Category Archives: Culture

COVID-19: Loving Through Confusion

Posted on by
Reply

Why COVID-19 news can drive people bonkers: You read one thing one place and another thing elsewhere. Notice below how one title suggests contemplation (“should you” and “suggest”) while the other strikes more concern (“recommended” and “high”). Further notice the timing of the article, where a question is asked after statement was made earlier in the day.

Part of the problem is “framing” or how the information is set. Here we have a prime example of this: same source, same author, same day — and yet, a reader might get different impressions from both.

In short, the recommendations remain the same: If you’re immunocompromised, living with someone who is immunocompromised, are mature in years, or have any other risk factor, it’s better to be safe than not — particularly in large groups and dining situations.

Messaging has been boggled (and reframed) so many times that any news these days can be confusing, especially since a plateau of cases can mean the media reshaping rather than reporting. Thus, you’re at the mercy of whatever perspective or “angle” is being used.

The positive is that this explains why well-meaning people can have such divergent views. If you’ve seen one source and someone else sees another, it’s no wonder why there remains confusion. (In fact, some will agree or disagree with either one of the examples provided here.)

Of course, the best solution for your personal health is ask a professional (your doctor) what is best for you and your family, rather than perusing the internet. But even more important is to continue living according to love: caring for others, even forgiving and blessing those of divergent views, and seeking the good of one another.

After all, according to Jesus, the second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor, often at your own expense, even when you disagree.

Complexity in Esther

Posted on by
Reply

As you interpret Esther as a biblical character, let me encourage you to embrace complexity. Good narratives focus on dynamic characters, and scripture is replete with complex, multi-layered narratives. Rather than thinking in black and white, I’d encourage you to think in terms of layers. In short, characters can have layers of strength, layers of weakness, and layers in between.

(Note: I am not saying to reject binaries or absolutes; what I am saying is that literature invites us into deep, holistic, and rich readings—especially in regards to characters.)

Thus, rather than labelling Esther as “good” or “bad”—or “faithful” vs. “unfaithful”—we see displayed in Esther the full human condition. As many have mentioned previously, Esther was not perfect, and as New Testament readers, we know that “all fall short” of perfection. Perhaps some of her early actions could have been rejected, similar to how Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego took a stand in the face of danger. It’s often pointed out that she could be more brave or more faithful.  

That being said, we need to be very careful about if/how we label her. Ultimately, it’s not our job to “judge” Esther, and really, her spiritual status is not the main point of the story. (In other words, people can have different views of Esther and still reach the same conclusions about the overall narrative.) Esther is complex, like all of us are, so labelling her as “all good” or “all bad” isn’t very helpful. Perhaps she willingly went along at times, but perhaps not; she could have hated her actions and the situation. To be frank, the narrative leaves some of that unknown, but just as you and I are “mixed bags”—within our collection of good gems we have some stones—so does Esther demonstrate the complexity of the human condition.

I point this out because we do not want to demonize Esther, as if she were a horrible Jew. As presented in the story, she is certainly not a villain, but a victim. She is held prisoner and has very few choices in front of her. (As my wife points out, Esther is portrayed as a “passive” character early in the narrative, while the men are the primary actors.) Again, she could have rejected the king, but very few would ever make that choice, given an impending death sentence. Especially due to the power imbalance—a king over a servant—it should be clear that she was objectified and used by the king. (A parallel is how King David misused his power over Bathsheba; he did not romance her, but abused her, prior to killing her husband.) Even though Esther is eventually “blessed,” the ends do not justify the means—so we can acknowledge that both victimization and elevation occur. 

Thus, when the text says that the King was “pleased,” it does not mean that Esther fully embraced the role. Nothing in the text suggests that Esther enjoyed being in that position, so we don’t want to see Esther as “sinning” or being unfaithful in that situation. Even the preparation ahead of time does not mean she fully embraced the role, since she likely felt surrounded and stuck. Again, some aspects are unknown, but the silence raises a crucial point: it would be presumptive to say Esther sinned when the king took her, since as most ethicists would point out, immorality involves (unforced) personal will—not legitimate, threatening coercion from another, especially not by a person of power. (Note: Ethicists debate how much will is needed in the face of such coercion, such in as the infamous Patty Hearst case, so that could be debated.)

