at that. He may be the best closer ever, but I think people have forgotten about Dennis Eckersley. Eck pitched in 24 seasons, but only 12 as a closer. In those 12 final season he amassed 382 saves (he had 8 saves earlier in his career), 2 saves titles, 4 All Star appearances (2 more as a starter) and 2 AL Rolaids Relief Awards (for best reliever). He also won the Cy Young award in 1992, as well as the MVP that same year (as a closer!). He was also elected to the Hall of Fame in 2004. The bottom line is that he was as dominant as anyone who has ever closed a game. I just want Eck to get his due.

Mariano Rivera has quite the resume too. In 11 seasons he has a 2.33 ERA, 379 saves, 7 All Star games, 3 saves titles and 4 AL Rolaids Relief Awards. He is generally regarded as "untouchable." It looked as if that might be changing during the years of 2001-2004, but then he goes out last year and makes 22 consecutive appearances without giving up a run! The bottom line is that he has been dominant.

Both pitchers were seen as almost unhittable, yet both have blown major games. Eckersley will always be remembered for giving up the HR to Kirk Gibson in the 1988 World Series (with Gibson limping up to the plate then pumping his fists as he ran around the bases). Rivera gave up the game winning hit to Luis Gonzalez in Game 7 in the 2001 World Series, as well as getting beat by the Red Sox in both Game 4 & 5 in the 2004 ALCS. That's three games. However, and this is very important, he has been placed in more of those situations than any closer ever. He has time and time again been put in difficult situations, it's bound to catch up to him eventually. Anyway, this is a difficult decision for me. In the end, I have to ask this question: if I needed one guy to win a game for me, who would I choose. I think I have to go with Mariano Rivera. But I might change my mind in 5 minutes.

You Can Have Your Best Life Now

Let me share a couple stories. First is from the recent New York Times article about the bestselling author and megachurch pastor Joel Osteen. Joel shared in one of his sermons about a time when he was driving around in a large parking lot (it may have been a mall parking lot, I can't remember right now) and began to pray that he would receive a good spot since it was full. Sure enough, God answered his prayer he claims, and he not only got a spot, but the best spot available.

Another is from a sermon I heard Keith Wheeler give over a year ago. Keith is a guy who has carried a cross in dozens of countries across the world and shared the gospel in places where others have never dared to go. One time Keith was walking down a road (I believe it was in South Africa) and was sweating profusely from the incredible heat. At some point in his journey he says to the Lord, "you know, I could really go for an Orange Fanta right now" and keeps going. Not long later, a nice car pulls up beside him and the window rolls down. A nice lady had stopped to offer him some Orange Fanta she had in her cooler. Of course Keith gladly takes the needed refreshment.

These two stories are fairly similar- both men pray for something they really want at that time and seem to have their prayers answered. However, they draw two completely different conclusions from these events.

Mr Osteen goes on to tell his audience that this is the type of blessing we should be praying for and God wants to give us. God doesn't just want to give us a parking space, He wants us to have the best parking space. Mr Wheeler sees this as a humorous example of God's provision. Mr Osteen sees his example as a small part of a larger principle- God wants you to have the best stuff. Mr Wheeler didn't draw any major principles regarding God's desire to answer every prayer we offer up. He didn't use this as an argument for God granting every little desire we have- a nice car, job, parking spot or soda. He never said, "because God gave me Orange Fanta I know that God also wants me to have the best of everything else" (besides, if God wanted to give him the best soda He would have given him fountain Pepsi).

Let's suppose for a second that God did answer Joel Osteen's prayer for a nice parking space. Is this a sign of God's favor? I mean, doesn't Paul say that God gave man to his desires to worship gods other than him, and they are now living with the consequences of that decision (read Romans 1:18-32 for the whole context)? I'm not comparing asking for a nice parking spot with worshipping idols or sexual immorality, but what I'm saying is that God allowing us to have our desires is not automatically a sign of favor.

After all, doesn't Jesus Himself say "the first shall be last, and the last shall be first"? Doesn't he say to His disciples, "whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all" (Mark 10:43-44)? What if Joel Osteen getting that spot meant some elderly person had to walk a quarter-mile to do their shopping? Is that being a servant to all? Is that what the Lord would have us do? Maybe I missed the verse where it says if you pastor a big enough church and sell enough books that means you're exempt from such things.

