Somebody just sent this link to me, and wow! I am preaching on the meaning of new life, and the song really hits home with that idea, and the visual enhances. Be warned: the video is from "The Passion of the Christ", so it may be difficult to watch for some.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NaSROohLzs
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
National Champions?
Well, I watched the LSU destruction of Ohio State last night. A couple of thoughts crossed my mind:
1) College football season is over and 24 is not coming on the air until some undisclosed time in the future (thanks, Writers Guild of America). Hmm... sounds like a lot of reading and Food Network between college basketball games.
2) Would a playoff in college football really be that hard? It would have to be better than most of the games the BCS gave us - all blowouts pretty much decided by halftime, and only 1 of the games really mattered for much of anything.
3) Mike and Mike in the Morning were discussing comparisons that Ohio State is getting to the Buffalo Bills, saying that such comparisons were intended to slight OSU and that was unfair to Buffalo and OSU. I agree, but not for as positive a reason as they gave. I think OSU and the Big 10 have to look at the last 2 years and wonder what the future holds. Is it a bad thing to get to the national championship game and lose? No, but for 2 straight years OSU has been totally manhandled in the championship game. In both years, they were supposedly the better team (Vegas odds left out of the discussion). Take that and combine it with Michigan's blowout loss to USC in last year's Rose Bowl and Illinois' blowout loss to USC in this year's Rose Bowl, and I do think that there is a real problem the Big 10 is facing. Their elite teams seem to be a whole lot less elite than the other elite programs. People bash the ACC for the way it has fallen in football. Is the Big 10 really any different?
1) College football season is over and 24 is not coming on the air until some undisclosed time in the future (thanks, Writers Guild of America). Hmm... sounds like a lot of reading and Food Network between college basketball games.
2) Would a playoff in college football really be that hard? It would have to be better than most of the games the BCS gave us - all blowouts pretty much decided by halftime, and only 1 of the games really mattered for much of anything.
3) Mike and Mike in the Morning were discussing comparisons that Ohio State is getting to the Buffalo Bills, saying that such comparisons were intended to slight OSU and that was unfair to Buffalo and OSU. I agree, but not for as positive a reason as they gave. I think OSU and the Big 10 have to look at the last 2 years and wonder what the future holds. Is it a bad thing to get to the national championship game and lose? No, but for 2 straight years OSU has been totally manhandled in the championship game. In both years, they were supposedly the better team (Vegas odds left out of the discussion). Take that and combine it with Michigan's blowout loss to USC in last year's Rose Bowl and Illinois' blowout loss to USC in this year's Rose Bowl, and I do think that there is a real problem the Big 10 is facing. Their elite teams seem to be a whole lot less elite than the other elite programs. People bash the ACC for the way it has fallen in football. Is the Big 10 really any different?
Monday, January 7, 2008
Does No Mean Yes?
Attorney: Do you have a sexual attraction to post-pubescent adolescents?
Defendant: I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it may incriminate me.
I don't know what I find more frightening, the question or the answer, especially considering the defendant is a Dominican friar, A. J. Cody. Cody is facing charges of sexually molesting young boys at several different parishes in and outside of the United States.
The issue the question raises is disturbing enough. However, I think I am more bothered by the response that Cody gives. As I was listening to this exchange (part of NPR's latest weekly religion podcast that you can get at ITunes), I suddenly thought back to Jesus instructing his disciples, "Let your 'yes' be 'yes' and your 'no' be 'no'". Somehow, I don't think, "I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it may incriminate me" fits in real well with that teaching.
I think sometimes following this teaching of Jesus may mean having to stand up and answer the hard questions that make us uncomfortable or force us to admit to something we would not want anybody else to know. Even in a culture that presumes innocence, I hear Cody's response, and all I can think is, "The fact that he won't answer the question means he did it." Haven't we taken the same attitude with someone like Mark McGwire and his comments before Congress about steroids?
We talk about the need to confess our sins. Sometimes that is painful, embarassing, and humiliating. Sometimes it can cost us freedom and rights. Sometimes it can cost us fame and popularity. Maybe that is where the whole idea of "seek ye first the kingdom of God" takes on a whole different meaning.
I know I probably sound like I am assuming guilt where there has been no judgment of guilt yet. However, I feel like such a thought is left open when we as Christians can't just say "yes" or "no".
Defendant: I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it may incriminate me.
I don't know what I find more frightening, the question or the answer, especially considering the defendant is a Dominican friar, A. J. Cody. Cody is facing charges of sexually molesting young boys at several different parishes in and outside of the United States.