To state the issue more directly: In cases of sexual abuse, as well as potential cases being investigated, outsiders should focus on facts. We must be extremely cautious when assessing inner thoughts and motives of victims, since horrifically, it’s far too common for people to blame or shame victims. We should not presume anything. To use the parallel example of Bathsheba, rather than guess at her motives and blame or shame her, since the data is extremely limited, the focus should be on David’s atrocious behavior. Due to the incredible imbalance of power, regardless of anyone else’s actions, David wildly abused his position.

Literature commonly features “flawed protagonists,” since no one is perfect. Thus, regardless of the fine details (such as her motive or inner thoughts), we can embrace Esther as a “hero”—especially since other biblical heroes (e.g., Moses, David, Peter, Paul) acted far, far worse. I hope we don’t get “lost in the weeds” when debating Esther as an individual, since the author’s main focus is the overall success of the Jews, as enabled by God. Most importantly, no matter how we interpret Esther as a character, and no matter how many outstanding questions remain, what is certain is that God is the ultimate hero in this story. 

All People, Unlimited Peace.

Posted on by
Reply

I normally take a slower approach to sociopolitical issues, but seeing where this seems to be headed, I’ll state this sooner rather than later for my Christian friends:

God cares for all people, from all ethnicities, which means He shows no partiality between Jews, Arabs, or the broader world (Rom. 2:11).

Further, even though Jerusalem and Israel plays a central part in the historical narrative, God has always cared more about people than geography and landmarks — notably, Christ Himself (the Temple) endured physical destruction to save not a symbol or a city but people (John 2:19).

I say that so we pray for peace and seek human rights, for all people, and that we are not swayed by the media to skew/prefer one group over the other. All people groups are loved, in the fullest sense, by our loving Father (John 3:16).

Some may say that Jerusalem plays a role in the end times (as that’s a common evangelical belief), but even if that position is taken, no one knows the day or the hour — so in the meantime, we pray for peace, not for a single side but for all, and God will determine the end as He decrees (Matt. 24:36).

RESPONSE to Defiant Churches

Posted on by
Reply

To Churches Defying Medical & Political Leaders,


Christians should be leading the way in terms of loving neighbors and exercising wisdom. Now that children and 30-50 year olds are known to be dying, there is no “safe” group per se. With that in mind, our witness can be damaged if we value ritual (even good rituals!) more than the innocent — as argued repeatedly in the OT prophetic texts. 


The argument often goes that retail stores being open and churches being closed does not make sense. Agreed. It’s ridiculous to have people crammed into a store. I’ve heard multiple stories of people being coughed on while shopping. The answer is not to carelessly fling open the doors, but to be cautious with both.  


My proposal is that Christians use this time to be more creative in both living and loving.  How can we connect and care in new ways? At certain times in history, Christians have led the way in creativity. May this be one of those times.  


We need not gather in groups of 50+ to worship; after all, there are many house and underground churches around the world, and Christianity has flourished. Insisting on large gatherings neglects how God often moves in other contexts.  


Sadly, as Americans, possibly we are too connected to our productions than to the gospel itself. Worship and Word (and sometimes sacraments, depending on church polity) can be practiced in smaller contexts/groups. Until we can safely meet again, let us gather together in spirit — knowing that it is ultimately Christ, not physical proximity, that unites us.

Love, Liberty, & Caution: Why Jesus Would Wear A Mask

Posted on by
Reply

What’s most surprising right now is not the anti-science views circulating around the internet, but the callousness. There’s lots of debate, but less concern for the sick and the susceptible. All who fight for the “freedom” to not wear a mask overlook that the reason to wear a mask is for another person’s good, not their own.

