Why Hating Evangelicalism Is No Longer Provocative

by Doug Hankins Posted on June 18, 2013

Derek Rishmawy at CAPC wrote one of the better social commentaries on this “trend” of dumping on modern evangelicalism. In his post How to Write a Hugely-Popular Piece for Huffington Post Religion Rishmawy offers four tips for getting your religion blog posted on the Huffington Post’s site:

  1. Insist that “Evangelicalism needs to learn…”
  2. “I know because I used to be an Evangelical until…”
  3. Bravely Flirt with a Heresy
  4. Call Someone a Bigot

If I have read one book, blog post, journal article, etc… I have read 400 books, journal articles, blog posts that fit this format. Here are just a few authors that come to mind: Randall Balmer, Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Mel White, Rachel Held Evans.

From a historical perspective, these kinds of written pieces were once truly provocative and risky.  Those who were coming out of evangelicalism truly had beef with bad leadership, hateful communities, and rigid theology (Think Westboro Baptist Church).  When these early prophets spoke out, their voices were few and the threat of backlash was immense.   My heart goes out to them for their awful experiences. These early path makers were like Indiana Jones during The Last Crusade scene where Indy had to walk across the invisible bridge.  Their steps were steps of faith, hoping that their messages would resonate with a voiceless majority sitting silently in the pews.

That was then.  But now…? It is my observation that those who write these kinds of pieces now are like the rest of Indiana Jones’ party after he has spread the sand to reveal the pathway across the chasm.  It doesn’t take any faith.  There is no real risk.  They are a minority voice that is blasting evangelicalism to the deafened and white noised eardrums of a crowd that has heard it all before.

So, sure.  Huff Post will publish these kinds of posts.  That is to be commended for those who get published.  They are just working the available market.  It is shrewd and well played.  But, don’t confuse these published posts for something provocative.  Posts that bash evangelicalism are a dime a dozen and will fail to achieve their objective because:

  1. Evangelicals won’t see the burden to learn something new from . . .
  2. . . . a “used to be evangelical” voice who may or may not have really ever been a Christian.
  3. Evangelicals will increasingly overlook people who are bringing up old heresies.
  4. The word “bigot” has lost all cultural impact due to overusage and no longer requires defense of actions and attitudes.

119 Views

Posted in Culture, Theology | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Review Rewind: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s Giant Steps

by Doug Hankins Posted on June 17, 2013

Kareem Abdul Jabbar’s 1983 autobiography Giant Steps was an intended to be a revisionist history of the life of the basketball great.  It was supposed to be true account of the basketball great that once-and-for-all corrected the media misperception of Kareem.  His inside leaflet even reads:

To millions of sports fans, the name conjures up the image of a reticent loner, withdrawn from the public, hostile to the press.  Now the basketball legend steps out from behind his mask to reveal the man behind the story public image.

I was interested in reading this autobiography ever since reading Bill Simmons’ epic history of basketball, appropriately entitled The Book of Basketball.  Simmons constantly picks at Kareem for being A) a Laker great, B) a “ninny” on the court and C) a mercurial superstar.  I was curious to read the book to see if Simmons’ perception was correct, and by extension, to see if the larger sports world’s knock on Kareem had merit.

Did Kareem come off as unnecessarily standoffish? Was he as cerebral (in a brooding way) as people say he is? Does his personal life reflect a “reticent loner?” Could he be moody?

Or…

Was Kareem misperceived during a particularly conflicted epic in American History (The Civil Rights Movement)?  Was his reticence a learned personality defense mechanism? Is Kareem an introvert living in an extrovert-dominated culture? If so, should we hold that against Kareem?

Here is what I discovered:

1. Kareem’s life should be interpreted within the context of his time period.

Lou Alcindor was born in Harlem, New York, in 1947.  He grew up in a distinctly proud black community that overlapped an emerging migrant community. He was raised in a two parent home as an only child.  Both parents stressed discipline, respect, and education.  Lou was educated by the finest Catholic school systems in Harlem by mostly white men.  The dominant black male role model was his dad, an intelligent, introverted jazz musician and civil servant for the New York Transit Authority.  Lou came of age during the late 50′s and early 60s in America, making him a hippy, a black power pioneer, a civil rights advocate, and new age philosopher.  He attended UCLA during the time of free-love and free drugs.  He was a standout basketball player during the precise time when the game was moving from all-white players to segregated teams.

