Wall-E Theology

Megan and I are both big fans of Pixar movies and we went and saw Wall-E tonight. I won't give any of the details away, but let me just say that 1) I really enjoyed it but 2) it definitely was not what I expected. I just want to give my brief thoughts about the film and what I've noticed to be a growing trend in our culture.

The movie is very much one big "go green" message. If you have been watching tv anytime lately you'll know that this is not a new trend. Numerous tv channels are promoting "going green," and there are a number of movies out (i.e. "The Happening") that are also sharing this message. As I told Megan, I in no way disagree with proper stewardship of the resources that have been given to us. There is certainly a responsibility to take care of our planet and not take it for granted. But here are my fears with this growing trend...

I fear that culture is beginning to put a greater emphasis on the sacredness of nature than it is on human life. We will fight for the ozone layer before we will fight for the poverty that overwhelms the nations or the thousands of children forced into prostitution. MTV and CNN will give more time to water saving tips than they will to the issue of genocides in Africa. I understand both these channels have at times (rarely) profiled matters of social injustice, AIDS, or poverty. But when have we seen "international justice week" on CNN? If the coverage is proportionate to that which we find most important and value the greatest, then the human life comes in a distant second.

The same goes with animals. Was I outraged when Mike Vick killed dogs for fun? Absolutely. But what makes me even more outraged is that the average American can identify Vick as a dog-killer but can't tell you who Leonard Little is. Who is Leonard Little? Only a serious sports fan would recognize this name. He is a defensive end for the St. Louis Rams who killed a woman while driving drunk in 1998 (he only got a 90 day sentence and an 8 game suspension from the league) and was arrested on a DUI just 6 years later. He still plays for the Rams and played in 12 or more games every year from 2000-2006. Have dogs become more precious than a mother in our society? If the level of protest is any indicator, then this is unfortunately the case.

Is our environment important? Yes. Are animal rights important? Absolutely. But we must be careful to not stress these to a point that human rights are minimized, and the preciousness of the human being becomes secondary. Let us champion all these rights, but those of the human first.

My NFL Fanhood is up for grabs... (part 2)

I last left off with narrowing down my choices to the Titans, Skins, and Falcons. Randy asked me in the comments section why I didn't include the Panthers in my choices. In response to that...

I have a perfectly legitimate reason that I can't cheer for the Panthers. Two words: Ross Cushnie. He is a good friend from high school who happens to be the worst UVA fan I know. Such disgust with his fanhood has overflown into the fact that I could never possibly root for the same teams that he does, and he happens to be a die-hard Panthers fan. To root for the Panthers would be to go against any and all rules of legitimate fanhood.

So with the Panthers eliminated I narrowed my teams down to three, which are now eliminated to one. I chose to eliminate the Redskins because I feel like if I actively chose not to like them as a child, I have no right to start liking them now. The Skins were Richmond's team while I was growing up, and I never rooted for them. Plus, one of the few people I liked within the organization, Joe Gibbs, is now gone. This leaves Daniel Snyder as the face of the franchise. Ugh.

I also eliminated the Titans. What was I thinking? I would have been a bandwagoner to pick this up and coming team. I didn't even like Nashville the only time I've visited.

Which leaves...


The Atlanta Falcons - maybe I never really left them in the first place. I don't know. I guess you just have to stick with your team no matter how bad things get. What almost pushed me over the edge is that they stole USC's defensive coordinator. But let's be honest, USC went ahead and stole Arkansas' DC a day later. That's just football. Also, they have a great owner in Arthur Blank, who has cleaned out the franchise of problems (many of which were, sadly, VT players). I wish they had picked up Darren McFadden in the draft, but maybe Matt Ryan will work out even if he strikes me as being no better than Joey Harrington. The franchise has the opportunity for a fresh start this year, and it's an exciting time to be a fan. I think they even have a chance to make the playoffs considering how weak the division is. So I've been with them all along - fly Falcons fly.

