This past Saturday I had the great pleasure to attend the Ironman Outdoors CAMO Conference on men's ministry. It was a fantastic, spirit filled event. The keynote speaker on Friday evening was Dr. Bill Jones, president of Columbia International University. He preached a wonderful expositional message on practical evangelism from Colossians 4:2-6. Dr. Jones made plain that if you want to be an effective witness for Christ you have to 1)Pray Something; 2) Do Something; and 3) Say Something.
On Saturday, my dear friend and mentor US Navy Captain Mike Langston spoke and I was so honored to be able to introduce him. Captain Langston is a true leader of men and man of God. He made it plain that men want to be led and that we have an obligation to do so if we want to impact people's lives with the Gospel of Christ.
Most fun for me was that I was invited to lead a breakout session on Saturday morning about how to use Facebook as a ministry tool. I don't believe that God has allowed the great technological advancements of the internet and social media simply so teens can post embarrassing photos and celebrities can build big fan followings. Communications advancements have always lead to ministry opportunities. The unique thing about social networking as a ministry tool is that you don't need expensive equipment or lots of infrastructure to start a ministry. All you need is a computer, an internet connection, and a desire to impact your sphere of influence for Christ. I outlined ten keys to unlocking your Facebook profile as a ministry tool. It was a good session and it's been very rewarding to see some of the men there already implementing some of the strategies I talked about. Hopefully the Lord will bless me with other opportunities to share what He has taught me on this subject.
Thanks to Ironman Outdoors for allowing me to participate. If you want to know more about Ironman Outdoors and their ministry visit them at www.ironmanoutdoors.org or find them on Facebook at www.facebook.com/ironmanoutdoors
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
The Mighty Blue Hose of Presbyterian College
Folks who know me well know that I'm a proud graduate of tiny Presbyterian College in Clinton, SC. PC is in the middle of a transition to NCAA Division 1 from Division 2. To the best of my knowledge, we are the smallest Division 1 institution in the country.
The transition has been hard on our schools' athletes and coaches. We've endured a winless football season and a basketball travel schedule that was so ridiculous that ESPN actually did an article about it.
This season has been a bit of a turning point for our basketball program under the able leadership of longtime coach Greg Nibbert. In December, the Blue Hose actually defeated Auburn and Wake Forest on the road in back to back games. It was our school's first victories over a team from traditional power conferences in ANYTHING.
As if that wasn't great enough, last night's Florida State victory over #1 ranked and previously undefeated Duke puts PC into some rarified air...You see PC beat Auburn. Auburn had defeated Florida State. And now Florida State has beaten Duke. Obviously, PC should now be considered the top college basketball team in America.
I should point out that I make the last statement with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek but that doesn't change the fact that I'm proud of our basketball team and their ongoing story of being a basketball David willing to meet Goliath on any court in the country. Go Hose!
The transition has been hard on our schools' athletes and coaches. We've endured a winless football season and a basketball travel schedule that was so ridiculous that ESPN actually did an article about it.
This season has been a bit of a turning point for our basketball program under the able leadership of longtime coach Greg Nibbert. In December, the Blue Hose actually defeated Auburn and Wake Forest on the road in back to back games. It was our school's first victories over a team from traditional power conferences in ANYTHING.
As if that wasn't great enough, last night's Florida State victory over #1 ranked and previously undefeated Duke puts PC into some rarified air...You see PC beat Auburn. Auburn had defeated Florida State. And now Florida State has beaten Duke. Obviously, PC should now be considered the top college basketball team in America.
I should point out that I make the last statement with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek but that doesn't change the fact that I'm proud of our basketball team and their ongoing story of being a basketball David willing to meet Goliath on any court in the country. Go Hose!
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
How you know you are winning an argument with a liberal
You ever have an argument with a liberal about some ridiculously wasteful piece of government spending?