Look back at those social factors weighing on his upbringing and worldview formation.  Civil Rights, Harlem, Jazz, Catholic School, Free Love/Drugs, Hippies, Immigration, Basketball.

And we wonder why Kareem never fit into the neat and nice mold of your standard NBA player. 

2. Kareem is an introvert. 

He read voraciously growing up, with genres spanning from poetry, to long form journalism, to religious works, to novels.  He was curious as a kid and encouraged by his father to explore his curiosity.  He is contemplative and intelligent and a strong writer.  He took his first job in high school as a journalist for a Civil Rights organization in Harlem.  The narrative he weaves throughout Giant Steps is readable and demonstrates a keen awareness of the power of words. He values mediation, prayer, and travel abroad.  He was an only child who, unlike many children growing up in Harlem, had his own room during childhood.  

Again, look back at those personality factors.  How would we expect an introverted only child in a two parent black home in Harlem during Civil Rights to relate to other black children with siblings growing up in a one parent home?  Or to introverted white children with siblings growing up in a two parent home? Or to extroverted Italian children growing up in a two parent home?

And again, why should we keep trying to fit Kareem into the mold of big personalities centers, such as Wilt Chamberlin and Shaq?

3. Kareem Seeks Customizable Religion

I was curious to see how Lou Alcindor made the transition to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar from a theological standpoint.  How does a catholic kid turn into a muslim kid?  And is he black muslim or Shia muslim or Sunni muslim?

Answer: Kareem is a paradigm of emerging religion in America.  In other words, Kareem is basically a Shia Muslim with a self-selective moral code that would, otherwise, not be strictly Shia. To be clear, Kareem never identified with the Nation of Islam that was popular with many black males in Harlem during the 60s. Even then Lou Alcindor saw through the paper thin ideology of that movement.  Kareem longed for something grounded and philosophically consistent and found something real in the teachings of Islamic radical Hamaas Abdul-Khaalis.  After Abdul-Khaalis turned out to be a fringe radical, Kareem retreated from his strict Shia moral code to something that he deemed more manageable.

My faith in Allah was still strong, but I allowed myself more room to breathe. I prayed less often and without the rigorous preparation Hamaas demanded; I curtailed my traveling all over the Islamic globe.  I developed a less formal, more personal relationship with my religion. I started learning how to love in the real world.

Kareem prefers to identify with Islam, believes in Allah as the supreme reality in the universe, and aligns with Islamic moral teachings.  But he smokes marijuana, sleeps around, and makes choices that best fit his personality.  He does not come off as a particularly good husband and father, his personal life is full of inconsistencies, and he appears to make no effort to harmonize these inconsistencies. Kareem’s Islam reads like Jennifer Lopez’s Buddhism or Angus T. Jones’ Christianity.  At least it does in 1983. Maybe he has adjusted it since then.

Concluding Thoughts

Kareem is a fascinating character in the life of American culture.  He is arguably the greatest NBA center of all time, the greatest college basketball player of all time, and the one of the greatest high school players of all time.  And yet, to cast Kareem as a basketball player would do him an injustice.  Kareem is a thinker, a leader, and an icon.  He offers incredible insight into his own life and time period.  He is an author, coach, actor, and political commentator. He is a father, he is an art collector, and he is a friend   In conclusion I find Kareem to be much more than people give him credit for and much less than people want him to be.  He is not an outgoing personality, but he is a big personality.  He is not a dumb jock, instead opting for a brilliant athlete.  He is a mysterious character who feels comfortable on his own terms and doesn’t need everyone to figure him out.  And I admire his originality.101 Views

Posted in Culture, Theology | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

LeBron, Paul George, And The Ideal Of Sports

by Doug Hankins Posted on May 28, 2013

I was talking with my friend John White the other day about the subject of his PhD dissertation at the University of Edinburgh – a Christian ethic of sports — and John made some interesting statements about the ideal of sports. His logic went something like this:

  • God created everything good.
  • Mankind has sinned and, thus, perverted God’s good.
  • Humans, even sinful ones, are still capable of doing good things, because of God’s sovereignty.
    • Artists, even sinful ones, are able to make good art, because God created a common good.
    • Musicians, even sinful ones, are able to create good music, because God created a common good.
    • Humans, even sinful ones, are capable of displaying moral actions.