Good citizens, and especially people of faith, should always prioritize love over liberty — even if that means personal inconvenience for a short period of time. All of us should be limiting personal travel, fashion, and preferences for the sake of others.  But if you doubt the WHO, doctors, government, or anyone else, show compassion out of caution, if for no other reason. (Note: Some cannot stay home for a variety of reasons, so “inconvenience” does not apply to those cases.)

If general caution isn’t enough, consider Christ — who surrendered some of his liberty, at least temporarily while nailed to a cross, for the safety of the masses. At the very least, even if you doubt scientists, ask yourself, “What would Jesus do if evidence or data were limited?” Would he insist on his legal rights, possibly endangering others in a reckless manner? Or would he be cautious, for a temporary period, until more was known?  In short, was Jesus more concerned with love for others or his own personal liberty?

If I know anything about Jesus and how he’d act during this pandemic, it’s this: If Jesus would die on a cross for you, he would also wear a mask for you.  He would do everything within his power to protect your well-being — not merely healing the sick, but protecting from future harm (“go in peace,” Lu. 14:48).

Remember how we used to mourn over 10-20 people injured in an accident or killed in terrorist event? Now, many Americans want to move on — even though over 50,000 have died, greater than the entire death toll of Vietnam. As Americans, maybe the tragedy here is not our lack of intellect, but our lack of heart. If we cannot sense the world like Jesus does, then we cannot possibly care for those who need us most — namely, the weak, the sorrowful, the homeless, the outcast, and the poor.

Most of us, including myself, need to lament and feel more. Rejuvenating an economy before resuscitating our hearts will do more harm than good. And without sorrow, we are bound to become worse people than we were before this tragedy.

May God help us all.

COVID-19, Planning, & Jesus

Posted on by
Reply

As I observe dozens of Christians pondering what to do this weekend, I can’t help but ask:

What would Jesus do?

 

My guess is that Jesus would be out picking grain and delivering it to the needy — just like David took temple bread to feed the hungry. Both knew that life mattered more than tradition.

 

The Sabbath, as I’m still learning, is not about law but healing. In contradiction to natural inclinations, the Sabbath is a divine gift, not a human liability. In that spirit, both Jesus and David “broke the norm” for the greater good — i.e., countering customs in preference for human well-being.

 

What does that mean for us today? Of course, it can be difficult to apply bread metaphors to our modern context. At a bare minimum, though, Jesus teaches us to think creatively — even risking personal religious “status” — to help those in need.

 

In no way did David or Jesus diminish the unique and necessary community that we experience in church, school, family, and work. In usual circumstances, far too many people miss out on community, and my heart especially goes out to those who don’t have a church community during a crisis like this.

 

At the same time, to my fellow Christians, this isn’t a time to judge individual faith commitments, to mock people’s worries, or to critique other churches, but to foster life and restoration. After all, that’s what Jesus would do.

 

Also, if you’re over 60 or have young children, we understand if you won’t attend church. Don’t worry about being judged. We know this is a frightening time, and if you need any supplies, let us know. We’ll do our best to help.

 

Mark 2:23-28 (NLT)

One Sabbath day, as Jesus was walking through some grainfields, his disciples began breaking off heads of grain to eat. But the Pharisees said to Jesus, “Look, why are they breaking the law by harvesting grain on the Sabbath?”

Jesus said to them, “Haven’t you ever read in the Scriptures what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He went into the house of God (during the days when Abiathar was high priest) and broke the law by eating the sacred loaves of bread that only the priests are allowed to eat. He also gave some to his companions.”

Then Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made to meet the needs of people, and not people to meet the requirements of the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord, even over the Sabbath!”

House Bill 2495 – Illinois’ Reproductive Health Act

Posted on by
1

Illinois is currently attempting to pass expansive changes to reproductive law (House Bill 2495) — considered to be more extreme than what New York recently passed.