Osteen's book is called "Your Best Life Now." And you know, maybe he and others are living their best life now. That's too bad, because it seems to me that there is a life to come that is supposed to be better than this one. And with all the verses in the Bible that laud humilty and self-sacrifice I'm betting that'll count more in the time to come.

Sometimes God, for whatever reason He has determined in His sovereign plan, does answer the little prayers we offer, like Keith Wheeler's. Sometimes, He chooses not to do so. We can't always draw up a formula for these things. And for those who have ever heard me teach, you've probably heard me use the phrase "God is not a vending machine." I'm afraid that folks like Joel Osteen have turned God into just that- a vending machine where you need the proper amount of "faith" or whatever. I prefer Keith Wheeler's version, God has a sense of humor and is always faithful to provide, and once in a while He gives us a small, seemingly insignificant glimpse of the truth that He hears our prayers.

Who God is and what we do

This past Tuesday night I was teaching in the training school at my church. It was my assignment to teach James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2 & 3 John and Jude (all in a hour and a half, which is a lot of fun). It's always a fun experience and I generally learn a lot not only in preparing, but in teaching it. One of the things we talked about was the connection of theology and ethics. Perhaps the most clear example of this occurs in 1 Peter (who is quoting Leviticus): "you shall be holy, for I am holy" (1:16).

The thought is this: because (insert theological statement here) you should (insert ethical command here). In this case: because God is holy, we too should be holy. Simple enough. This connection is seen all over the Bible. In Exodus 20, before God gives the Ten Commandments, He starts with "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery" (v2). After the Lord lays out who He is and what He has done for His people He proceeds to tell them how they should act.

This same thought process occurs in the famous passage in Philippians 2. Paul starts with the ethical commands for unity and self-deference (vv1-4), then he gives them the basis for this command- Christ's sacrificial attitude (vv5-11). Because Christ Himself emptied Himself on behalf of others, so we should do the same. Paul also uses this pattern on a larger scale in Ephesians. Chapters 1-3 are full of theology (election, calling, the unity of Jew & Gentile, etc), while 4-6 contain the actions we should take because of everything he talks about in the first 3 chapters. This is made quite clear in 4:1, where Paul says "I urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called."

The point is this: everything we are called to do- every command given to us as the people of God- is rooted in the character of God. God doesn't simply say "do this because I say so" (although if He did we ought to pay attention). We are to live humbly because we have received undeserved grace from Him ("undeserved grace" is an intentional redundancy). We are to forgive because He has forgiven us. And so on. I find this quite freeing.

But something hit me this morning as I was pacing around in my kitchen before I left for work. This is why Jesus says "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15, see also 1 John 2:3-6 for something very similar). He isn't arbitrary or needy. This isn't a perverse form of manipulation like it is often used in our time (how many guys have used the "if you love me..." line to take advantage of a girl?). He's stating something deeper: "what I am commanding you to do is based in who I am, so if you love Me, you'll love to do what I command."

This is why John can stress to his readers, "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3). It is not a burden to do as the Lord says! If it is a burden, it's because we misunderstand and don't appreciate who Jesus is and what He has done for us. It should not be a burden to serve someone you love- it is a joy!

Do I delight in serving the Lord? Do I delight in His commands? Do I delight in Him- what He has done for me on the cross and in the empty tomb? I confess that I often feel burdened in trying to live a holy life. This, however, just reveals my lack of comprehension of all that Jesus has done for me. My ethics/actions should be grounded in who He is, but they often are not. I have some repenting to do.

The Resurrection of Jesus and Faith

I love Easter. It's my favorite holiday- yes, even more than Christmas. It isn't just the nice weather that comes in this time of year, although I appreciate that. It isn't just seeing folks wear their Easter best to church (I actually don't, shame on me). It's what this day represents. I love the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I love reading about it, singing about it, thinking about it. I love that it happened. It is the single most revolutionary event in the history of this world.

I also love the television shows that come along with Easter, as frustrating as they can be. I watch whatever I can, just to see what scholars they ask to speak and what they say. There's the usual suspects: John Dominic Crossan espousing some ridiculous view for the sake of being unorthodox, there's Craig Evans who offers the voice of reason, and there's usually N T Wright, giving his interesting historical twist to everything. Once in a while someone jumps in who I've never heard of (although rarely), and I try to follow up and figure out who they are.