My NFL fanhood is up for grabs... (part 1)

I've never been a huge NFL fan. The college game has always been far more entertaining, and I've been much more connected to the college game since that's what I grew up on. I've never even been to a regular season NFL game before. But I do find the NFL entertaining to watch in the fall. The first team I really cheered for in the NFL was the Falcons because it seemed that they were filling their roster with VT and South Carolina players. Plus, they were led by one of my childhood heroes, Michael Vick. But...

Then came Bobby Petrino. Then came the dog-fighting allegations. Then came the proof. Then came Vick being put into jail. Then came the Falcons players wearing "Free Mike Vick" t-shirts. Then came the Falcons cleaning out almost any trace of Hokies from their roster. The real kick in the gut came this past January, when Falcons owner Arthur Blank, who had lectured for weeks about the importance of honoring contracts in light of the Petrino fiasco, stole defensive coordinator, Brian vanGorder, away from South Carolina just weeks after he had signed to coach for the Gamecocks and promised to stay with Carolina for a long, long time.

As these events took place, my fanhood for the Falcons was hurt considerably, and I chose to no longer be a Falcons fan. It was too much to keep rooting for a team with everything that was listed above take place. After a year of not really cheering for anyone (though I did cheer for the Redskins in the playoffs) I'm ready to get back into the game, but am starting with a clean slate. My NFL fanhood is up for grabs.

So I opened up to possibly making any team "my team." But I needed to do this with care. This is a big decision - my sons could be cheering for this team because of me and I don't want them rooting for a dead-end franchise! After talking to my buddy, Ross, about this for a while I was able to narrow down the teams. I used the following criteria:

1) I can't just pick a front-runner. For example, picking the Patriots is out of the question.

2) Some sort of connection to the team - this would generally mean that they have Gamecocks or Hokies on their roster (or at least some SEC guys that I watched play in college).

3) Geographic location - they need to be close enough that I can watch them reguarly. A team out west would only be on tv in North Carolina once a year. I flirted with the idea of cheering for the Raiders for a while because of the amount of SEC players on their roster, but could I realistically cheer for a west coast team? The same goes with another team I considered - the Houston Texans. But they're just too far away and have a UVA guy as their starting QB.

4) Not underestimating the "gut factor." Sometimes there's just weird reasons that you do or don't like a team. For example, I considered the Vikings because they have former Gamecock WR Sidney Rice. However, there's no way I could root for a team who wears purple. Out of the question.

With all that said, here's the teams that I narrowed it down to:

Washington Redskins

Tennessee Titans

Atlanta Falcons (I know, I know - but part of me just wants to stay with them through these tough times.)

More to come...

So apparently it wasn't true...

Apparently I missed all the articles that the whole "new tribe" thing was a hoax (though the pictures were real. The tribe was discovered in 1910). Many thanks to Ross Cushnie, the "anonymous" commenter on the previous post, for bringing this to my attention.

The article is here: http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23911019-948,00.html

Thanks for the comment, Ross. If UVA was as good at football as you are at finding mistakes in my blog, they could possibly beat VT more than once this decade. Click clack!

Uncontacted tribe photographed near Brazil-Peru border

This is from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24880941/. Apparently they have found an uncontacted tribe in South America. This was just so cool I had to post some pictures below - it goes to show how "big" the world can be in an age where we talk about how "small" it has become because of technology.

On Resolution Number 6 at the SBC

First off, I feel like I've officially become a part of Southern Baptist life with a blog post title like the one above.

But, an exciting resolution passed at the recent Southern Baptist Convention that looks something like this:

SBC Resolutions
6. On Regenerate Church Membership And Church Member Restoration June 2008
WHEREAS, The ideal of a regenerate church membership has long been and remains a cherished Baptist principle, with Article VI of the Baptist Faith and Message describing the church as a “local congregation of baptized believers”; and
WHEREAS, A New Testament church is composed only of those who have been born again by the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Word, becoming disciples of Jesus Christ, the local church’s only Lord, by grace through faith (John 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9), which church
practices believers’ only baptism by immersion (Matthew 28:16-20), and the Lord’s supper (Matthew 26:26-30); and
WHEREAS, Local associations, state conventions, and the Southern Baptist Convention compile statistics reported by the churches to make decisions for the future; and
WHEREAS, The 2007 Southern Baptist Convention annual Church Profiles indicate that there are 16,266,920 members in Southern Baptist churches; and
WHEREAS, Those same profiles indicate that only 6,148,868 of those members attend a primary worship service of their church in a typical week; and
WHEREAS, The Scriptures admonish us to exercise church discipline as we seek to restore any professed brother or sister in Christ who has strayed from the truth and is in sin (Matthew 18:15-35; Galatians 6:1); and now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana, June 10-11, 2008, urge churches to maintain a regenerate membership by acknowledging the necessity of spiritual regeneration and Christ’s lordship for all members; and
be it further
RESOLVED, That we humbly urge our churches to maintain accurate membership rolls for the purpose of fostering ministry and accountability among all members of the congregation; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to repent of the failure among us to live up to our professed commitment to regenerate church membership and any
failure to obey Jesus Christ in the practice of lovingly correcting wayward church members (Matthew 18:15-18); and be it further
RESOLVED, That we humbly encourage denominational servants to support and encourage churches that seek to recover and implement our Savior’s teachings on church discipline, even if such efforts result in the reduction in the number of members that are reported in
those churches, and be it finally
RESOLVED, That we humbly urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention and their pastors to implement a plan to minister to, counsel, and restore wayward church members based upon the commands and principles given in Scripture (Matthew 18:15-35; 2 Thessalonians
3:6-15; Galatians 6:1; James 5:19-20).

Resolutions with the SBC are somewhat tricky in the sense that this is not a new requirement for all churches in the SBC but rather a strong exhortation. However, it is a great step to having church membership actually mean something. The only questions are 1) what took so long? and 2) will it make a difference? To the first, I understand that other victories - such as the battle for the Bible - needed to be won before something like this would make sense. As for the second, I have seen many say that nothing will change but I really see this as a challenge to pastors to actually have a biblical model for church membership. More than anything, this resolution makes me even more thankful that we attend a church where nothing has to change when it comes to church membership.

Returning to Acuna

It looks like I'll be returning to Acuna, Mexico next spring! Details to come...

Judge sides with Duke: Your football team stinks

(from espn.com)

A Kentucky judge has confirmed what Duke fans have known for years: their football team is as bad as it gets.

Bad enough that Louisville should have to find another football team to replace the Blue Devils without penalty after Duke pulled out of the final three games of a four-game contract last season.

In a lawsuit filed late last year, Louisville asked for $450,000 in damages and any additional damages the court saw fit.

But Duke's lawyers argued that the Blue Devils' performance on the field was so poor that any Division I team would suffice as a replacement. Duke is 6-45 over the past five years, 13-90 since 1999.

Judge Phillip J. Shepherd of the Franklin County (Ky.) Circuit Court agreed, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal.

"At oral argument, Duke [with a candor perhaps more attributable to good legal strategy than to institutional modesty] persuasively asserted that this is a threshold that could not be any lower," Shepherd wrote in a summary judgment issued Thursday, according to the paper. "Duke's argument on this point cannot be reasonably disputed by Louisville."

Duke, according to the suit, asked the Cardinals to find a replacement opponent and promised to pay Louisville only if the school could not find one after a "good faith" effort. A $150,000 penalty for each game was included in the contract if a "team of similar stature" could not be found to fill the date.

The two schools were to meet four times between 2002 and 2009. Louisville beat the Blue Devils 40-3 in September 2002, but Duke opted out of the final three games, to be played last season and in 2008 and 2009.

Louisville claimed it struggled to find another team and received "little, if any, help from either Duke or the [Atlantic Coast Conference]" in finding a replacement.

"We're disappointed with the ruling," Louisville spokesman Kenny Klein said, according to the Courier-
Journal. "We will take our time to review the decision and explore our future options."

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

So the Mormons came to Visit...