The issue the question raises is disturbing enough. However, I think I am more bothered by the response that Cody gives. As I was listening to this exchange (part of NPR's latest weekly religion podcast that you can get at ITunes), I suddenly thought back to Jesus instructing his disciples, "Let your 'yes' be 'yes' and your 'no' be 'no'". Somehow, I don't think, "I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it may incriminate me" fits in real well with that teaching.
I think sometimes following this teaching of Jesus may mean having to stand up and answer the hard questions that make us uncomfortable or force us to admit to something we would not want anybody else to know. Even in a culture that presumes innocence, I hear Cody's response, and all I can think is, "The fact that he won't answer the question means he did it." Haven't we taken the same attitude with someone like Mark McGwire and his comments before Congress about steroids?
We talk about the need to confess our sins. Sometimes that is painful, embarassing, and humiliating. Sometimes it can cost us freedom and rights. Sometimes it can cost us fame and popularity. Maybe that is where the whole idea of "seek ye first the kingdom of God" takes on a whole different meaning.
I know I probably sound like I am assuming guilt where there has been no judgment of guilt yet. However, I feel like such a thought is left open when we as Christians can't just say "yes" or "no".
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Football on my Mind
Happy New Year! The family and I enjoyed a nice couple of days up in Virginia visiting with family and friends over the New Year holiday. After a couple of days off, I am back at work. However, to be perfectly honest, football is on my mind.
Driving in to work today, I was listening to a sports radio talk show host announce that last night's Sugar Bowl proved that Hawaii had no business being in a BCS bowl. I think, more than anything, last night's game said little about Hawaii and more about how messed up Division 1-A (or whatever they are calling it now) college football's postseason is. If I may:
1) Hawaii finished the regular season 12-0, the only fooball program at this level that can say that. People want to take shots at their schedule because they play in the WAC. Hawaii played 3 bowl teams in their last 4 games of the season - Fresno State, Boise State, and Nevada. Their last game of the season was against Washington, a Pac-10 team. And before anybody yells that scheduling Washington is not necessarily a big deal, please be reminded that Hawaii was originally scheduled to open the season against Michigan, but Michigan backed out of the game to schedule instead ... Appalachian State. My point: Hawaii's schedule is probably the best schedule they could play. Added difficulty: they knew they had to win every game to play in the BCS. One loss, and it was the Hawaii bowl for them. Must be nice for the OSU and LSU of the world to know you can lose 1 ( or 2) and still play for it all.
2) Rather than proving that Hawaii didn't belong, I think last night's game proved what everyone has been saying for weeks: Georgia is playing some of the best football in the country right now. They have been playing lights out for the last month of the season, and one could tell from the emotion and power Georgia displayed last night that the layoff had not hurt them one bit.
3) Did anybody say last year that Ohio State didn't belong in the BCS, let alone the BCS title game because they got blitzed by Florida - a Florida team that, by the way, was a heavy underdog entering the game? No. I do not believe that the results of 1 game (after several weeks of not playing) necessarily defines the quality of a team for 1 season.
4) Was Georgia and Hawaii really the best matchup the BCS could come up with? Besides Georgia, the other team supposedly playing the best football in the country was USC - who, by the way, lit up Illinois yesterday (anybody saying Illinois didn't belong in the BCS? I am. Missouri had the better season by far and deserved far better than the Cotton Bowl). Why were USC and Georgia not playing one another? Can you imagine the attention that kind of matchup would have gotten? That might have overshadowed the national title game. I know the BCS main job is to choose the teams for the national title game, but it is also about money. How much money could have been made, how high a ratings could have been achieved, from a USC-Georgia matchup? And if Illinois had to be in the BCS, wouldn't a Hawaii-Illinois (or Hawaii-Missouri) game have been a better game than either of the two BCS bowls we got yesterday?
My point in all this: Hawaii deserved a chance to play with the big boys. Last night, Georgia proved to be the far superior team, a fact that probably suprises few. However, don't tell me that Hawaii didn't earn the chance to try to prove themselves.
Driving in to work today, I was listening to a sports radio talk show host announce that last night's Sugar Bowl proved that Hawaii had no business being in a BCS bowl. I think, more than anything, last night's game said little about Hawaii and more about how messed up Division 1-A (or whatever they are calling it now) college football's postseason is. If I may:
1) Hawaii finished the regular season 12-0, the only fooball program at this level that can say that. People want to take shots at their schedule because they play in the WAC. Hawaii played 3 bowl teams in their last 4 games of the season - Fresno State, Boise State, and Nevada. Their last game of the season was against Washington, a Pac-10 team. And before anybody yells that scheduling Washington is not necessarily a big deal, please be reminded that Hawaii was originally scheduled to open the season against Michigan, but Michigan backed out of the game to schedule instead ... Appalachian State. My point: Hawaii's schedule is probably the best schedule they could play. Added difficulty: they knew they had to win every game to play in the BCS. One loss, and it was the Hawaii bowl for them. Must be nice for the OSU and LSU of the world to know you can lose 1 ( or 2) and still play for it all.
