A Homerun

That's what the hiring of Nick Saban is for Alabama. He will establish the discipline that Shula never could. He will recruit the level of talent we haven't seen in Tuscaloosa in about 15 years. And he will win.

Is 4 million dollars a year too much to pay a coach? No. It is an investment, because a coach like Saban will bring in more than 10 times that amount in revenue.

Saban will truly bring Alabama Football back. Roll Tide Roll!

The Adorable Miss Nichols

She's So Stinkin' Hot

I'm here to confess that I have a devilish lust over ESPN's Rachel Nichols. Whenever I happen to be watching SportsCenter & one of the anchors goes out to Nichols on location, I can't turn away. I'm captivated by her appearance. My eyes lock on the TV screen & I'm not sure I even blink for the entire amount of time her image graces the screen. It's her luscious lips. It's that cute button nose. It's the "come hither" look she's always giving the camera. Perhaps more than anything: it's that mesmerizingly gorgeous red hair. It's perfect! I'm sure that she dyes it & uses a ton of hair spray (never a hair out of place), but it is still a sight to see.

There have been some other "sports hotties" over the years. When I was in college, I heard guys go ga-ga over women like Melissa Stark or Jill Arrington. Even a "strug-a-ling" Joe Willie Namath wanted to lock lips with Suzie Kolber once on-air. Still, none of them wielded the same kind of power over my attention-span as does Rachel Nichols.

Am I the only red-blooded man who enjoys watching this red-headed bombshell?

Coolest Christmas Lights Ever

What would my viral video collection be without THIS masterpiece?!

Science Speaks on Santa

I don't intend to do here what this foolish preacher did, nor what was done to me by a Sunday School Teacher at the age of 5. Right before Christmas in 1985, my Sunday School Teacher told me & the rest of our class that there was NO Santa Claus. I was shocked. I didn't ask Dad, who took me to the Church of Christ (or, in this case, church of Christ). But when I got home, I asked my mother if there was a Santa Claus. I drilled her & drilled her & finally told her what I had heard. She confessed that there was no Santa -- there was no arguing with me at that point.

And so while I was one of the cool kids who knew at an earlier age that there was no Santa while other foolish younglings around me still believed, a beloved part of parenthood senselessly was stolen from my mother. In fact, she told me a month ago that she still resents that woman TO THIS DAY. Alas it is one of the things my mother continues to hate about Churches (or "churches" ... whatever) of Christ.

Nevertheless, I didn't intend to make you sad or to drudge up some story to show you my childhood scars. I've always enjoyed this E-mail that is sent out around Christmas time. Make sure you stick with it until the end. Hillarious.

Is there a Santa Claus? - A Physicist's View

Consider the following:

1) No known species of reindeer can fly. But there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not COMPLETELY rule out flying reindeer which only Santa has ever seen.

2) There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world. BUT since Santa doesn't (appear) to handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total - 378 million according to Population Reference Bureau. At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there's at least one good child in each.

3) Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical).

This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house.

Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking about .78 miles per household, a total trip of 75-1/2 million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding and etc.

This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man- made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second - a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.

4) The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight.

On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that 'flying reindeer' (see point #1) could pull TEN TIMES the normal amount, we cannot do the job with eight, or even nine.

We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload - not even counting the weight of the sleigh - to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison - this is four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth.

5) 353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as spacecraft re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy. Per second. Each.

In short, they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second.

Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.

In conclusion - If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now.

A New Addition

If you scroll down the left column of this blog, you will notice that I have added a new feature. With the ability to label my blog posts, I have gone back through all 100+ blog entries I've made, labeled them, and linked them by category for your convenience. So, loyal fans, no more E-mails saying, "How can I find all of your 'Lesser Known Scriptures' posts? Your diatribes? Your religious rants? Your sports rants? And all the rest of your meaningless talk about Alabama football or Red Sox Baseball?" Well, now you have an easy way to access it all.

Merry Christmas

Lesser Known Text of the Week

How do we know what we know? This is the quesion of epistemology, which seeks to investigate our bases of knowledge.

The root of knowledge for science is observation: that which you can measure by sight, smell, taste, touch, or sound. Another root of knowledge for the religion/philosophy of Buddhism is intuition: that which is realized in one's everyday walk of life and, perhaps more importantly, that which is learned via meditation.

The root of Christian knowledge, however, is not achieved 1st hand. It is an external form of knowledge: revelation. Paul talks about it in Ephesians 3:2-5:

²Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, ³that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. ⁴In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, ⁵which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets.