I just want to make sure before I write all this that anyone who reads this knows that this is in no way meant to be a bragging session or a slam on the Mormons who came to visit me. It's not my desire to boast of how I won an argument. Instead, I hope that this is edifying for those who want to see how I personally dialogued with a couple of mormon missionaries last night. I also wanted to stress the importance of us trying not to win an argument, but also win these people to Christ. So here it goes...

One of the things Norman Geisler encouraged us to do was to read texts like the Book of Mormon and the Koran in order to be able to better dialogue with people of those faiths. I figured that if I could find a free Bible online then I could find these other two texts for free as well. I ordered both for free last week from various websites, and I figured that there would be Mormon missionaries who would personally deliver the Book of Mormon. I was right, and yesterday I received a call from them and we set up an appointment for them to come last night and visit. What follows are some observations from what took place.

First, let me say that the two guys who came by were really nice, respectful, and personable. Both were former athletes and big sports fans, and were very down to earth. I certainly think these were two guys I could be friends with. I think that we as evangelicals sadly salivate at the chance to nail a Mormon in a debate. We must defend doctrine boldly, but we must also remember that this is an opportunity to show the love of Christ and to hopefully bring two more people to the place where they make a decision to truly accept Jesus Christ. I think that we can defend doctrine but still not be nasty about it in situations like this. I pray I did that last night - my first comment to them was actually telling them that I didn't agree with them whatsoever, but I did love them with the love of Jesus and looked forward to having a friendly debate).



So here's some random thoughts -

1. It's important for we Christians to know what we believe in respect to Mormonism. We can't rely on a few Mormon stereotypes as our defense - those will be shot down quickly. Instead, we must be better equipped than that. I was thankful that I had done a good bit of research before they came last night. There were a number of verses that they quoted out of context that I was glad that I had read up on before they came.



2. There were three places in particular where I posed questions that I did not get any real answer to:

A. The first was when I asked them if the Bible is inerrant and without any error and they said, "yes, absolutely." I then turned to Mark when Jesus comments that there is no marriage in heaven and asked them how they can have a doctrine of eternal marriage if Jesus clearly teaches in the Bible that they claim is without error that there is no marriage in heaven. (Note: I had researched what their response would probably be - that Jesus was saying that no one will get married in heaven. If anyone reads that passage in its context Jesus is responding to a question about a woman who was married here on earth, so clearly that is not what he is saying. Also, the verse that was used to defend this was when Jesus says, "whatever your bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." This is again a clear example of the need to understand verses in context.)

B. The second was the issue that they believe that God is still giving revelation today to their prophets. I asked them if their prophets ever made a mistake and they said no, but there was a prophecy made by Joseph Smith that a huge temple would be built in Missouri within his generation. They said that this prophecy was not fulfilled because of "circumstances," by which they mean that the Mormon church was persecuted at the time of the prophecy making it impossible to build the temple. I asked them how it can be that Joseph Smith could be a true prophet if

a. the criteria for a biblical prophet is that his prophecies always come true,

b. that true prophecy is the word of God (who does not lie),

c. that God is all-knowing and sovereign and therefore no "circumstances" catch Him off guard that makes Him have to modify His prophecy.

d. Therefore, if they believe that God is in sovereign, all-knowing, and doesn't lie, then there cannot be true prophecy that God has to change just because His church was persecuted.

C. Sadly, I asked them when they decided to repent of their sin and recognize the need for a savior and reconciler towards God. Both testimonies were almost identical - they consisted of reading the book of Mormon and asking God if it was true and said that the "Holy Ghost" had confirmed it for them.

3. I think a lot of these guys really just need to lovingly be shown the contradictions in their doctrine. As I was pointing stuff out to them it seemed (at least to me) that they were somewhat surprised by many of these contradictions and had not considered them before.

4. Why are these guys so much more evangelical than we are? They have a faith that is built mostly on a book that is not historically reliable whatsoever. We Christians have a book that is the most historically reliable document in all of ancient history. We should be embarrassed that the Mormons are more eager to talk about a distorted Jesus than we are to talk about the Biblical Jesus.