But does this logic apply to the world of sports?  John says yes.  Athletes, even sinful ones, are capable of doing good in sports.  And sports, when played in the ideal way, will bring glory to God, the good Creator.

This glorious reflection in sports takes place, specifically, when competition is ideal.  John noted that the word “competition” comes from the Latin word competere which means “to strive together.”  In the ideal, John argued, competition in sports is an important environment where all the competitors get qualitatively better at their sport through the process of striving together.

To illustrate his point, John described a tennis match.  If a weaker tennis player, like me, is competing against a stronger tennis great, say Rafael Nadal, then there is an inherent benefit to Nadal besting me in the tennis match.  Let’s say that my forehand is strong, but my backhand is particularly underdeveloped.  As Nadal learns this in the course of competing, he will likely serve to my backhand over and over again.  Even if he constantly wins the point by serving to my backhand, I benefit from this exercise in trying to develop a backhand return.  He benefits with the exercise of strategy, execution, and the win.  I benefit from exercise and development of my backhand.

In competition, we strive together and both get better. 

In other words, competitors, even sinful ones, can participate in good things from their mutual competition.  Why? Because sports find their ultimate origin in the good Creator God. Genesis 1:27 tells us that mankind was made in the image of God.  And men are good because of God’s involvement in creating them.  When sports competitors do good things, they do so because they are imitating the Creator God, who Himself plays and creates.  Thus, Sports, when played in the ideal way, will reflect the image of the good Creator God.

I was pondering John’s argument about the good of sports recently as I watched the Indiana Pacers compete against the Miami Heat in the NBA Eastern Conference Finals.  In particular, I witnessed an act that reflected the glory of the good God during a competitive moment between LeBron James and Paul George.

During the last 15 second stretch of the 3rd quarter of game 2, Paul George crossed over LeBron James and then drove to the basket in traffic for a monstrous dunk over Chris “The Birdman” Anderson.

On the very next play, LeBron drove across the half court line and put up a spectacular long, long range 3 point shot that banked in at the buzzer.

LeBron defended George and George dunked on him.  George defended LeBron and LeBron scored on him.  In competition, we strive together and both get better. 

But if those two plays were all that transpired, I am not sure it would be anything out of the ordinary in playoff NBA basketball.  We have seen plenty of brilliant one-on-one performances where competitors push one another to higher levels of performance.

No, what was truly remarkable and, dare I say it, revealing of the glorious Creator of the Universe, was what happened after the end of the 3rd quarter. LeBron and George walked over to each other and exchanged a fist bump so as to say to each other, “Thanks for the competition that makes us both better.”

It was an act of character.

It was an act of honor.

It was an act that revealed the goodness of a Creator on display in His creatures (whether either one of them is a born-again believer or not).

On that night, LeBron and Paul George reflected the image of the Creator God in the way they competed, whether they intended to or not.  While they may have not taken the time to worship God because of that moment, I found it to be a perfect opportunity to praise God that in the midst of playoff basketball His glory was clearly on display.

 322 Views

Posted in Culture, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Remembering Dallas Willard (1935-2013): 5 of His Best Quotes

by Doug Hankins Posted on May 9, 2013

I remember where I was when I received and read my first Dallas Willard book. I was sitting by the window in my buddy Trent Henderson‘s office (which is now my office…for another week) at Highland Baptist Church in Waco, TX.

Trent asked me if I had read The Divine Conspiracy (DC) and I said no. He immediately rolled over to his computer, clicked on Amazon.com and ordered Willard’s complete works for me.

The books came in to Trent’s office two days later and I picked them up there and began reading DC. I have read it over and again in that same office. I have quotes from DC posted on my wall. I think about, talk about them, and have written about them at length. He has greatly informed my theology and my approach to pastoral ministry.  Needless to say, I am a Willard fan.

