And On the Other End – Silence: Chapman and Perception

If you’ve been keeping up with SBC life lately, many in the SBC-blogosphere and Tweet-osphere (see the tweets on #clarklogan, HT: SBCvoices) have been turning up the pressure on Dr. Morris Chapman, President of the SBC Executive Committee, to be forthcoming regarding the reasons for Clark Logan’s recent “resignation.”  While the clamor against Chapman is at a high pitch, there has been almost complete silence from Dr. Chapman (except for a  release on 7/7/09 where he states that Logan did not do anything legally or morally wrong).

Why this silence from Dr. Chapman?  An article (dated 8/30/07) on his website titled “FIRST PERSON – Courteous, Cautious, and Caring in Speech,” may shed some light.  In this article, Dr. Chapman discusses his decision to have his name and statement pulled from SBCoutpost.com (The situation, apparently, is that when SBCoutpost started up again, Dr. Chapman provided a quote (see article) affirming the usefulness of blogs for SBCers to communicate and calling for bloggers to communicate in a manner worthy of Christians.  When the site did not live up to its promise to watch it rhetoric, Dr. Chapman had his statement retracted).   Dr. Chapman uses the article to  state his reason for his actions, saying:

Throughout the years when problems have arisen among Southern Baptists, I have most often tried to answer questions and resolve issues quietly, but definitively.  In this instance, I at first felt a more public statement would take the matter to a level that the occurrence did not justify, causing even more confusion among the members of our Southern Baptist family.  It has become obvious to me that my reluctance to make a public statement has offended some, and I believe they deserve a more public response (emphasis mine).

Fastforward almost two years later, and Dr. Chapman is in a somewhat similar position, yet more dire and potentially damaging in that his actions have been  called into question by fellow SBCers.  If we take what Dr. Chapman said two years ago, he may indeed be seeking to clear the Logan matter quietly with the intentions of avoiding further confusion, or controversy, or whatever.  Nevertheless, his “reluctance to make a public statement” today is causing confusion amongst the SBC family. Whatever perception one may have had of Dr. Chapman before, I believe that it’s safe to say that his continued silence is hurting Dr. Chapman, and not helping.  As such, I pray that, as he did two years ago, Dr. Chapman breaks his silence and provides a public response to those who have called upon him to answer.  Until then, the clamor will only increase, causing further distraction in a denomination fresh off a future-changing Convention in Louisville.

Again, as I’ve said before, I hope for a quick resolution to this issue so that we may get back at the task set for us at SBC Louisville.  I pray what we see here is not a return to typical SBC bickering; instead, I hope this is just a bump in the road as we ride the winds of change that began blowing just a few weeks ago from the Bluegrass.

***Note: As I write this, I can’t help but think that I am guilty of the very thing I hope against – perpetuating distraction.  So, where is the balance in voicing concern over and calling to accountability of Dr. Chapman, and leaving the issue to work itself out while focusing on other things?  A conundrum I have no answer to at the moment.

In the meantime, visit www.sbcvoices.com and read Matt Svoboda’s “From One Resurgence to Another“; an interesting comparison of the Conservative Resurgence and the GCR.  The comments have some interesting perspectives as well in regards to the GCR, with some being cautiously hopeful of the future of the GCR.***

Picking Up Steam: Chapman Controvesy and the SBC

Baptist bloggers et. al have not let up (rightly so, in my opinion) on the resignation/firing of Clark Logan, now former EC vice president.  In particular, many are calling on Morris Chapman to be forthcoming in his reasons for this move, which has put Chapman in hotter water compared to that stemming from his SBC Louisville EC “report.”  Rather than rehash what many have said, here are the links to the pertinent sites:

***UPDATED 7/9***Baptist 21 – “Questions Surrounding the Executive Committee: Part 1″.  Here’s Part 2.

Florida Baptist Witness (a major player thus far in reporting the goings on of this controversy) – “SBC President weighs in on Logan controversy”

Timmy Brister – “Addressing the Morris Chapman Controversy in the SBC”

It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out.  For instance, what will this controversy serve do to the sense of challenge and unity forged at SBC Louisville not even a month ago?  I pray that this does not drive us from our task at hand – GCR – and drive us into a Convention bogged down with in-fighting.

