Monday, December 29, 2008

National Association of Evangelicals: What is the point?

Recently the National Association of Evangelicals fired Richard Cizik who served as Vice President. The NAE did this because they no longer trusted Cizik to speak for them because of his advocacy of Global Warming and he seems to support government distribution of contraception as well as personally supporting Civil Unions and probably even gay marriage (what else does saying I do not “officially” support gay marriage mean?).

John Armstrong has a nice series of articles about this firing, but I think he stops short of where he should. Armstrong places the blame on the make up of the NAE a “mostly white, male and aging” group. That may be true but I do not think that is the real problem. He dislikes the older way of doing “kingdom business” and prays that it will “die off” sooner rather than later. Armstrong fails to give a new way of doing kingdom business. Clearly Armstrong dislikes the influence of James Dobson and some other in the NAE, and would rather see Cizik lead the group. Potentially because Cizik could reach those younger evangelicals that care about Greenland becoming too green and not icy enough. But is that really the problem?

I think the more basic problem is that the NAE is worthless and always has been. It has over 50 denominations as member denominations, but why? Why on earth is the PCA a part of NAE? What exactly does the PCA have in common with the Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church or the Wesleyan Church? I understand that churches should engage the culture and be active, but is becoming a glorified lobbying group the answer? That worked well for a few years when all the denominations agreed on those hot button issues, but new issues have come up such as global warming and gay marriage and certain denominations have declined in moral values and no consensus can be reached. Thus this group, the NAE, runs around Washington representing “evangelicals” and throws its political weight around like any good lobbiest does. It also manages to have internal scandals such as the Cizik affair or more prominently the Ted Haggart disaster. Haggart was caught with a male prostitute buying drugs, and then outright lied about it on TV. This man was the President of the NAE. The face of “evangelicalism”. Is it any wonder why young people hate the name “evangelical”? It is a K-Street lobbying group that has outright hypocrites leading it.

When Armstrong says he is ready for the old way of doing business to go away, I can’t agree more. However, he means detaching from the Republicans and starting to engage young people by talking about the issues they care about. I mean something else completely. I mean getting rid of the political tools and getting back to basics. Preach the gospel. Teach the gospel. Live the gospel. It is that simply.

Thursday, December 25, 2008

Christmas wishes

Merry Christmas. I just wanted wish everyone a blessed day. It is good to have a day to stop and remember the miracle of Christmas: that God took flesh in order to save his lost sheep. Clearly a day of celebration. You all have my permission to feast without remorse.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Political Hate turned Violent

Just in case you think that there is not a growing hatred of Christians in this country, you may want to check out this small story. They just burned down Governor Palin’s church in Alaska. She received a lot of attention during the campaign most for her being dispensational and charismatic, which I have little sympathy for, but at least it was not a church spouting hate for white people and conspiracy theories about everything from 9-11 to AIDS. However, criticizing that church is racist, so I should stop.

It is just a sad commentary on today’s political climate.

Saturday, December 06, 2008

Just a few notes about sports

First the BCS. Everyone is complaining about the BCS. They all want an 8-team playoff so that Texas and Oklahoma can both get in. Even the President Elect weighed in for no real reason. The problem is that it solves nothing. An 8-team playoff still leaves out undefeated (one of only two teams) Boise St. Don’t forget that Boise St. defeated PAC-10 runner up Oregon St during the year. Utah, who will make the BCS, but not be allowed in a championship game despite being the only undefeated team in the BCS, also will get messed over. All the system did this year was prove that minor conference teams, even when they beat big conference teams, will not get a shot at the title. The problem is not that it is not a playoff. The problem is that it is completely based on subjectivity. The only fair way to do it is let all the conference champs play. And I mean all of them. Remember that ECU defeated Virginia Tech and West Virginia this year on their way to winning the Conference USA title. They fell out of the top 25 when they lost a couple of games. But, they are healthy now and probably could win at a lot of games in a playoff format. They did lose 13 starters this year and have started 44 different people. Of course Boise deserves a chance. Utah too. Until the BCS goes away it will only serve to oppress the smaller market schools even though they have better teams.

Second, the Hall of Fame of Baseball is being discussed a lot. Greg Maddox retired and is a first ballot Hall of Famer. I agree with that. However, people said the same thing about Mike Mussina. Let us examine that claim.

Player #1 Wins 270 Losses 153. Complete Games 57. Shut Outs 23. ERA 3.68. Post Season 7-7. Strike Outs 2813.
Player #2 Wins 287. Losses 250. Complete Games 242. Shut Outs 60.
ERA 3.31. Post Season 4-1. Strike Outs 3701.

Which one do you think is a first ballot Hall of Famer? I will give you a hint. The other one is not in the Hall of Fame after 13 years of balloting. Player #1 is Mike Mussina. Player #2 is Bert Blyleven. Blyleven has a better ERA, more strike outs, a better post season winning percentage including being undefeated in World Series play. He has more wins and more complete games. Now Bert did play three more years, but that is not too much. Mike would probably have more wins than Bert if they played the same number of years, but nothing else. Mike does not have a world series ring, Bert has two. Mike has more post season games because of the extra round of games. Bert also pitched a lot of time in the National League where it is harder to get complete games, and he has to bat. How can anyone argue for Mussina and not Blyleven? I am not sure. It just goes to show you. Modern Sports writers and ESPN losers no very little about baseball.