So I was sad yesterday to hear of his passing.  He was a great mind for the Kingdom and a great teacher for those of us who are passionate about making disciples of Jesus Christ.  If you have not read anything he has written, may I suggest that you begin with The Great Omission and then work your way to DC and then Renovation of The Heart.

In light of his passing, I want to share my five favorite Willard quotes from his writings:

  1. “Central to the understanding and proclamation of the Christian gospel today, as in Jesus’ day, is a re-visioning of what God’s own life is like and how the physical cosmos fits into it.”  - The Divine Conspiracy
  2. “We live in a culture that has, for centuries now, cultivated the idea that the skeptical person is always smarter than one who believes. You can almost be as stupid as a cabbage as long as you doubt.” ― Hearing God
  3. “Grace is not opposed to effort, it is opposed to earning. Earning is an attitude. Effort is an action. Grace, you know, does not just have to do with forgiveness of sins alone.” ― The Great Omission
  4. “The greatest issue facing the world today, with all its heartbreaking needs, is whether those who, by profession or culture, are identified as ‘Christians’ will become disciples – students, apprentices, practitioners – of Jesus Christ, steadily learning from him how to live the life of the Kingdom of the Heavens into every corner of human existence.” ― The Great Omission
  5. “The true saint burns grace like a 747 burns fuel on takeoff.” – The Great Omission

 

 496 Views

Posted in Ministry, Theology | Tagged , , , , , | 11 Comments

Coming Out In America: Some Thoughts on Jason Collins, Chris Broussard, and Brittney Griner

by Doug Hankins Posted on May 8, 2013

I wanted to blog about this topic last month during the week that current NBA player Jason Collins announced via Sports Illustrated that he is gay.  But I didn’t feel that I had the right angle and instead opted to wait for the right time to post.

To be honest, I still don’t feel like I have the right angle but it’s way past time to respond — so here goes.  My thoughts are varied and scattered and so I organized them topically:

On Jason Collins

One might have expected a greater amount of fanfare with this revelation.  But his announcement was met with more of a polite golf clap than a stadium of applause.  Perhaps it is because he hasn’t been a relevant player in the league since the early 00s.  And he was relevant then.  He was a stellar high school and college player and anchored the NBA’s Nets’ defense during their back-to-back Eastern Conference titles.  But that was then and this is now.  Maybe this is why ESPN’s Chris Broussard’s comments about homosexuality have caused more drama than Collins’ admission.  In one sense, Collins is an afterthought free agent who lacks the star power and the headlines that this would bring if it were, say, LeBron James coming out.

Or, perhaps, being gay in America is frankly not that big of a deal anymore. Compare Collins’ announcement to that of Ellen DeGeneres circa 1997.  I remember it well.  It was scandalous.  She was vilified publicly and privately.  It was hell on earth and hardened her in many respects to media attention.  To describe Collins as “brave” is in many respects to tarnish what Ellen D did.  If Ellen was brave, then what word do we use to describe Collins’ announcement?  Next? Standard? Perhaps.  But there are even mixed perspectives from within the LGBT community and I think it is safe to say that Collins is no Ellen.  And I don’t think he wants to be.  That is perhaps why he was so overwhelmed with the media attention.

Chris Broussard, Sports Apologetics?

Speaking of media attention, did you catch the ESPN Outside The Lines segment on Collins and Broussard’s commentary?  Broussard is considered to be an up-and-coming NBA expert reporter with close contacts in NBA circles   When asked how some players were responding, Broussard offered a Christian player’s reaction and then reinforced the Biblical position on homosexual behavior and whether someone can be a Christian who practices homosexual intercourse with regularity:

. . . if you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality — adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals — whatever it may be, I believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. So I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I don’t think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian.