 

Without delving into political talking points, there are several reasons for both Democrats and Republicans to be concerned:

 

The new law states that the unborn do “not have independent rights under the laws of this State.” With no rights prior to birth, the legislation repeals partial-birth abortion, which basically means that the unborn can be aborted while in the process (thus “partial”) of birth. Without even considering possible pain for the fetus, basic intuition seems to suggest that such late-term practices should not be commonly practiced — and it does not require much effort to imagine how such a practice could be abused and misused. (Note: If need be, you can research the practice for yourself, but I will not post grotesque photos, since we can think about this reasonably, without the need of frightening images.)

 

Additionally, nurse practioners would be allowed to perform abortions, which for most of us should raise health and safety concerns. With matters of life and death (for both the fetus and the mother), it seems like we would want stricter, not looser, laws on who should be involved. Thus, whether we are pro-choice or pro-life, hopefully we can all agree on the need to protect women.

 

Thirdly, under the proposed law, husbands are said to have no rights in the decision, as they are essentially reduced from fathers to biological donors. Of course, safety restraints could be put in place for harmful men, but this law does not do that. In short, it is important to embrace women’s rights, while not at the same time not removing husband’s rights. With careful thought and dialogue, we can value both women and men.

 

Maybe the main problem, however, is the law’s internal contradiction. The irony is that it is a felony for a person to kill an unborn child — except if that person is a parent. Of course, this reveals a double standard within the law. If the unborn do not have rights (meaning no life or personhood), then it seems nonsensical to call it a felony for one party and not another. The unborn either have rights or not; legislators cannot have it both ways.

 

Regardless of your political party, the law goes too far in expanding these practices. In order to protect all involved parties — the unborn from partial-birth abortions, women from dangerous practices, and husbands from losing parental rights — urge your state representatives not to pass House Bill 2495.

 

Find your rep. here: https://www.commoncause.org/find-your-representative/addr/

 

[I won’t be able to moderate all comments, but replies that enflame others will be deleted.]

Protesting & Mullets

Posted on by
Reply

“Patriotism takes many forms, including teaching, transforming, and even protesting.”

– Bob Costas

To state Bob Costas’ point another way:  Seeking change (e.g., a wife protesting her husband’s appearance and requesting he cut his hair) is not equivalent to disowning what needs to be changed (the husband).

Although the man might *feel* rejected, she remains by his side — even when he delays and part of him looks disgusting. Patiently, she dissents, but does not betray.

As much as the husband might love his mane or his mullet, her voice matters. In fact — especially in the case of mullets — for the good of society, she has an obligation to object.

#listentoher

Women in The Book of Esther

Posted on by
Reply

We live in an exciting era of women’s rights.  In the past century, women have fought for the right to vote, to be heard, and to be respected.  We see this in a wide variety of expressions from marches to the #MeToo movement and beyond.  Sometimes we take this for granted, but in comparison to how women how have been treated throughout history, this is an amazing era.

Christians face women’s rights in many places, including the first few chapters of Esther.  Here’s a question to help prompt that further:

What do you think of Vashti’s response to King Xerxes?  Was it a proper or improper response?  Why do you think so?

But beyond that, there’s an even bigger question.  As readers of the entire biblical canon, we know that God is sovereignly working “behind the scenes” for the sake of His remnant.  Keeping that in mind, based on your answer to the above questions:

What does that say about God?  Why?

Of course, once we answer those questions, we should immediately consider how we should respond.  God’s view of women and His protection of Esther should not be overlooked, but deeply considered.  How should we view and treat women in this progressive era, and how are Christian human rights unique, in comparison to secular perspectives of human rights?  As Christians, we are obligated to consider these tough questions.

 

(image by Edwin Longsden Long, 1829-1981)

Equal Employment: A Work of the People

Posted on by
Reply

It grates me when the President repeatedly takes credit for the rise of black employment (or the decrease of black unemployment).

 

First, individuals earn and keep their own jobs, so first and foremost, those specific individuals deserve the credit. We should be celebrating those individuals more than the President.  We should be congratulating them and directing the focus to them.