But in all of these shows, someone will make a comment about the resurrection that frustrates me to no end. This comment normally goes something like this, "the resurrection is a matter of faith, whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead is not as important as whether or not you believe it in your heart." Ugh. What junk. Unfortunately, I think that too many faithful believers would agree with this. However, that is not the position of the Bible.

Read 1 Corinthians 15 and you'll see the proper place of faith. The quote given in the last paragraph essentially says this: "the resurrection is true if you believe it in your heart." But, in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul argues that our faith is grounded in the resurrection of Jesus. If the resurrection didn't happen, our faith is empty and useless (see especially vv12-19, you can click on the link for the NET Bible here on my page). If Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead in bodily form, our faith has nothing to stand on. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, we are wasting our time.

Those who claim that the resurrection is merely a matter of "faith" operate with a poor definition of "faith." They see faith and facts operating in different spheres. That is not Paul's understanding of faith as seen here in 1 Corinthians 15. He sees faith as needing the resurrection. We may not need to have a fact "proven" (what proof is needed, though, is fairly subjective), but that fact needs to be true- it can not be simply a matter of my personal opinoin.

Here's the point: our faith does not birth the resurrection and its truth and power. The truth and power of the resurrection birth our faith. The resurrection of Jesus happened, no matter what anyone believes. Just because I believe the resurrection happened doesn't make it any more true or powerful. It's truth and power do not derive from me. If I were to stop believing in the resurrection of Jesus (God forbid- literally), it would not cease to be true. Because it is true, I can believe. Praise God for the victory won for us, seen on the cross and in the empty tomb.

Preparation for Ministry, Preparation for Life

I suppose I was fairly young when I "felt called" to ministry. There was no amazing vision or angelic proclamation, just the sense that I should go in that direction. Unfortunately, like many at a young age, I had no idea what exactly that meant. I went to a Christian university where I studied the Bible, learned how to do exegesis and so on. I did my time in seminary where I learned some more about how to do exegesis and so on.

However, I've become enlightened a bit more in my old age. Ministry doesn't always turn out like it's supposed to. The "ideal" life of ministry is graduating seminary (or some other appropriate arena of training) and moving on to a church, who will pay you to minister in some capacity. There you will apply all that you learn and your church will love you forever.

For me, though, it's looked very different. I'm in a church, and I am ministering. I don't get paid, I'm not on staff and there's no chance of that happening any time soon. I'm fine with that, I love my church and have trouble seeing my future without being involved somehow. This is the church that I want to send me overseas someday, this is the church that has become my family here in Boston. I wouldn't trade it for anything.

That's not the issue. I have one simple problem: I don't know how to do anything. I'm currently working a job that uses almost none of my natural (or acquired) skills, nor is it something I particularly enjoy. The problem is that I don't really have much in the way of marketable skills in order to find another job. I only know two things: sports and the Bible. If I'm not getting paid to do either, I'm in trouble.

It's too late for me to pick up some skills. It's not that I'm old, I have time. It's a money issue, I already have loans to pay off, so I can't go back to school to do things I think I would be decent at. I think I would have made a decent teacher, especially in something like history. I would have been a great sports journalist (after all, I already know more than all those idiots, right?). I suppose there are any number of things I could do well, but at this point I'm fairly limited.

I always knew that ministry was more than working for a church. One can minister just as well in a non-Christian workplace as he can in a church building. I just never knew that I would be working in the "real world" (one of the worst cliches, I'm not sure what the "fake world" is). I never thought that I'd have to pick up a skill somewhere along the way in order to support my ministry habit like I'm doing now. I'm not complaining about my education, I wouldn't give that up, it's changed my life. But why didn't anyone tell me to double-major in college? Why couldn't I have been smart enough to realize this might happen?

Anyway, what I've learned is that preparation for ministry and preparation for life need to go hand-in-hand. Ministry looks less and less like the classic model as time goes on. The "lay minister" model is becoming more common, and thank God. I just never thought that'd be me. But praise God, because He wasn't surprised. And He just might have a plan to make it work out.

Roger Clemens: what do we do?