Let me see if I can put Broussard’s commentary into context, while not trying to defend his approach.  Keep in mind that Broussard is colleagues with L.Z. Granderson, a brilliant young writer on sports and American culture who is openly gay.  Broussard was making public what he and Granderson have debated previously in private.  Broussard was not in attack mode, but seems to have been offering a Christian sports commentary in response to some of the statements that Collins made about his own Christian family values.  Collins said that he wanted “to march for tolerance, acceptance and understanding.”  Collins also said:

I’m from a close-knit family. My parents instilled Christian values in me. They taught Sunday school, and I enjoyed lending a hand. I take the teachings of Jesus seriously, particularly the ones that touch on tolerance and understanding. On family trips, my parents made a point to expose us to new things, religious and cultural. In Utah, we visited the Mormon Salt Lake Temple. In Atlanta, the house of Martin Luther King Jr. That early exposure to otherness made me the guy who accepts everyone unconditionally.

I think Broussard was trying to call attention to what tolerance is and what it is not.  Tolerance is the kind of relationship that Granderson and Broussard have, one where the two disagree on positions but still remain friends.  Collins seems to be confused on at least two issues in Broussard’s mind at least.  First, he wrongly believes that tolerance is equivalent to acceptance.  Second, he presumes that Christianity is a religion that accepts everyone unconditionally.  Broussard was trying to correct the false notion that Jesus accepts people unconditionally.  Jesus welcomes people unconditionally, but does not accept them unconditionally.  What about “taking up a cross” communicates blind acceptance?  I think this is what Broussard was trying to accomplish.  Whether he accomplished this or not, or whether his approach was correct is another story . . .

Brittney Griner

I am not certain why no one seems to be making more of first round WNBA draft pick Brittney Griner (a Baylor graduate) who also announced to Sports Illustrated that she is a practicing lesbian.  This got by with nary a whiff of shock or scandal.  Sure ESPN grabbed the headline, but that was about that.  It was not even on par with Jason Collins and certainly not on par with Ellen.  Brittney’s own attitude was fairly nonchalant about it as well.

I think the bigger story about Brittney’s admission is the ways in which Baylor fans have responded.  Keep in mind that Baylor Lady Bear fans are mostly older, white, politically conservative, evangelical Christians.  Notice what Baylor University did not do.  They did not:

  • Make a public announcement reenforcing the university’s position that homosexual behavior is a sin.  And they could have. The Princeton Review ranked Baylor as one of the 10 least gay-friendly universities in the nation.
  • Make a public announcement rapidly changing the university’s position to affirm homosexual behavior, identity, and community as an alternative but accepted and embraced lifestyle path for success.
  • Attempt to nuance, defend, or justify their traditional position.

Instead? Baylor stayed silent.  They didn’t make a fuss one way or another.  What is this position called?  It is called tolerance.  The university holds to a firm position.  They loved and will continue to love Brittney.  They don’t publicly condemn or accept her lifestyle path.  They simply love, educate, provide a scholarship for, feed, encourage, provide growth opportunities, and send off a fine student athlete.  And they do so…wait for it…because of the Love of Christ.

 877 Views

Posted in Culture, Ministry, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 14 Comments

A New Chapter For Me

by Doug Hankins Posted on April 29, 2013

Yesterday I had the privilege of telling my church family some exciting news for our family. I have accepted the call to become the teaching pastor at LifePoint Church in Plano, Texas. Our last Sunday with Highland will be on May 19th. My first Sunday with our new church family at LifePoint will be on June 2.

Below is an excerpt from the letter that I read to our Highland church family. You can read the whole thing in entirety here.

Even though we are excited about this opportunity, we are at the same time sad. Highland, y’all are an awesome church family and that fact makes this decision challenging for us. Natalie and I fell in love in the fellowship hall. Literally. I was chasing Joshua and Jacob Dunn and fell on top of Natalie in the fellowship hall. Kyle Dunn mentored me here and Edrena Smith mentored Natalie here. Barry Camp pulled me aside over by the staff entrance to the White House and told me that I should start dating Natalie. He was similarly pleased to perform our marriage ceremony. Tim Cates, Phil Stagg, and Amine Qourzal played music in our wedding and Mary Beth Talley and Lauren Butler helped with reception and greeting duties. Trent Henderson and Mark Wible mentored me in seminary. The Elders ordained me to ministry. They called us back here and offered me my first real grown up job in 2009. This group of staff members and Elders were the ones who prayed for Natalie and me during our struggle with infertility along with our connection group and Sunday school class. These same people met us at the hospital when our daughter was born. Highland is the church home where we will dedicate our daughter on Mother’s Day. It was the place where I was blessed enough to perform some of my first weddings, my first baptism, and my first funeral, and the place where I preached my first sermons.