 

Second, companies are the ones employ, so they also deserve more credit than the President. Fortune Magazine highlighted some of these diversely-hiring companies, which include Comcast, Hyatt, T-Mobile, Capital One, and Delta Airlines. Republicans who believe in a free market should be praising these companies more than the government.

 

Third, economic policy in the past year has not targeted particular races, so any credit claimed should be general, not racially focused. Repeating employment statistics of a particular race politicizes the issue, which only detracts from a people group’s well-earned success.

Reasons to Welcome, Not Ban

Posted on by
Reply
 

25 Reasons Why Christians Should Welcome (Not Ban) Immigrants & Refugees

  1. God cares for all people, not just those inside a particular national border.
  2. As Christians, global citizenship trumps national citizenship.
  3. Christianity affirms that all people have the same value, regardless of their current religion, since all of creation comes from God.
  4. The Good Samaritan story includes ethnic dimensions: (1) those outside of your ethnicity may surprise you with kindness, and (2) our neighbors include those of other ethnicities.
  5. The Golden Rule requires it: treat others as you would like to be treated.  (If you were endangered, you would want someone to help you.)
  6. Personal safety is not the ultimate ethic for Christians, while love is.
  7. Political policies are not divinely insprired and often contradict God’s call for justice.
  8. Political policies should never be superior to Christ’s commandments.
  9. “Love your neighbor” is not limited by a country’s border and includes those from other countries.
  10. Hospitality is an important motif throughout the Bible (e.g., Abraham welcoming the sojourners, Jews welcoming and not welcoming Jesus, the Apostles welcoming Paul, etc.)
  11. “Love your enemies, bless those who persecute you” includes atheists and those of other religions.
  12. Religious litmus tests may increase personal safety, while hindering the spread of the gospel.
  13. Religious litmus tests are inaccurate; after all, some people within our own churches are “faking it” for one reason or another.
  14. Religious litmus tests work against the gospel, since at one point, you yourself were not a Christian; being banned by Christians would have turned you away from, not towards, the faith.
  15. Welcoming other religions to your country offers an opportunity for mission without ever leaving your homeland.
  16. Ignoring human rights issues for the sake of personal safety merely perpetuates the problem.
  17. Love always involves some degree of risk, so risk itself is not an excuse not to love.
  18. The innocent, such as children, should not be slaughtered with the guilty.
  19. Abraham was a sojourning immigrant (in Egypt).
  20. Joseph was an enslaved immigrant (to Egypt).
  21. Israel as a nation was an immigrant (in Egypt), poorly mistreated yet protected and rescued by Yahweh.
  22. Moses was a refugee and immigrant (in Egypt).
  23. Jesus was a refugee (in Egypt).
  24. In the Bible, marked by the recurrence of Egypt, the necessity of immigration and the importance of hospitality cannot be ignored.  (Lev. 19:33-34)
  25. Jesus sacrificed His personal safety for the betterment of others, including those outside (Gentiles) of His own ethnicity (Jewish).

The “Rightness” of Sports

Posted on by
Reply

Play the game right.  We all agree on that.

 

But what does it mean to play the “right” way anyways?

 

We face a dilemma when a player is expected to win — and then that same player departs to a better team to win.  Most recently, people across the country felt outrage when Kevin Durant left Oklahoma City for Golden State, a move that inspired feelings of anger, distrust, and envy.  But why?

 

And then we cheer for losers and underdogs. Whether an elderly Kobe, a cheap Dirk, a non-jumping Duncan, or a booed Porziņģis — we want athletes not to take shortcuts, but to win the right way.  We prefer the “good” storyline rather than the bad one, and we turn on players who sign for money or who team up with other superstars.

 

As crazy as it sounds, we recognize that faithfulness counts in sports — maybe even as much as winning does.  If we’re honest, we know that our team might not win in the end, so at the very least, we want players to stick together and to stay with us.  We want players to be as faithful to us as we are to them.  For after all, the average fan would rather lose with loveables than win with thugs.