There's all sorts of talk right now here in Boston about whether or not the Sox will (or should) attempt to sign Roger Clemens some time this year. This is a painful subject for me personally. Like many who became baseball fans during the '80's, I loved Roger Clemens. He was my favorite player as a child. As time went on and he became lazy with the Sox, I grew to dislike him. Many people bash Dan Duquette for claiming that Clemens was washed up, but look at his numbers in his last couple years with the Red Sox. They weren't that good. Not "washed up", but not really good. But, he left the Sox, got in shape and became great again. Hence my extreme dislike for him

He's in a great position right now. Teams want him, and not just any teams- it's the teams with the most money to spend on him (Sox, Yankees, Astros and Rangers). And they all understand he won't sign with any of them for a while. He claims he wants to come back to a competitive environment and I think this is true- he won't play for a loser. However, let's not fool ourselves- he wants to get paid. If no team offers him more than $5 million he will not come back. Whatever team wants him will have to pony up the big bucks. That's just the way it is.

So should the Sox sign him? My heart says absolutely not. But, you don't win a World Series making decisions with your heart. Can he help this staff? Sure, only an idiot would say otherwise. Is it worth the money? That's a harder question to answer. I think it would be nice to keep him off the Yankees, but is that reason enough?

We also can't fool ourselves into thinking we'd be getting the best pitcher in the league. Look at his numbers before he signed with Houston and switched leagues- they weren't that great. They weren't awful, but it's obvious that his numbers the last couple years are skewed because he pitched in the National League. It's much easier to have an ERA under 2.00 when you get at least one guaranteed out every time through the order. Also, it was obvious that he had slowed down toward the end of last year- so it may actually be a good thing that he's going to sit out a while.

So should the Sox sign him? I don't know. I don't want to say yes, I'd feel like we're selling our soul or something. But there's no doubt he could help, especially if they suffer injuries to the starting rotation. He may also help young guys like Papelbon, who is very similar to a young Clemens. I just can't get over the fact that he's an ungrateful jerk who stopped trying for the Sox. When we talk about the greatest traitors in history I list him above Benedict Arnold and below Judas Iscariot (come one, betraying our Lord and Savior is far worse than betraying Boston). And no, I'm not bitter.

The 2006 Boston Red Sox: "If..."

When I look at this years Red Sox roster and I think about their chances of success, the one word that consistently comes out of my mind is "if."

If Curt Schilling can regain strength in his heel/Achilles tendon, he may regain the form that made him an All-Star. I don't really think he'll become a 20 game winner again, but you never know. If this changeup he is supposedly adding to his arsenal works out, that will help an aging pitcher adjust to losing a bit of zip.

If Josh Beckett can remain healthy (which is a scary thing to say about a young pitcher), he will be a great pickup. Do you trade your best prospect for a guy like Beckett? Absolutely. Get him 30+ starts, and we'll love him. He's an ace for years to come.

If Keith Foulke can get healthy again, if he can regain his confidence, and if he can quit complaining about having to live in Boston, we will have our closer. As it is, this may not happen. He was terrific in the postseason of 2004, perhaps the most valuable player (along with David Ortiz). Having that Keith Foulke back would make a huge difference.

If their bullpen can get over the fact that they have no lefty to get guys out (Lenny Dinardo? come on), they'll be solid. Mike Myers wasn't the greatest reliever, but you knew what you were getting: a lefty who could get out lefties, but would get whacked by righties. But Timlin, Papelbon (who should be starting, but oh well), and Tavares should be nice. I like Tavares, he'll make up for the brawls that left town along with Bronson Arroyo. I also like him because he looks like Nosferatu. Can't beat that.

If they can replace Bill Mueller, well, I'd be surprised. There's a sports radio morning show personality here in Boston who likes to bash Mueller for his lack of home run production. I'm sorry, is this the most important stat in judging a 3rd baseman? How about his great glovework? How about the fact he had two of the biggest clutch hits in recent Red Sox history- both off Mariano Rivera, arguably the greatest closer ever? You can't replace guys like that.

If Mike Lowell's off-year in 2005 was due to back problems that are no longer bothering him, he'll produce well in Fenway Park. If his numbers prior to last year were due to steroid use as is commonly believed, we'll see how much we miss Bill Mueller. If I were a betting man (and I am), I'd bet on the latter.