Leaving here means leaving family. But, it also means leaving a job I really love. We do so much important Kingdom work together as a team of staff, elders, and volunteer leaders. I will miss this working environment. But I will also miss the little things about working for Highland. For example, I will miss starting my workday at Highland. I will miss pulling up to the Chapel on a crisp Waco morning with the Sun piercing through the Live Oaks on 30th and Maple Ave., walking into the White House, climbing the stairs up to my office on the second floor that overlooks a picturesque row of homes, putting a kettle of water on to boil, forgetting to clean my coffee mug, walking back down the stairs to the kitchen sink, rinsing out my mug, walking back up the stairs, pouring a cup of tea, booting up my computer, answering emails, realizing that I let the tea steep for far too long to the point of bitterness, drinking the tea anyway, and thanking God that I get to serve the church that I love.

552 Views

Posted in Ministry, Theology | Tagged , | 127 Comments

The Err Of Basketball Prosperity Theology: A Book Review Of The Leftovers by Matt Sayman

by Doug Hankins Posted on April 16, 2013

Matt Sayman’s autobiographical narrative The Leftovers: Basketball, Betrayal, Baylor, and Beyond is many things.  It is first and foremost an insider’s account of the Baylor basketball scandal of 2003.  Patrick Dennehey’s murder was heartbreaking; Carlton Dotson’s involvement was horrifying; and Coach Dave Bliss’s coverup was dumbfounding. The book is also an account of those who were understandably displaced by this tragedy — guard Matt Sayman, guard Terrance Thomas, and Forward R.T. Guinn. They had come to Baylor with optimism and hope.  Against the backdrop of this horrible tragedy, they had to face a hopeless situation.  But most importantly, The Leftovers is a testimony about the shallow, evil, destructive, and disillusioning nature of prosperity theology.

In full disclosure – I know Matt Sayman, or at least I knew him.  We had a Spanish class together our freshman year with Señora Ochoa. I remember chatting with him a few times during the course of that first semester in the Fall of 2000.  Perhaps this is why I found Matt to be a fitting tour guide through the story of Baylor University in the early 2000s.  In the first few chapters we can tell that Sayman lives the life of a basketball worshipper.  Although he came to Christ at an early age, Sayman admits that his worldview foundation was shaped more by Pistol Pete homework basketball videos and less by the Bible that Pistol Pete later embraced upon his own conversion.  One gets the sense that Matt believed in a kind of basketball prosperity gospel.  As he stated early on, “If my relationship with God was good, then my basketball game was good.”

This basketball prosperity theology proved to be a stable theology throughout his basketball career, a career that began in the small town of Berwick, Pennsylvania where he was a local basketball hero and continued into The Colony High School in Texas, where Sayman shined as an elite player.  Sayman was good enough to earn a division 1 scholarship offer from Dave Bliss at Baylor University, where his up and down successes with the men’s basketball team through his first three years at Baylor served to reinforce his theological framework: if you obey God, good things will happen on the court and in life.  Sayman’s theology seems to be additionally reinforced through his friendship with Jessika Stratton, a standout player for Baylor’s women’s team and a committed Christian.  Together, they embodied the ideal Baylor basketball student athletes — standouts on the court and in the game of life.

But then, the narrative takes a dark turn.  Tragedy struck during the summer of 2003 pushing Sayman to reexamine his theology, asking, “Why did this happen to me? I didn’t do anything wrong. And I am suffering for it.” Basketball prosperity theology was exposed for the fraud that it is.  Stunned by this revelation, Matt writes, “It [basketball] had been the idol of my life.”  Freshly disillusioned, Sayman turned to binge drinking, partying, and casual sex as a way of coping with his upended worldview.  As we find out in the afterward, these coping mechanisms slowly morphed into habits that robbed his life and his first marriage of the joy that God intended for them.