There was much more that happened over the course of our 90 minute discussion, but these were just a few points that I was thinking over today.

Is Single Issue Voting Wrong? (from John Piper)

I'm going to write more on this in the next few days, but I've recently felt the conviction to become stronger in my political knowledge. I was once a die-hard politics guy, but grew fairly apathetic because of the politicization of the religiousright as well as cable news channels (see CNN, Fox News) encouraging political screaming matches between republicans and democrats more than encouraging a pursuit of truth and progress. I don't think I'll ever feel really passionate about politics again other than with major issues like abortion, but I do recognize the responsibility to be informed and to vote well.

Christians are often criticized for being single-issue voters, that is, that their vote can be swayed by issues like whether or not a candidate is pro-life or pro-choice. Below is an excellent paragraph from John Piper addressing this issue:

"No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. Being pro-life does not make a person a good governor, mayor, or president. But there are numerous single issues that disqualify a person from public office. For example, any candidate who endorsed bribery as a form of government efficiency would be disqualified, no matter what his party or platform was. Or a person who endorsed corporate fraud (say under $50 million) would be disqualified no matter what else he endorsed. Or a person who said that no black people could hold office—on that single issue alone he would be unfit for office. Or a person who said that rape is only a misdemeanor—that single issue would end his political career. These examples could go on and on. Everybody knows a single issue that for them would disqualify a candidate for office [...]

It's the same with marriage. No one quality makes a good wife or husband, but some qualities would make a person unacceptable. For example, back when I was thinking about getting married, not liking cats would not have disqualified a woman as my wife, but not liking people would. Drinking coffee would not, but drinking whiskey would. Kissing dogs wouldn't, but kissing the mailman would. And so on. Being a single-issue fiancé does not mean that only one issue matters. It means that some issues may matter enough to break off the relationship.So it is with politics. You have to decide what those issues are for you. What do you think disqualifies a person from holding public office? I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office. It's simply the same as saying that the endorsement of racism, fraud, or bribery would disqualify him—except that child-killing is more serious than those."

Some thoughts from spending a week with Norman Geisler

This past week, my good friend J.P. Harmon and I decided to man up and take an entire class in one week. The class was Christian Apologetics & World Religions with Dr. Norman Geisler, one of the leading thinkers of the 20th century in Christian apologetics. This was particularly momentous for me because Dr. Geisler had had a unique impact on my decision to come to seminary. He taught and inspired Ravi Zacharias while at Trinity, and Ravi's sermons, lectures, and question and answer sessions on college campuses had a major impact on me feeling the responsibility to be intellectually prepared for ministry. Dr. Geisler was also an author I would read when trying to understand the usual criticisms of the Christian faith.

Needless to say, the experience was incredible. We spent the mornings having Dr. Geisler lecture through his twelve-step apologetic method which is the following:

1. Truth about reality is knowable

2. Opposites cannot both be true

3. The theistic God exists

4. Miracles are possible

5. Miracles performed in connection with a truth claim are acts of God to confirm the truth of God through the messenger of God

6. The New Testament documents are reliable

7. As witnessed in the New Testament, Jesus claimed to be God

8. Jesus’ claim to divinity was proven by an unique convergence of miracles

9. Therefore, Jesus was God in human flesh

10. Whatever Jesus (who is God) affirmed as true, is true

11. Jesus affirmed that the Bible is the Word of God

12. Therefore, it is true that the Bible is the Word of God and whatever is opposed to any biblical truth is false

Following morning lectures, we were given an hour for lunch in which that we spent watching the Euro 2008 with fellow students from across the world who knew an exponentially greater amount about soccer than I did. The afternoons were spent watching some of Dr. Geisler's debates with leading thinkers in secular humanism or other religions, as well as lectures on other world religions.

The experience was powerful and made me all the more thankful for men like Dr. Geisler who I could look to while at USC when challenged with difficult questions and criticisms of Christianity in my various classes. While the world doesn't often admit it, there truly are great thinkers who also happen to be conservative, evangelical, Bible believing Christians.