 

Whatever side we take, Durant’s choices demonstrate that ethical obligations do not exclude sports.  Old-fashioned ideals such as faithfulness, trustworthiness, and kindness apply to professional athletes, just as to everyone else.  At the end of the day, fans want athletes to represent them not only in terms of geography, but in terms of character.

 

In the eyes of loyal fans, Kevin Durant broke a promise. And that is what fans despise the most.  Win or lose, no one wants to be betrayed, and no one wants to be left behind.  That’s not to say that Durant did in fact break a promise; after all, he fulfilled his contract, and he has the legal right to move on.  But to many basketball fans, what matters is that it felt like a broken promise.

 

End results only matter for so much. Veteran fans know that championships are few and far between.  As decades pass, we learn that “doing things right” involves more than winning.  When we look to the courts and fields, we hope our athletes represent our ideals, not merely add numbers to a scoreboard.  As fans, we can still cheer after losses, as long as we believe in the character of our athletes.

 

More than anything else, sports of an insight into passion, drive, and character.  No matter how bad a team may be, we are drawn to cheer for athletes who battle despite the odds — for those who fight on behalf of the people who love them.  And that is how you do things right.

 

Synthesizer & Spirit

Posted on by
Reply

In response to Bob Kauflin’s recent post about synthesizers in worship, I agree with much of what he says (nearly everything), including the call for silence, variety, and Spirit dependence. Those are crucially important points, and I couldn’t agree more.

 

In my perspective, some further nuancing might be helpful in the article. Of course, the Spirit can work through physical means — just as He can work through other means. After all, we are embodied beings and certain sound waves affect us in different ways.

 

Too much cowbell would make us laugh. There’s nothing inherently spiritual or anti-spiritual about a cowbell, but culturally, we’ve associated cowbell with humor (e.g., SNL). Likewise, loud kick drum tends to be associated with dancing (or for others, headaches). These associations in themselves are not wrong.

 

As far as ambient pads go, in much of Western culture, that particular sound has been associated with contemplation, peace, and spirit. Like the sounds mentioned above, there is nothing moral or amoral about that in itself. In fact, synth sounds are used in contexts outside of worship (such as commercials) to communicate these same ideas.

 

For that reason, rather than comparing ambient pads to manipulation, I would compare it to the use of language. If culture uses certain metaphors (whether linguistic or not), then those metaphors can serve as vehicles of communication.

 

Again, I think Bob is awesome (a role model and a favorite!), and I agree with so much in his post. In my view, however, a bit more nuancing would be helpful, particularly some of the positive uses and/or more emphasis upon the fact that the Spirit not only uses spiritual means, but natural means. The Spirit’s activity is above and beyond our physical processes, of course, but neither is He absent from those processes.

Literature and Preaching

Posted on by
Reply

One of my former students at Moody Bible Institute recently asked me how reading literature can improve preaching.  More specifically, the student recognized the importance of reading, but was not sure where to begin. This was my brief response in case it is helpful to anyone else with a similar question.

——————————————-

Great question and thanks for asking.

In general, I would say a mixture of different kinds of literature would be good. Maybe pick up an anthology of poetry, an anthology of short stories, along with a classic novel. (For example, check out Best American Short Stories or something like Good Poems from Garrison Keillor.) In addition to being enjoyable in their own right (which is important to keep in mind), here are some ways that the different kinds of literature can help with preaching:

  • Poetry can help develop your vocabulary, your use of imagery, and your sense of rhythm and sound.
  • Short stories can show you how to concisely develop a narrative. (Sermon illustrations usually need to be shorter than short stories, but the principles are similar.)
  • Novels can help you notice and develop major themes and motifs, as well as show how to develop characters within narrative preaching.