If Mark Loretta can get over last year's injuries, we finally have a solid 2nd baseman and, perhaps more importantly, a solid hitter to plug in the 2-hole (the first since Marty Barrett?). A .300+ hitter with some power (10+ home runs out of a 2nd baseman is a nice luxury).

If the 3-headed 1st baseman (Kevin Youkilis, J. T. Snow and Hee-Seop Choi) can produce better than Kevin Millar, it'd be a step up. That shouldn't be hard. But still, you can't help but think that they won't produce enough to keep Theo Epstein from pursuing a trade at some point this season.

If Manny Ramirez can get over the fact he's still here it might cut down on the number of redundant articles and annoying blabbering on the radio. We know what's going to happen: close to the trade deadline he'll want to be traded, the Sox won't find a taker for his huge contract, he'll stay, redeclare his love for Boston and the Red Sox Nation and everyone will love him. He is, after all, the best right-handed hitter in decades (although Pujols is making his case). I love him.

If Trot Nixon can overcome all his injuries (and they're numerous), it would give us another solid bat with some power in the middle of the lineup. But what are the chances of that happening? I love Nixon, and I think he's one of the most underrated players in the game. But he's never healthy enough to prove me right. So the Sox went out and got Wily Mo Pena. If he can learn to make decent contact more often than 1 in 20 swings he might fulfill his potential. I'm not holding my breath.

If Coco Crisp can continue to improve I think we'll love him here in Boston. Will he be better than Johnny Damon this season? No. Will he be better in 3 years? Absolutely. Hitting in front of Loretta, Ortiz and Manny will be the best thing for his career.

If the front office can stay out of the spotlight, the team would be much better off. But that won't happen, sorry to say.

If you have this many "if" statement and a lot are related to injuries, that never bodes well. There are few sure things on this team. We know what we'll get from Ortiz- great power, good average and, best of all, the premiere clutch hitter in the game. We know what we'll get from Varitek- good numbers for a catcher and the best game-caller in the game. We know what we'll get from Alex Gonzalex- a great glove and a slim chance of batting over .250. And we know we'll get decent production from Wakefield and Wells (if he stays long). It's hard to know what to expect from Matt Clement, so I won't expect anything.

The point is this: with this many "if's", every Sox fan should be a little worried. But then again, if some of these work out, we'll be sitting pretty. It will be a fun season, I do have high hopes. Now, if I could get some tickets without killing my bank account, that would be a miracle.

the how of the Great Commission

My good friend Ryan has challenged me to come up with some thoughts on how to carry out the Great Commission (see my post and the comments below, it's not like there are a whole bunch to sift through). This is just like the old days, two young bucks who are dumb enough to think they can come up with an answer to some question that has perplexed the Church for years.

Ryan stated that he felt our methods need a little shake up, noting that the 4 Spiritual Law method might not be the best anymore (some would say it never was). Let me state this about the use of this method: it was never intended to be a "read this, pray this and you're in" method. Unfortunately, it has become something like this. This whole concept is horribly unbiblical.

Part of the problem is that while we say we take Jesus' commands seriously, we don't really follow His example. What I mean is this: when Jesus wanted to make a disciple, He walked with them, lived with them, worked with them, prayed with them and taught them in both word and deed. He didn't ask the 12 to pray a prayer accepting Him into their hearts. Now, I'm not against this, it's just that it isn't what Jesus did. Or Paul. Or any other New Testament author.

Ryan mentioned "a relationship that transforms." I think he was talking about a relationship with Jesus, and this is totally true. I also want to propose that the Bible calls us to walk in relationships with one another that transform lives. Isn't this what Paul did with Timothy and others. Or Barnabas and Paul, or Barnabas and Mark. They didn't have this "pray and you're done" mentality, they discipled with the notion that this was a lifelong journey. Why do you think that the biblical authors were so anxious to make sure their spiritual children were moving forward in their faith?

The fact is that Christians are called to be in community with each other, and I think this is perhaps the best witnessing tool: the body of Christ living life together like the body of Christ is supposed to. This is where I agree with some of the more "post-modern" Christians (see the Emergent Church movement): the best witnessing is done as we live like Jesus and show love to those around us. Where I disagree with some of them, however, is that we must place importance on claims of truth. We must be willing to say that Jesus is the only way to salvation. We must be willing to say that Jesus did in fact die for our sins and did rise from the dead in bodily form. These are not just nice concepts, they are essentials.