The conversations all go the same way. You point out that the country is broke and we simply can't afford to spend money like a drunken sailor even if the program/spending seems like a worthy cause. If something is not part of a core function of government then we need to have a very suspect eye towards that spending. Maybe you throw in some cautionary words about how it's against our national security to keep borrowing from China in order to pay for things we don't need, and "X" is something we clearly don't need so it's got to go. All pretty straight forward stuff.
And how do your liberal friends respond?
1) that's just a drop in the bucket and not enough to make a difference.
2) Well look at all the money Republicans waste on (Insert something liberals are against like the war or corporate welfare)
Consider those arguments for a moment. Are our liberal friends really saying that they approve of wasteful government spending in small doses? A few million here and a few million there will add up to real money pretty quick if we get serious about trimming waste. When you point this out to liberals they usually come back with, "Well we should focus on the big things first." That's almost as ridiculous. How are we going to get to a bipartisan consensus on cutting big things like entitlements and Social Security if we can't come to a simple agreement on something that is obviously small and wasteful? It defies common sense. In cutting spending, as in everything else, you walk before you run.
The second response is even more ridiculous. I hesitate to even call it an argument because it basically cedes that the current item is indefensible on its own merit and just seeks to change the subject. Do wasteful practices by someone else or under someone else's watch really justify continued poor stewardship of taxpayer resources? I've found that liberals really don't like answering that question. I generally tell them that I'm glad they agree with me and that I'm even more glad that they have ideas about other places we can impose some fiscal discipline.
Bottom line is that if a liberal ever tells you either of these two things in an argument about government spending, you've won. Liberals don't have any substantive arguments to make on reducing government spending because for most of them there is nothing outside of the defense department that they want to cut.
The truth about liberals is that they would rather raise taxes and continue to allow government to grow at the expense of the private sector. Of course, this would be a lot easier to swallow if they didn't raise these ridiculous objections to defend every wasteful, pork barrel project on the books.
The conversations all go the same way. You point out that the country is broke and we simply can't afford to spend money like a drunken sailor even if the program/spending seems like a worthy cause. If something is not part of a core function of government then we need to have a very suspect eye towards that spending. Maybe you throw in some cautionary words about how it's against our national security to keep borrowing from China in order to pay for things we don't need, and "X" is something we clearly don't need so it's got to go. All pretty straight forward stuff.
And how do your liberal friends respond?
1) that's just a drop in the bucket and not enough to make a difference.
2) Well look at all the money Republicans waste on (Insert something liberals are against like the war or corporate welfare)
Consider those arguments for a moment. Are our liberal friends really saying that they approve of wasteful government spending in small doses? A few million here and a few million there will add up to real money pretty quick if we get serious about trimming waste. When you point this out to liberals they usually come back with, "Well we should focus on the big things first." That's almost as ridiculous. How are we going to get to a bipartisan consensus on cutting big things like entitlements and Social Security if we can't come to a simple agreement on something that is obviously small and wasteful? It defies common sense. In cutting spending, as in everything else, you walk before you run.
The second response is even more ridiculous. I hesitate to even call it an argument because it basically cedes that the current item is indefensible on its own merit and just seeks to change the subject. Do wasteful practices by someone else or under someone else's watch really justify continued poor stewardship of taxpayer resources? I've found that liberals really don't like answering that question. I generally tell them that I'm glad they agree with me and that I'm even more glad that they have ideas about other places we can impose some fiscal discipline.
Bottom line is that if a liberal ever tells you either of these two things in an argument about government spending, you've won. Liberals don't have any substantive arguments to make on reducing government spending because for most of them there is nothing outside of the defense department that they want to cut.
The truth about liberals is that they would rather raise taxes and continue to allow government to grow at the expense of the private sector. Of course, this would be a lot easier to swallow if they didn't raise these ridiculous objections to defend every wasteful, pork barrel project on the books.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Another Misguided Lawsuit
I read earlier this week where parents of a high school basketball player in Indiana had sued the local school district because the coach has a policy against his players having long hair.