 

Mostly focus on the classics and/or contemporary authors recognized in literary journals. However, also keep in mind some more popular works (something that I don’t do as much as I should), but keep in mind that people in church are reading things like The Shack or Harry Potter, so it can be helpful to know what they are reading. Those are not always the best books ever written, but they can help you contextualize. They resonate with people for a reason, so it can be good to figure out why that is the case.

In regards to poetry, I would recommend people like Wendell Berry, Scott Cairns, and Billy Collins. Watch out for bad contemporary poetry. You might also check out Upholding Mystery: An Anthology of Chrisitan Poetry. You may not agree the theology of every single poem, but it offers a lot to think about, and that can be worthwhile.

 

 

Love in Victory & Defeat

Posted on by
Reply

Christians, love in victory and in defeat.

When looking at situations throughout history and around the world, we know that Christians are not defeated by governments or political movements. Christians are not defeated by fire (Nero), policy (Mao Zedong), poverty (Indian castes), expulsion (Columbian tribes), terrorism (al-Shabaab), kindnappings (Boko Haram), or beheadings (ISIS). Oddly enough, Christians are not even defeated by crucifixion.

Even still, if you feel defeated by recent events, keep in mind that in every situation (not only situations of our choosing), Christ taught us to love God and to love our neighbors. Those are not conditional, but unconditional commandments — and are even more applicable in times of uncertainty, challenge, and confusion. So no matter how you feel, remember that we serve a resurrected King, and in His Kingdom, true love never waivers.

The Community of Church

Posted on by
Reply

One of the often neglected benefits of the Church is her people.

We tend to see the worst of Christians in movies and sitcoms, but of the hundreds of Christians I am blessed to know, I am continually amazed by the compassion that I find. Take a bunch of sinners, put them in a room together, and you’ll be amazed by what God can do with them.

As I reflect upon the church, it is saddening that people live without it — not merely the experience of worshiping a Holy God, but the experience of knowing His people. And I’m not just talking about people to hang with, but people to hurt with — people who will shelter, feed, and comfort in the midst of life’s worst moments. After all, the church is not a building of wood or stone, but a people of flesh and blood.

If you haven’t experienced the life within a church, or if it’s been a while, send me a message. I’d be glad to help you find a local church in your area.

#GiveChurchAChance
#BeTheChurch

6 Reasons Why Pete Carroll Made the Right Call

Posted on by
Reply

I’m not a football expert. My only play calling happens in Madden football, but here are six reasons why Pete Carroll made the right call:

1. During the 2014-15 season, Marshawn Lynch was only 1 for 5 in TD runs from the one yard line. Lynch was more likely to fail than succeed.

2. Seattle wasted a timeout early, which meant that they would have needed to pass at least once in that four-down sequence. Passing early in the sequence early could have surprised the defense.

3. Vince Wilfork, at 325 pounds and a five-time All Pro, made running up the gut risky. Failing on 2nd down run would force a timeout and a pass on 3rd down to stop the clock (to ensure the possibility of four downs). This would set up the defense on 3rd down to defend the pass.

4. Out of 109 passes from the 1-yard line in the 2014-15 season, there 66 touchdowns and only 1 interception (the one by Butler in the Super Bowl). Passing meant more than a 60% chance of success, compared to only 20% with Lynch running the ball.

5. A “wasted play” increased the chance of keeping Brady off the field. Because the Patriots did not take a timeout, the wasted play needed to be a pass because the Seahawks only had one timeout. Running out of time was still a concern.
6. A pick and slant is a very safe play; there is little risk of a sack and wasting more clock. Only a magical play could stop the Seahawks. Butler did what less than 1% of other players have done this season.

Criticizing Pete Carroll, in retrospect, only undermines the incredible play made by Malcolm Butler. Fewer plays are more impressive, and play call criticism distracts from an unforgettable moment in NFL history.

Stats source: http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/102175/inside-seattles-decision-to-pass-from-the-1

Re: #deflategate

Posted on by
1

I’m struck that commentators still fail to add a disclaimer — distinguishing between news and speculation. The real story here is us — namely, the nature of poor news coverage and the desire to skewer someone as soon as possible.