So here's where we can start the conversation: we should follow the example that Jesus gave us. He lived in community with His disciples (I'm not talking about sharing a house or anything), He showed love to those in need and He also taught His disciples Truth. Sharing the gospel is far less powerful without living out the gospel in community. We can teach the truths of Scripture as we live out the commands of Scripture together (especially loving God and loving our neighbor- the two greatest commands).

So that's a start. Not a lot of depth, I realize, but that's what you get when you only have so much time. I appreciate any thoughts people have, maybe we'll all learn something.

what happened to UConn?

When I was thinking about what I would write for my first sports post on this blog, I never thought I'd write about the UConn Huskies losing to George Mason. I mean, UConn is the consensus pick for the most talented team in the nation (although that point might be overstated, I'll get to that in a minute). George Mason wasn't even supposed to get invited to the tournament. But, indeed, there is madness in March.

Even if UConn won this game, I couldn't have been very proud. This is unlike any other team I've seen at UConn, and not in a good way. I commented to my roommate not long ago that unlike many of the top programs in the nation (Duke, UNC, etc), UConn had never really been upset in the tournament. I realize they lost last year in the 2nd round to NC State, which was technically an upset. But there are a couple reasons I don't really count last year. First, UConn never deserved a 2 seed. They got that purely off of reputation and the fact they had won the title the year before. I was shocked when they were given their seeding. Second, and this is related, I don't think anyone really watched that UConn team. They were full of talent, but were so raw. I never thought for one minute they were going very far, they just didn't have championship maturity.

In the past, UConn was the team doing the upsetting: Tate George's buzzer beater 3 in '90 against Clemson put them on the college basketball map (it was that game that sealed me as a college basketball fan). They beat Duke in the championship in 1999, which was not an upset to anyone who actually watched those two teams that year. To this day I still can't believe how many people thought Duke was better than UConn, it was ridiculous. Anyway, my point is this: Jim Calhoun always had teams that won when they were supposed to win and could occassionally pull off the upset. Until now.

This team was ripe for the pickin'. There were numerous problems. Their best player (Rudy Gay) honestly doesn't seem to care too much that he's playing for one of the top programs in the country with an opportunity to showcase his talents and become a high draft pick making millions. Actually, that'll happen anyway, despite his awful showing this tournament. I've never seen a team whose best player was only the 4th best option to take a big shot at the end of the game. I'd take Marcus Williams (team MVP this tournament), Denham Brown (I realize he missed the final shot, but also got them to overtime against GMU and beat Gonzaga earlier in the season in the final seconds) and Rashad Anderson (no need to comment here, he made his case for himself) over Rudy Gay in the final seconds of any game. Why? Because he doesn't play with any kind of drive. He's the most talented player on the team, if not the country. But talent doesn't do everything for you.

I think there's something important here. Past UConn teams always had a star who came up big when needed, even going back to guys like Chris Smith (most are saying "who?"). Ray Allen was awesome, and his numbers in the '96 tournament showed that. Rip Hamilton came up huge (buzzer beater against Washington in the Sweet 16 in '98, big game against Duke in the championship in '99). Ben Gordon and Emeka Okafor dominated when it mattered. In the Final Four game agaisnt Duke in '04, Okafor let everyone know he was the best player on the court and the nation. In the past, other names stepped up in clutch situations. Look at Ricky Moore's defense against Duke in '99- no one could do anything against him, just ask Trajan Langdon (that, of course, was par for course for Ricky Moore). Tate George hit a huge three against Clemson in '90 (and became a 1st round draft pick off that one shot, too) thanks to a full-court pass from freshman Scott Burrell. The point: when they needed it, someone stepped up.

There's something else about those teams. They tried for a full 40 minutes. How could you not? If a star like Richard Hamilton was going to work his butt off to win a game, everyone was going to. These star players led by example. This year's team- not so much. They relied on talent. A columnist for ESPN wrote the other day that UConn won those first 3 games in the tournament because of their heart. Are you kidding me? Heart? It takes heart to be more talented than everyone else and barely win? Give me a break! That isn't heart, it's being lazy but good. They beat Albany, Kentucky and Washington because they had better players, not because they had more heart. They beat them because they had a deeper bench (see Washington's foul trouble) and more star talent, not heart. If they had heart, they would have dominated those games, like the team in 2004 did. That team had talent and heart.