At one particular party, Matt describes a drunken encounter with Jess Stratton and the subsequent tear-filled conversation she had with him about the state of his life.  This was the low point in the story.  With the arrival of a new coach (Scott Drew) and a deceptively impressive 8-21 record, Sayman finally came to peace with his basketball journey.  He had not achieved his goal of reaching the NCAA tournament. However, he had found victory in readjusting his goals.  ”How many other teams could win 8 games, beat Texas A&M twice, and not finish in last place in their conference with only 7 scholarship players?” Sayman bragged.

Sayman used the events after his college career to finally address some of his inner demons.  A failed marriage, a stellar overseas career, and a litany of late night binge drinking experiences led to a sober realization at the ripe age of 30.  Matt gave up drinking and partying, was befriended by a local pastor, joined that pastor’s local church, and got married to a godly woman.  By the end of the narrative, we find that Matt Sayman needed this writing project as a way to put his basketball journey into a proper Biblical perspective, one that had matured from the naive basketball prosperity theology of his youth.

The Leftovers functions partly as an act of catharsis and partly as a spiritual discipline for Sayman.  Along the way, he grants readers access to a behind-the-scenes account of the the story of Baylor basketball.  It is in his story telling that Sayman’s communication ability is fully appreciated.  Matt is judicious in the way he portrays his characters.  Dave Bliss, for example, emerges as a complex figure who is both a Bible reading, FCA preacher as well as a cussing, hard-driving, coach with anger issues.  Scott Drew, on the other hand, comes off as an initially mercurial, but ultimately genuine father figure, who, along with his staff, helps to establish a nurturing basketball program that trains future leaders. Sayman, again, opts for a balanced honesty in the way he treats teammates with John Lucas III described as a brilliant player and a difficult teammate, and with Terrance Thomas beginning as selfish and troubled, but ending up as an exemplar human being and player.  And when particularly incriminating events need to be expressed, Sayman opts for confidentiality against the opportunity to dish.  In one scene during Drew’s first year, Matt prefers to keep a teammate’s name hidden from print, since the teammate is drinking wine coolers before practice. A nice touch, if you ask me.

Sayman should also be lauded for his wry sense of humor. For example, when asked to speak to the media immediately following the scandal, Sayman ponders aloud in a perfect Seinfeldian way, “I wonder what the proper dress code would be for the dissolving of a program press conference.” Part of the appeal of this book is that Sayman lives up to his name.  He says with judicious filter what all men would be thinking if pressed into a similar situation, and he delivers with a keen comedic timing.

Matt Sayman’s The Leftovers provides a readable history of the good and then bad and then good years of Baylor basketball from 2000-2004 and beyond.  Sayman is a capable narrator of the ins and outs of college life, college basketball, and the quest to find meaning and our place in this world.  In the end, his life story helps preach the good news that this meaning and place is found best, not in basketball, but in Jesus Christ.

 997 Views

Posted in Culture, Theology | Tagged , , , , | 11 Comments

Was Abram The First Gang Leader?

by Doug Hankins Posted on April 15, 2013

abrahamI was reading through Genesis 14 today and discovered a new facet of a familiar passage.  Funny how The Lord does that.

Here is how the passage begins…

Then one who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew [that his nephew Lot had been captured], who was living by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and of Aner. These were allies of Abram.

Having not read ahead, how would you expect the Bible story character Abram to respond?  Did he:

A: Go find a lonely spot to pray?
B: Go talk with the rival King and beg for mercy?
C: None of the above?

Answer: C

The passage continues:

When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, 318 of them, and went in pursuit as far as Dan. And he divided his forces against them by night, he and his servants, and defeated them and pursued them to Hobah, north of Damascus. Then he brought back all the possessions, and also brought back his kinsman Lot with his possessions, and the women and the people.

Did you catch that?  Abram had a posse.  318 of them.  And when his homeboy Lot got snatched by a rival, Abram turned to his crew and responded in the following way (so I imagine):

Fact: Abram had a crew.  He stepped to some boys who dissed and dismissed his family.  It was personal and he took action.

I am not suggesting what Abram did was something that we need to practice today.  I am actually against this form of violent action.  What I am suggesting is that this is a perfect example of how our kid-friendly Bible theology sometimes shields us from the gritty reality of God’s providence.