The school district to its great credit has refused to cave to the demand. They rightly point out that playing high school sports is not a right and as long as the policy is uniformly enforced, the kid doesn't have a cause of action.
But what bothers me more than the frivolous nature of the lawsuit and the resources it will undoubtedly waste is the message that these parents are sending to their kid. They are basically saying to the kid go ahead and disregard authority. You don't have to play by the rules that every other player on the team has to accept.
I'm sure these parents think they are doing right by their son, but they aren't. Life is full of arbitrary rules that many times we won't agree with. You can't go around challenging all of them with a lawsuit, especially if you want to get and keep a job. A better message to send their kid would have been to say, "Well son, it might be a silly rule, but it's the Coach's rule and it applies to all the players. You'll just have to decide which is more important to you, long hair or playing basketball."
I believe that the real key to success in life is learning to make good decisions regarding the allocation of scarce resources. There's only so much time, money, and talent to go around. You've got to learn to make disciplined decisions on how you are going to apply them.
The story reminds me of a story I heard about Coach John Wooden of UCLA. Coach Wooden won more NCAA championships than any other coach in history. Back in the 70's he had an All-America center named Bill Walton who fashioned himself a hippie. As the time neared for the beginning of practice for his senior season Walton informed Coach Wooden that he was the returning MVP and National Player of the Year and that a coach didn't have the right to make him cut his hair and shave. (Coach Wooden had a similar policy to the one these parents are suing about.) Wooden didn't hesitate. He told Walton that he was right. He didn't have the right to make him do anything, but that he did have the right to determine who was going to play basketball at UCLA and that if he wasn't back in 15 minutes with his hair taken care of that he would not be one of those playing that season.
Walton cut his hair. UCLA went on to win yet another championship.
Consider what the rebellious star Walton had to say about Wooden last year upon the Coach's passing:
John Wooden represents the conquest of substance over hype, the triumph of achievement over erratic flailing, the conquest of discipline over gambling, and the triumph of executing an organized plan over hoping that you’ll be lucky, hot or in the zone.
John Wooden also represents the conquest of sacrifice, hard work and commitment to achievement over the pipe dream that someone will just give you something, or that you can take a pill or turn a key to get what you want.
I guess these parents don't believe their son would have benefited from playing under a coach like John Wooden. What a shame.
The school district to its great credit has refused to cave to the demand. They rightly point out that playing high school sports is not a right and as long as the policy is uniformly enforced, the kid doesn't have a cause of action.
But what bothers me more than the frivolous nature of the lawsuit and the resources it will undoubtedly waste is the message that these parents are sending to their kid. They are basically saying to the kid go ahead and disregard authority. You don't have to play by the rules that every other player on the team has to accept.
I'm sure these parents think they are doing right by their son, but they aren't. Life is full of arbitrary rules that many times we won't agree with. You can't go around challenging all of them with a lawsuit, especially if you want to get and keep a job. A better message to send their kid would have been to say, "Well son, it might be a silly rule, but it's the Coach's rule and it applies to all the players. You'll just have to decide which is more important to you, long hair or playing basketball."
I believe that the real key to success in life is learning to make good decisions regarding the allocation of scarce resources. There's only so much time, money, and talent to go around. You've got to learn to make disciplined decisions on how you are going to apply them.
The story reminds me of a story I heard about Coach John Wooden of UCLA. Coach Wooden won more NCAA championships than any other coach in history. Back in the 70's he had an All-America center named Bill Walton who fashioned himself a hippie. As the time neared for the beginning of practice for his senior season Walton informed Coach Wooden that he was the returning MVP and National Player of the Year and that a coach didn't have the right to make him cut his hair and shave. (Coach Wooden had a similar policy to the one these parents are suing about.) Wooden didn't hesitate. He told Walton that he was right. He didn't have the right to make him do anything, but that he did have the right to determine who was going to play basketball at UCLA and that if he wasn't back in 15 minutes with his hair taken care of that he would not be one of those playing that season.