But, I want to comment on the talent level on this team. As long as we're talking college basketball, this team was by far the most talented team in the nation. But it's not like this team is overflowing with future NBA stars. Rudy Gay will likely be a high lottery pick, although it's mostly because this year's draft (and he will probably leave this year) is extremely weak. Marcus Williams will probably become a back-up point guard somewhere. Denham Brown might not get drafted, although I'm convinced he would have been a superstar if his knees didn't go bad. I don't see Hilton Armstrong making it in the NBA, or Josh Boone. Rashad Anderson could catch on somewhere as the shooter coming off the bench (just like at UConn), but he won't be a star. For a college team, this is a lot of talent. But it's not overflowing with future NBA stars here, not like 2004 (Okafor, Gordon and even Villanueva, who scored 48 tonight for Toronto).

Anyway, my point is that this team was unlike any other Calhoun team I've seen. It lacked leadership and a star who would step up in big games, spurring on others to do the same. There was no Ricky Moore who would hang all over the other team's best guard. There was no Kevin Freeman who would fight for every lose ball in the paint. There was no Okafor who wouldn't let anyone come near the lane (despite the fact that this UConn led the nation in blocks again). Calhoun doesn't normally recruit players like this.

I guess, though, that this is part of becoming a perenniel powerhouse- eventually you'll be taken down. It happens to the best programs, so why would UConn be immune? I just hope that future teams learn a lesson from this. Being talented will only get you so far. Eventually, someone will come along who is unimpressed by the talent. George Mason was the perfect team for this upset. They had no business being in this position, so they had nothing to lose. They are a talented team who was told they shouldn't be here, so they had a chip on their shoulder. And they just watched 3 teams come this close to beating UConn. You can learn a lot from those games. And they did. So, I say congrats to George Mason and her fans. They deserved to beat UConn. They have earned every bit of the joy of going to the Final Four. And now, I hope they win it all.

The Great Commission: for us?

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." Mt 28:18-20, NASB

A few weeks ago a friend passed along a question that she received from someone else: how do we know the Great Commission still applies to us? Most of us grew up being taught that we are called to help fulfill the Great Commission and never bothered to ask this question. I am one of those people. I mean, I've thought about it, especially when reading about William Carey and his answer to this question (more on that in a minute), but it's not like it keeps me up at night. But, when this friend asked, I decided to think about it further. At first, I danced around it, buying myself a little more time to come up with something that sounded smart.

William Carey (often called the Father of Modern Missions) faced those in his day who claimed that the Great Commission was given to the 11 apostles and that was that, we weren't the recipients of that command so we don't have to try and carry it out. So I talked about William Carey and his answer, which I hope I remember correctly. Basically he said two things: (1) we can't accept the blessings of the New Testament without accepting the commands and (2) we gladly teach and baptize like the Great Commission says to do, why not make disciples of all nations too?

As I was stalling, the thought hit me. This really is an issue of hermeneutics. "Hermeneutics" is a fancy way of saying "interpretation." It deals with the question of how we get from there (a 1st century text written in a different culture dealing with different situations) to here (21st century America, or whatever context). Most of us apply the text intuitively, we read something and apply it instictively. So, when Paul asks Timothy to bring his cloak that he left in Troas, we don't go through a series of questions about how to apply it. We know that it doesn't address us in our context. Similarly, when the Bible tells us not to murder, we don't have a theological debate about whether or not such a command still applies to us, we just know it.

But not everything it that easy, because plenty of commands are giving to address specific situations that may or may not be like our current situations. This is where hermeneutics comes in. This is a huge topic that requires volumes of books to deal with it adequately, but I think there is an important question to ask first: why? The "why" question is crucial to applying the Bible accurately and faithfully.

What do I mean by "why"? The question is this: why does the author tell his readers to do x? Why does Paul ask for his cloak to be brought to him? I suppose because he was cold, or winter was coming, or the cloak really brought out the color in his eyes. Whatever the reason, it has little bearing on what we should do (except we could broaden it out and say we should always keep our spiritual leaders warm and looking good). Why should we not murder? I suppose there are numerous reasons, but the Bible gives us a good one: Genesis 9:6 tells us it's wrong because man is made in the image of God. That fact is still true today, therefore the command against murder still applies.