The truth is, Abram was a powerful man who had resources and personal wealth that could be and was often used to get his way as he navigated through the transient context of the Ancient Near East.  I think it is helpful to remember that YHWH did not call an already sanctified man into a covenant relationship.  YHWH called a fallen man into a covenant relationship.  He took a patriarchal gang leader and sanctified him into God-fearing, humble, patriarch.

And the truth of God’s Word is that the same God still does this amazing work of sanctification today, through His Son Jesus Christ.

 371 Views

Posted in Culture, Ministry, Theology | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Remembering Roger Ebert

by Doug Hankins Posted on April 5, 2013

Roger Ebert is dead at the age of 70, so the Chicago Sun-Times tells us.

His death is a milestone for me.  It dates me as someone who grew up is the area of the venn diagram where two generations overlap — the Gen-Xers and the Millennials.  For many of us, Roger Ebert wasn’t merely a film critic.  He was the film critic (along with Gene Siskel) that determined what was good and bad in the theatre.

I remember the first time I watched a Roger Ebert film review.  It was 1990 and Home Alone starring child prodigy  had just come to the theatre in my home town.  I told my dad that I wanted to see the film and he did what any other red-blooded American man would do before taking his nine-year old kid to see a movie — he watched Siskel and Ebert’s review.

They gave it a thumbs down.

Ebert thought the entire premise of the film was silly. He said the plot missed an opportunity to convey the ensuing terror of a scenario in which an eight-year old kid was left at home alone.  I remember my dad looking at me and asking, “Are you SURE you really want to see this movie?”  I remained steadfast in my film selection and we ended up seeing the movie anyways.

But Roger Ebert could have blown it for me that night.  And I have held a grudge ever since for that particular review.  How could he and Siskel have missed the genius of Home Alone?

  • It is the greatest Christmas film about a kid who is home alone in a suburb of Chicago of all time.
  • It made $476,684,675 at the box office.
  • It spawned a sequel that literally recycled the plot, characters  and sight gags, changed only the setting (New York, not Chicago…Totally different), and still made $358,994,850 at the box office.
  • And, it spawned a third installment that was terrible, as well as a fourth installment that went straight to video.  Not DVD. Video.

Despite my clear difference of opinion on the merits of Home Alone, I still turned to Roger Ebert’s movie reviews before watching nearly every movie I have ever seen.  He was my movie litmus test.  Conversations always seemed to follow this evaluation sequence:

  • Ebert gave it one star – we can rent it during that boring weekend in November.
  • Ebert gave it two stars – we may need to rent it at blockbuster this weekend.
  • Ebert gave it three stars – we should plan a date night to go watch it in the theater.
  • Ebert gave it four stars – I don’t care if we have to face traffic and high school kids texting, I WILL SEE THIS MOVIE.
  • Siskel and Ebert gave it two enthusiastic thumbs up – There is no discussion to be had . . . we are watching this film at least four times in the next two days.

And that was the thing about Roger Ebert. He was an irreplaceable cog in the film experience process.  He was the kind of writer that you could learn from even if you disagreed with him. Whether he ultimately liked or hated a particular film was not as important to me the fact that he reviewed them.  I always knew when a bad film was worth watching or a good film was worth avoiding based on his reviews. This was, perhaps, his legacy with my generation.

In reality, Home Alone is kind of a silly movie.  And that is okay for me to admit now because I am comfortable with the fact that I enjoy silly movies.  I feel the same way about Billy Madison, Tommy Boy, The Wedding Singer, and Dumb and Dumber.  Not coincidentally, Ebert gave thumbs down to all of them.  But by the late 90s, I knew that an Ebert thumbs down to a comedy meant that I would like it.  And I needed to know that before purchasing a movie ticket.

I am going to miss Roger Ebert and his reviews.  There is a great void in my film watching experience.  Sure, other writers can tell me their take.  Rotten Tomatoes can help me gauge popular perception.  But nothing will replace the functional role of Roger Ebert and his thumbs.

Here’s two thumbs up for your life Roger.

 387 Views

Posted in Culture | Tagged , , , , , | 8 Comments