Walton cut his hair. UCLA went on to win yet another championship.
Consider what the rebellious star Walton had to say about Wooden last year upon the Coach's passing:
John Wooden represents the conquest of substance over hype, the triumph of achievement over erratic flailing, the conquest of discipline over gambling, and the triumph of executing an organized plan over hoping that you’ll be lucky, hot or in the zone.
John Wooden also represents the conquest of sacrifice, hard work and commitment to achievement over the pipe dream that someone will just give you something, or that you can take a pill or turn a key to get what you want.
I guess these parents don't believe their son would have benefited from playing under a coach like John Wooden. What a shame.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Answer I gave a friend about church
Been a while since I've posted, but it's a new year and I've got a lot to say...so here goes
A friend asked me on Facebook yesterday if one had to go to church to be a "true" believer in Christ. Here is the response I gave him.
I do not believe that one must go to church to receive salvation. Salvation comes from believing in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ and repenting of your sin. Nothing more is needed. Baptism, church attendance, giving tithes...none of these are required to go to heaven.
That said, I think it is entirely fair to think about what our response to God's undeserved and overwhelming grace through Christ should be. The Bible speaks to this as well. Christ said that those who love Him would keep His commandments. Similarly James wrote that faith without works is dead. In other words, if our faith is real and sincere, we will be motivated to obedience. If we believe that Jesus is who He says He is and that Christ did the things the Bible says He did, I can't imagine responding any other way.
Now, does the Bible speak to church attendance? Absolutely. See Hebrews 10:25 where Christians are told to meet together and encourage one another. I would also call attention to what Paul wrote in 1st Corinthians 12 analogizing the church to the body of Christ and explaining each part's dependence on the other. This makes sense as it is plain to see that a hand that is cut off from the rest of the body is of little use. The Bible also points out that Christ loves the church and analogizes the church to being Chirst's bride. Finally, and most persuasively to me, the Bible teaches that Christ Himself was a regular attender of church and if being a Christian is about being more like Christ, then there can be no greater example. See Luke 4:16 describing Christ's regular practice of attending church on the Sabbath.
So if you believe what the New Testament says about the way Christians should function together and you want to be like Jesus, then it is really hard to justify a careless attitude about attending church.
A friend asked me on Facebook yesterday if one had to go to church to be a "true" believer in Christ. Here is the response I gave him.
I do not believe that one must go to church to receive salvation. Salvation comes from believing in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ and repenting of your sin. Nothing more is needed. Baptism, church attendance, giving tithes...none of these are required to go to heaven.
That said, I think it is entirely fair to think about what our response to God's undeserved and overwhelming grace through Christ should be. The Bible speaks to this as well. Christ said that those who love Him would keep His commandments. Similarly James wrote that faith without works is dead. In other words, if our faith is real and sincere, we will be motivated to obedience. If we believe that Jesus is who He says He is and that Christ did the things the Bible says He did, I can't imagine responding any other way.
Now, does the Bible speak to church attendance? Absolutely. See Hebrews 10:25 where Christians are told to meet together and encourage one another. I would also call attention to what Paul wrote in 1st Corinthians 12 analogizing the church to the body of Christ and explaining each part's dependence on the other. This makes sense as it is plain to see that a hand that is cut off from the rest of the body is of little use. The Bible also points out that Christ loves the church and analogizes the church to being Chirst's bride. Finally, and most persuasively to me, the Bible teaches that Christ Himself was a regular attender of church and if being a Christian is about being more like Christ, then there can be no greater example. See Luke 4:16 describing Christ's regular practice of attending church on the Sabbath.
So if you believe what the New Testament says about the way Christians should function together and you want to be like Jesus, then it is really hard to justify a careless attitude about attending church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)