Not that other roots of knowledge are unimportant. There is a sense in which we can know about God through those other ways of learning. Ecclesiastes 3:11b seems to indicate that there is an intuitive way that we can know about God. Romans 1 and Psalms 19 teach us that there is also an observational sense in which we may learn about God. But none of these are as important as that which we can gain by revelation.

Paul is very clear in this passage about how revelation works. It is, first & foremost, a gift from God ("the administration of God's grace ..."). It is to be shared rather than hoarded ("... that was given to me for you."). Contrary to popular belief in some circles of historical-critical philosophy, we can understand what God revealed by reading and comprehending what Paul & other inspired writers have recorded ("In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight ..."). And God revealed his message to a select few individuals by the Spirit.

I believe that it is imperative that we very carefully & deliberately consider what it is that we rely on as our base of knowledge. What do we draw upon for wisdom? I hope that it isn't merely intuition & observation. While those are good, we have a source of knowledge that transcends those. Let us not ignore it, nor be ignorant of it.

I've heard other people say this before, and I am finding it to be true myself. The older I get, the more respect I have for the Word of God.

A Hot Button Issue

You know ... you go to college, and you think that you'll learn just about everything you'll need to know about how to be a good minister. You take Bible classes. You read books & articles. You listen to professors & other experienced ministers share as much pastoral wisdom & knowledge as they can possibly transmit. And you even go out & gain a little ministry experience of your own. And after all of that, you begin to think that maybe you've heard it all ... perhaps even seen most everything that could possibly happen with your own eyes. That is until you get surprised.

The lesson today, faithful readers, is this: Never (Ever!) underestimate any given Church's history.

I thought I had a pretty good grip on what the hot button issues were in Churches of Christ today: women's roles & worship styles. That's it, right? Tread carefully around those fiery topics, as well as other long-standing CoC traditional issues (baptism, spiritual gifts, et. al.), and you'll be OK. Right?

Little did I know that this Sunday the hot button issue would be 1^st Peter 5:5a, which reads:

Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older.

Pretty straight forward, right? Not much need for Gram-chord here, is there? It says what it means, and it means what it says.

Until one of the younger men in our church (a man under 30 who is looked up to as a leader ... let's call him "Rick") spoke up and said, "I believe that this is true ... UNLESS the 'Elder person' isn't living a Holy Spirit-inspired, cruciform, Godly lifestyle." This sparked the beginning of what I thought was a good discussion on leadership, discipleship, and character.

So when Rick finished his rather long-winded rant regarding elder persons who are unqualified to receive his "submission," and as the discussion was beginning to reach a lull, I decided to push back a little. I roughly said, "Boy ... that sounds like cut & run to me. I think Peter here is assuming that the older persons are faithful. And there are faithful older persons that we should look up to." And I really sort of thought that this statement might fulfill the void left by Rick & bring balance to the discussion. Was I wrong.

Rick once led a vibrant youth group at this small congregation. However, the group dried up as the kids graduated & moved on with no other kids coming up to replace them. Rick told the story of a time when he very visibly & openly tried to bridge a gap between the older & the younger in this church. And when his attempt to do this failed miserably on account of neglect by the older ones in the church, his attempt to bring two age groups completely backfired -- making the youth resentful of their elders, and for a seemingly good & somewhat justified reason.

And he aired this dirty laundry in Bible Class -- in front of God, the old people, and everybody!! I literally thought this was about to explode in my face. I recount at least two episodes in my ministry life where I've had a situation blow up in my face -- that is, in public. (Kellar, you were there for both. Heart-breaking, horrific, and utterly depressing are those memories ...). I thought I was getting ready to add a third.

Rick came dangerously close to tears as he recounted the story for all of us. It was an emotional story ... a story which explains a lot about why this church was in the sorry condition it was when I arrived on the scene. (Not that I've been Mr. Clean, and everything is spick & span now at the Lynn Haven Church of Christ. But the Church is at least moving in the right direction now.) But just when I thought this might turn into an impassioned, acrimonious storm of an argument, the climate completely changed. And the rest of 1^st Peter 5:5 seemed to kick in:

All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because,

    "God opposes the proud
      but gives grace to the humble."

Thankfully, I was granted the last word on this issue. As Rick remained bold in his stance about his unwillingness to follow un-Christ-like elders, I paused, and this is what I said:

"I hear what you're saying, Rick. I really do. ([Interrupting myself] ... and as I told him later one-on-one ... I mean, it is EXTREMELY telling about a void in elders as leaders, after all, that one of the most respected leaders in our church is under the age of 30.) And I think that for the part of the picture you are outlining, you are dead-on correct. Here in 1^st Peter 5, Peter is putting the burden of leadership upon the elders. The onus is on them. And they need to live up to the calling God has placed upon them.