So what about the Great Commission? Why does Jesus command his disciples to make disciples of all the nations? The answer is (duh) right there in the text. "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." You see, many of us make the mistake of thinking that the primary command in this text is "go." Actually, the primary command is "make disciples." In Greek sentences, participles are subordinate to the main verb. So, if someone wrote "you should root for the Red Sox, hating the Yankees and kissing the Green Monster", "root" would be the main command, while "hating" and "kissing" would somehow modify the main command (maybe examples of what rooting for the Red Sox looks like).

In verses 19-20 there are three participles: "go" (some say it should be translated "as you are going" or something like that), "baptizing" and "teaching." These three verbs modify "make disciples." Teaching and baptizing are part of the disciple making process, they are not separate commands. Jesus' main concern here is not going, teaching or baptizing, but making disciples. Those three things are each an important part of making disciples.

Okay, so what does this have to do with Jesus' authority (verse 18)? It's simple: it gives the reason why all the nations should be made His disciples. Why should the nations be His disciples and not someone else's? Because He has been given all authority. Why all nations? Because He has all authority.

There's no doubt in my mind that Jesus is echoing Daniel 7:13-14. His favorite self-designation was "Son of Man." And His words to the high priest in Mt 26:64 (and parellels) leave no doubt He saw Himself as the Son of Man prophesied in Daniel 7. He was the One who would receive glory and a kingdom. He was the One who would receive the worship of "all the peoples, nations and language" and have a dominion that would never pass away. The Son of Man receives the kingdom and is served by all nations. This is the background to the Great Commission.

So how does this apply to us? The answer to this question is in the answer to the "why" question. Why does Jesus command His disciples to make disciples of all nations? Because He has been given all authority. He alone is worthy of such an honor. Does this still apply to us? Absolutely. The reality of Jesus' authority has not changed. And because of that, the call to make disciples of all the nations still stands.

Would you like a blog of danny? The justification of yet another blog.

I suppose there are few things as self-centered as having a blog. And I haven't done a survey, but I would be willing to bet that most blogs are actually quite bad- boring, rambling and pointless. Would I be any different if I had a blog? I doubt it. So why am I joining the fray? Do I have anything distinctive or interesting to offer?

The quick answers: I don't know why I'm starting a blog, and no, I have nothing interesting to offer the blogosphere. So there you go. You can stop reading now.

But, just in case you are still reading, let me offer a poor excuse for a justification of this decision to journey into unchartered territory (for me, that is). You see, I have noticed something disturbing in my life recently. Throughout my life I have always had someone around to discuss my two favorite things: God and sports (in that order, just for the record). My dad and I have spentless countless hours discussing the important questions of life: who is the greatest offensive lineman in NFL history (John Hannah, hands down), has there ever been another athlete who changed his sport like Bobby Orr (absolutely not), and so on.

In seminary I had numerous friends to discuss theology, commentaries, missions, etc., whenever I wanted (believe me, seminary students love to hear themselves talk). Whenever I wanted to discuss the pros and cons of molinism (which I never understood anyway), argue various millenial views or dream big deams about ministry, all I had to do was open my door (or go to Dunkin' Donuts).

But now, I find myself without anyone to fill these roles. Obviously there are still friends with whom I can talk about the Red Sox, and I have plenty of folks around me who love the Lord with all their hearts. But I just don't have the sports geeks and Bible geeks around me like I always have. None of my friends care about who the most underrated catcher in baseball history is (Bill Dickey), and few care about Greek participles or the Dead Sea Scrolls. This doesn't mean there's something wrong with my friends, just the opposite. It means I'm weird, simple as that. My mind dwells on different things. And for the record, I don't think for one second that my Christian friends are somehow less-Christian because they don't like to talk about the Bible in the way I do. We all process things in different ways, my way just happens to be in that wannabe-theologian style.

So this blog exists because my brain needs to get some stuff out. Chances are there won't be too many people who fit the niche of "Bible/sports geek." That's fine, but I hope somebody reads this stuff anyway. Hopefully I'll hit something you like along the way.