2) Rather than proving that Hawaii didn't belong, I think last night's game proved what everyone has been saying for weeks: Georgia is playing some of the best football in the country right now. They have been playing lights out for the last month of the season, and one could tell from the emotion and power Georgia displayed last night that the layoff had not hurt them one bit.
3) Did anybody say last year that Ohio State didn't belong in the BCS, let alone the BCS title game because they got blitzed by Florida - a Florida team that, by the way, was a heavy underdog entering the game? No. I do not believe that the results of 1 game (after several weeks of not playing) necessarily defines the quality of a team for 1 season.
4) Was Georgia and Hawaii really the best matchup the BCS could come up with? Besides Georgia, the other team supposedly playing the best football in the country was USC - who, by the way, lit up Illinois yesterday (anybody saying Illinois didn't belong in the BCS? I am. Missouri had the better season by far and deserved far better than the Cotton Bowl). Why were USC and Georgia not playing one another? Can you imagine the attention that kind of matchup would have gotten? That might have overshadowed the national title game. I know the BCS main job is to choose the teams for the national title game, but it is also about money. How much money could have been made, how high a ratings could have been achieved, from a USC-Georgia matchup? And if Illinois had to be in the BCS, wouldn't a Hawaii-Illinois (or Hawaii-Missouri) game have been a better game than either of the two BCS bowls we got yesterday?
My point in all this: Hawaii deserved a chance to play with the big boys. Last night, Georgia proved to be the far superior team, a fact that probably suprises few. However, don't tell me that Hawaii didn't earn the chance to try to prove themselves.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Still Feeling My Way
You know, this blogging this seems so cool. A chance to share thoughts and ideas. A chance for people to interact on different topics. What a neat opportunity.
Now if I only had time ...
In recent weeks, I have started following a variety of blogs that are done by pastors and laypeople alike. While these have been interesting to read, they also have made me feel a bit guilty. Some of these guys are blogging every day, in some cases several times a day. I just don't know if I have the mental energy or the time to do that! However, I do want to take advantage of this opportunity to share ideas and opinions and engage people on a variety of subjects. One of my goals for the new year is to begin to expand this blog and make it a more frequent and (hopefully) more engaging site for people to check out. In the meantime, if you are reading this, please remain patient!
Now if I only had time ...
In recent weeks, I have started following a variety of blogs that are done by pastors and laypeople alike. While these have been interesting to read, they also have made me feel a bit guilty. Some of these guys are blogging every day, in some cases several times a day. I just don't know if I have the mental energy or the time to do that! However, I do want to take advantage of this opportunity to share ideas and opinions and engage people on a variety of subjects. One of my goals for the new year is to begin to expand this blog and make it a more frequent and (hopefully) more engaging site for people to check out. In the meantime, if you are reading this, please remain patient!
Monday, December 10, 2007
1 1/2 Hour Friendships
I attended a seminar on Thursday dealing with spirituality and mental health. One of the interesting observations that the person leading the seminar made is that many churches that say they care for those who are disabled or dealing with mental illness are really caring for them only in the hour and a half that they are at church on Sundays. "The church must do more than provide 1 1/2 hour friendships."
I have been thinking about that ever since I left the seminar. Acts talks about how the early church shared all things in common. That is really about more than just sharing finances and possessions. That is a relationship that cares for people beyond just when they are gathered for worship. Of course, that kind of relationship gets messy because then you have people "all up in your business." At the same time, if those people are true Christian brothers and sisters, they are not being nosy or bossy, but they are pillars of encouragement and support and prayer.
How does a church move beyond being about the 1 1/2 hour friendship?
I have been thinking about that ever since I left the seminar. Acts talks about how the early church shared all things in common. That is really about more than just sharing finances and possessions. That is a relationship that cares for people beyond just when they are gathered for worship. Of course, that kind of relationship gets messy because then you have people "all up in your business." At the same time, if those people are true Christian brothers and sisters, they are not being nosy or bossy, but they are pillars of encouragement and support and prayer.
How does a church move beyond being about the 1 1/2 hour friendship?
Monday, December 3, 2007
Online Advent Devotional
Once again, there is a very good online Advent devotional guide to help you keep Christ at the center of your Christmas holiday. "Following the Star" focuses in on the themes of Hope, Peace, Love, Joy, and Christmastide. The devotions went online yesterday and will take you all the way through January 6. Several folks have used these devotions in the last few years and found great meaning in them. You can find the devotions at www.followingthestar.org. Hope you enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)