"It's similar to one of my own personal hot button issues: modesty in female dress. Oftentimes, all that is said about this is that women need to dress more modestly. And we place the burden of leadership in this issue on women. We put the onus on THEM! And then we turn around in our Bible classes and, with a straight face, talk about MALE SPIRITUAL LEADERSHIP in our assemblies. Are you kidding me?!

"HYPOCRITES, I say!

"As men, and as the male spiritual leaders, the onus ought to be on US! We need to learn the meaning of self-control when it comes to lust & sexual temptation. And you know what? When we do that, we won't have a problem with immodest dress anymore in our assemblies. Why? Because women follow our lead. Women dress immodestly because they know they can attract our attention. If we, corporately, as men & leaders, with great focus deliberately give our attention to modest women & withdraw our attention from immodest women, women will INHERENTLY WANT to dress to modest standards. The burden of leadership falls to the men here.

(To interrupt what I actually said this morning, I also feel the need to respond to what I already know what some of you are saying inside your heads. 'That's COMPLETELY unrealistic, Philip, to expect all men to control their eyes.' I COMPLETELY disagree. If you say that's unrealistic, then I say, 'Where's your faith?' If you say that's unrealistic, then what Gospel is it exactly that you believe in? If it's not a Gospel of transformation, than it is NOT 'Good News.' Boys do not always have to remain boys. They can grow up. And that's my 2 cents on THAT.)

"So, in that sense Rick, I agree with you. The onus is on the elders. And they need to step up."

"However, I am EXTREMELY hesitant to go where Scripture does not go & say that I will not submit ungodly elders in the church. We simply don't have a clear example to follow here; it seems to me all we have is our sanctified wisdom, judgment, and common sense.

"Peter has spoken in this letter about submission in many ways. He talks about citizens being submissive to our governments. He talks about slaves being submissive to their masters. He talks here about younger folks being submissive to elders. And he also talks about wives being submissive to husbands.

"That latter is sort of interesting. We know that, according to Ephesians 5, wives should submit to their husbands & husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church. Should wives continue to be submissive to their husbands even in a physically, verbally, and/or sexually violent relationship? I, for one, don't think so. But how far does that line even go? When you can you call it and say, "That's abusive." I'm gonna argue that THAT line is WAY, WAY out there.

"Look at Abraham & Sarah. Abraham, knowing the beauty of his wife, cowardly folded like a tent at the face of adversity. Instead of standing up for the honor of his wife, he claimed her only as his sister so as to save his own neck. Now ... was Abraham loving his wife as Christ loved the church? NOT EVEN CLOSE! Not even in the same ballpark. He abdicated his responsibility as a husband here. But did Sarah? Do we have a record of her objection? No. She continued to submit to her husband EVEN in the face of the terrible trial of sleeping with a man who was not her husband & who she didn't even know! I'm telling you, folks: THAT is courage.

"You know what makes so many marriages go awry? The husband sees that his wife isn't respecting him & submitting as much as she should. So he gets up on that cross a little less. And so the wife begins to notice that he's not doing as much for her anymore, and so she begins to respect & submit to him even less. And you can see how this spirals further & further downward.

"What saves marriages are spouses who are willing to give at times even when nothing is given in return. And you know what? That spouse who has been derelict in his-or-her responsibilities will eventually notice. Good deeds inspire more good deeds. If as husbands & wives you continue to plant good seeds despite your partner's response, you'll eventually see a bumper crop.

"What is true of those relationships is true here, too. We can either spiral downward or spiral upward. It takes patience. It means sometimes putting up with a lot of grief. But either we're investing in mutual respect, or we aren't. And that is at the crux of what Peter is saying here in the latter part of verse 5 -- "clothe yourselves with humility toward each other." Too often, us younger folks are tempted to believe the lie that we can do without older folks & their "wisdom." And I imagine that some of the older ones here are tempted similarly to think that there is nothing to be learned from younger folks & very little that we can contribute aside from being energetic. But even in the face what appears to be ungodliness by our counterpart(s), just like our example Sarah, we must courageously continue to fulfill the commission God has passed down to us."



By reading the faces of the crowd & gauging feedback after class, I sense that these words were well-received. I'm not sure I dis-armed a time-bomb. I don't think a bomb was ready to go off there in the first place. But it sure felt like it at one point.

Nevertheles, just when you think you've got a handle on what "the issues" are, God can surprise you. Ministers: you CANNOT invest too much time in learning the history of your congregation, history of "the church" in your city, area, & state, and as well the personal history of as many of your members as possible. I know that after today I am even more tuned into & interested in learning as much history as I can absorb.