Whether this was accidental, willful ignorance, or purposeful, we as the public simply don’t know. In any case, there are far more possibilities than commentators would have us think.
My guess, and only a guess, is simply that no one checked the air pressure at all — just like we don’t empirically test balls in other sports.

Many merely assumed that everything was okay. If that’s the case, then ethically, negligence has always been considered a lesser offense than conspiracy.

There was a safe assumption (because few honestly cared), and according to Brady, the balls were randomly selected out of a bag. This process was described by Drew Bledsoe (Brady’s predecessor and former rival) during an interview today, and there’d be no reason to stop this process of random selection. The QB reaches in a bag and selects the ones he likes; no NFL quarterback has an air pressure gauge in his back pocket to test each football. He assumes.

Again, that’s not to excuse anyone — merely to remind us that the media is not exactly known for being perfect. In the meantime, we might guess, but we should hold back judgment. Maybe my guess is way off, but at least I label it as a guess. We should demand that reporters do the same.

Brady & Belichick

Posted on by
Reply

Regarding Brady and Belichick, my thought is that they were “willfully ignorant.” That still leaves them culpable to some degree, of course, but it allows them to honestly say that “I did not know.” For some reason, the reporters did not push that point harder. The “process” of preparing the footballs was still quite vague, even at the end of the press conference.

Brady said he selected the footballs out of a grouping. Of course, he’s not testing PSI (no one would expect that), but if there were 20 footballs, he could easily select the 12.5, 12.0, 11.5, or 11.0 ones. He would “not know” in a sense; he just knew that he selected ones that felt right. After months, the ball boy would never need to be told; he would simply know that deflated ones made his boss happy. It would seem that strange number — 11 out of 12 — would confirm this. No one was explicitly told to deflate them, but by “defined chance,” Brady happened to select the lower PSI balls from the group.

Brady may have been honest during the press conference. After all, he played better in the second half with the inflated balls, so maybe he didn’t notice during the activity of the game. I would normally be suspicious, but if the referees did not notice, then the difference is pretty subtle. He may have planned his willful ignorance before the game, but really, no one pressed him about that.

I’m surprised the referees haven’t been grilled more. It’d probably be too risky to deflate them on the sidelines, so my guess is that the “football checker” was also negligent. But who could blame him? It’s such an unexpected thing to happen that he probably just checked them by hand.

That’s a lot of speculation, but willful ignorance is a way to “tell the truth” and “ignorantly” cross the line.

Lessons from 370

Posted on by
Reply

In the aftermath of the Flight 370 crash, news outlets and culture at large have been captivated by the story.  Given the rapid developments of world news and the short attention span of 24-7 news channels, it is all the more surprising that channels like CNN have focused (roughly 90-95%) on this story for roughly three weeks.  Meanwhile, discussions regarding Russia and Crimea were mentioned for “just a second” (in the words of one CNN anchor) prior to returning back to Flight 370.

In light of this immense amount of attention, we can draw some observations that teach us about humanity.  What follows are several reasons why this story has been so captivating:

 

  • We wonder about the future. Many of us fly, and we worry about our safety.  We are partly captivated for selfish reasons — evident by the fact that most of our attention has been on the plane rather than the victims.  This is most evident when news anchors use the word “exciting” when describing finding debris and/or wreckage.

 

  • We recognize (yet doubt) the limitations of technology.  Part of our fascination results from the disbelief that cell phones, satellites, and radar cannot give us an immediate answer.  We find it hard to believe that part of the world is beyond our knowledge.

 

  • We feel loss with fellow human beings.  Despite the fact that we probably do not know anyone on board, we sympathize with those who are hurting.  Seeing family members wail over their loved ones resonates deep within us.

 

  • We believe that humanity will rise.  People want a resolution (e.g., finding debris being called “hope”) to be assured that humanity will overcome our pain and our ignorance.  We may have lost 239 lives, but our investigation may save hundreds of lives in the future.