C.S. Lewis said...

"The world might stop in ten minutes; meanwhile, we are to go on doing our duty. The great thing is to be found at one's post as a child of God, living each day as though it were our last, but planning as though our world might last a hundred years."

- God In The Dock

Ravi Zacharias said...

"G. K. Chesterton correctly remarked that the problem with Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting but that it has been found difficult and left untried. In response to an article in The Times of London entitled 'What's Wrong with the World?' Chesterton replied,

'I am.

Yours truly,

G. K. Chesterton.'

That is precisely Jesus' point - we are wrong with the world."

A Week with Norman Geisler

If any of my 3 faithful readers are wondering why I haven't written in the past week, it's because I'm doing a semester's worth of material in one week. I am in the middle of spending an incredible week studying underneath one of the leading Christian apologists of the 20th century: Norman Geisler. After three days I have been so encouraged and challenged to love the Lord with all my mind. To the right is the book that I've been getting familiar with all week. (By the way, if you ever get the chance to study with a guy who has written an entire encyclopedia on a topic, take it!)


I'll be posting some more thoughts when I'm able to come up for air, as well as the second part of the series I started titled, "Just want to be like Jesus?" Also, I will be sure to post some responses to the criticisms received from Clemson and UGA fans on the best entrances in college football. The fall is almost here, and it's about time to start talking some smack. J.P. Harmon and Bert Watts have posted responses on their blogs. Gentlemen, prepare for a response soon enough...

What Makes a Great College Football Entrance?

While I'm a lover of all sports, there will always be one that holds a special place in my heart: college football. I think it was probably because I grew up spending Saturdays making the long drive into the beautiful of mountains of southwest Virginia to see Virginia Tech play. I was a Hokie fan at the right time. My first game was spent nearly freezing to death in a late-fall game where the Hokies beat a Syracuse team led by freshman Donovan McNabb. The first year I remember well is VT's 1995 season where true pocket-QB Jim Druckenmiller led the team to the Sugar Bowl where they defeated Texas. From then on, I was hooked. The next few years would be the beginning of the golden years for Hokie football. Greats such as Bryan Still, Ken Oxendine, pre-incarcerated Michael Vick, Cory Moore, John Engleberger, Lee Suggs, and Kevin Jones would be just a few of the greats that I would consistently witness on beautiful Blacksburg Saturdays.

I wouldn't attend Virginia Tech for college and instead went to the University of South Carolina. While the two schools were different in their campuses and student bodies, they were the same in their zeal for football. Also similar was the fact that at both schools people said, "you HAVE to be there for the entrance of the players. Both schools do have great player entrances - for VT, it's the playing of Metallica's "Enter Sandman" and the jumping of all the Hokie faithful. For Carolina, it's 2001 - a tradition started by the late Joe Morrison who wanted to provide something unique for his Gamecocks to run out to. I still remember my first 2001 - it was against UGA with ESPN's College Gameday in town, and all day I talked to strangers who got wide-eyed and said, "I can't believe this is your first 2001," as if I had been deprived of one of the essentials of life for 18 years. 2001 lived up to the hype, but the team did not (we blew a lead and lost), and I was officially a Gamecock fan. It would describe much of the next few years of my time at Carolina football games. Great entrance, disappointing play. But no matter how bad the team played, 2001 was always special.

So that got me thinking - what makes a great pre-game atmosphere and entrance? The following are my brief thoughts on the matter, along with a few videos to illustrate:

Fan Passion

First and foremost, a team's entrance has to excite the fans. For example, there are plenty of schools where the stadium doesn't fill up until after the team has run onto the field. A great entrance must be something that the fans want to be there for. That's what really struck me about 2001 at USC. The stadium was full before the players took the field because everyone wanted to witness it. I would say the same for VT. Basically, don't claim that your school has an incredible entrance and then have 10,000 fans show up after it's done. If your own fans don't make the effort to be there for it or aren't going crazy during the entrance, then it's really not that great. For example, check out the VT entrance and see if there's an empty seat as the team comes out:

VT Entrance:



Tradition

Also important is tradition. If your entrance is only the playing of a recently popular hard-rock song and your players run out on the field from a tunnel, then you're not doing anything that's worth getting fired up for. It's important to not change your entrance every 5 years (whether it's the song or the method of entry). That's why the following schools' pre-game environments are so well known:

The M Club Supports You:



Script Ohio:



Splitting the T at Tennessee:



Uniqueness

In the world of sports if you do something weird or unique long enough it becomes cool. That's what has made 2001 so popular at Carolina. I've heard many talk about when they first started using 2001 as the entrance, and that many of the fans had no idea what was going on or even didn't like it. But, after a couple of decades it has become a trademark of Gamecock football.

A Classic 2001:



The same thing, just twenty years later:



The same can also be said for Mr. Two Bits down in The Swamp:



Don't Use Stupid Videos

Most importantly, DON'T USE STUPID PRE-GAME VIDEOS! Sorry to use the all-caps, but that's how strongly I feel about it. Now that any respectable school has a jumbotron, there is almost always a video that precedes the team’s entrance. Unfortunately, this privilege has been horribly abused. I've given two examples below. A pre-game video should never include 1) An animated movie with your mascot beating up the other team's mascot as seen in the Arizona State video below and at UVA games or 2) your players doing any sort of extensive acting (and by extensive, I mean doing anything beyond looking at the camera in an intimidating fashion). A plus for entrance videos, as seen in the A&M video below, is using old clips to show off the program's accomplishments. Write this down: show football players playing, not acting.

Arizona State entrance video:



A Nebraska entrance video:



A Good example: Texas A&M's video:



So what's important? Fan passion, consistency, tradition, uniqueness, and an avoidance of stupid videos. Most importantly, always build up your own school's entrance and never acknowledge your rivals' entrance as being cool or intimidating, which is exactly why I've chosen not to include any discussion of Clemson running down the hill in this post. Go Gamecocks!

I Think I may be Beginning to like Soccer ("football")...

So I've been watching a little European soccer from time to time this summer. I'm not sure if it's the passion of the fans, the skill of the players, or the fact that I'm becoming delusional during the (real) football off season. Anyways, I don't know if I could ever become passionate about soccer because of one element of the game that is characterized in the video below:

Supplement to Part 1

Interestingly enough, I came across this today. It turns out that D.A. Carson wrote about the very issue of RLCs (see the previous two posts) in the most recent Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. Here's just an excerpt of what he said:

A particularly virulent form of this approach is hidden behind what Tony Campolo now approvingly calls “red letter Christians.” These red letter Christians, he says, hold the same theological commitments as do other evangelicals, but they take the words of Jesus especially seriously (they devote themselves to the “red letters” of some foolishly printed Bibles) and end up being more concerned than are other Christians for the poor, the hungry, and those at war. Oh, rubbish: this is merely one more futile exercise in trying to find a “canon within the canon” to bless my preferred brand of theology. That’s the first of two serious mistakes commonly practiced by these red letter Christians. The other is worse: their actual grasp of what the red letter words of Jesus are actually saying in context far too frequently leaves a great deal to be desired; more particularly, to read the words of Jesus and emphasize them apart from the narrative framework of each of the canonical gospels, in which the plot-line takes the reader to Jesus’ redeeming death and resurrection, not only has the result of down-playing Jesus’ death and resurrection, but regularly fails to see how the red-letter words of Jesus point to and unpack the significance of his impending crosswork. In other words, it is not only Paul who says that Jesus’ cross and resurrection constitute matters “of first importance” (1 Cor 15:3), and not only Paul who was resolved to know nothing among the Corinthians except Jesus Christ and him crucified (1 Cor 2:1–5), but the shape of the narrative in each canonical gospel says the same thing. In each case the narrative rushes toward the cross and resurrection; the cross and resurrection are the climax. So to interpret the narrative, including the red-letter words of Jesus, apart from the climax to which they are rushing, is necessarily a distortion of the canonical gospels themselves.