May the Lord guide our denomination, may Chapman answer the questions put forth to him, and may we quickly deal with this issue and move on to hammering out even more the GCR.

I’ll be devoting the RSS feed to the right (News in the SBC) to the latest on what’s going on in the SBC.  I’ll hopefully be adding more blogs/websites/etc. to this feed as time goes on.

In the Blogosphere: Dave Burchett on “The Shack” – A Word to Fellow Christians

One of the hot topics in Christianity today is The Shack and it’s different slant (to put it kindly) on what Scripture says of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and the Trinity.  While I disagree with what the author presents about the Trinity and each Person, I also disagree with any ad hominem attacks against the books author, William P. Young.  As such, I found Dave Burchett’s words regarding this matter quite helpful and timely.  Rather than quoting from the post, I encourage you to read it in full.  Thank you, Dave, for your post.

For further reviews on the book, see: Tim Challies.  HT: Burchett

Oliphint’s “Reasons for Faith”: Reason in the Service of Faith

I am currently reading K. Scott Oliphant’s book Reasons {for Faith} which deals, in part, with the role of reason in faith.  In chapter2, Oliphint discusses the proper use of reason “to the truth given in Christianity.”  One is “to judge the consistency and coherence of biblical truth,” and to judge what is contridictory or not (via the law of contradiction).  Reason here, however, is to be understood as properly functioning only after salvation and is “enlightened … giving its decisions from the word” (22).

To take this further, reason alone is not to decide what is possible or impossible.  Oliphint then quotes Van Til from the cd-rom titled The Works of Cornelius Van Til to illustrate the difference of reason for Christians and that for non-believers, illustrating the use of the “law of contradiction”:

It is therefore pointless of Christians to tell non-Christians that Christianity is “in accord with the law of contradiction” unless they explain what they mean by this.  For the non-Christian will take this statement to mean something entirely different from what the Christian ought to mean by it.  The non-Christian does not believe in creation.  Therefore, for him the law of contradiction is, like all other laws, something that does not find its ultimate source in the creative activity of God.  Accordingly, the non-Christian will seek to do by means of the law of contradiction what the Christian has done for him by God.  For the Christian, God legislates as to what is possible and what is impossible for man.  For the non-Christian, man determines this for himself.  Either positively or negatively the non-Christian will determine the field of posibility and therewith the stream of history by means of the law of contradiction (Oliphant, 22, quoting Van Til).

The SBC: Unified with Divisions and “Non-Calvinists”

***Update: I’ve removed the “and Move On” from my title as this was a point I was going to make about something, but felt that it did not fit the tone of the post, nor the tone of dialogue amongst Christians.  I thought I’d taken it out, but apparently not!***

A week has passed since the SBC Convention in Louisville, KY, giving many of us SBCers plenty of time to let what went on to sink in.  The big topic from last weeks continues to be the passing of the GCR, among other issues related to it, particularly Morris Chapman and his Executive Committee report.   It would seem that, from the blogs I’ve been reading, that most SBCers agree that Chapman’s actions were uncalled for – taking advantage of a free microphone to rant against Calvinists in the SBC.   While Tim Brister at Provocations and Pantings has stated that Chapman’s actions should “bring about his resignation,” it seems most have voiced disappointment (to say the least) at Chapman’s actions.  Alan Cross at www.Downshoredrift.com, however, provides an interesting perspective on Chapman’s address.

According to Cross,

I might not agree with all that he said (and I don’t), but I am wondering if we dismissed his words too quickly because they didn’t fit with what we all wanted to hear. As I went back and read over his address, I found myself agreeing with almost all of it. Even his controversial statements on Calvinism are more understandable if you hear them in context of the rest of his address. He wonders why we cannot allow for a proper tension between Divine Sovereignty and the human response of faith, instead of putting all of the focus on God’s work and none on man’s response.

While I can see where Cross is coming from, I just don’t see how his rant (not sure what else to call it) fit within the rest of his address, which was excellent.  As I read and re-read it, his call for unity was overshadowed by his seemingly pointed criticisms of Calvinists within the SBC.  It seems that on one side of his mouth Chapman called for unity, but on the other side he drew the battle line.  However if what Cross states is true:

Even his controversial statements on Calvinism are more understandable if you hear them in context of the rest of his address. He wonders why we cannot allow for a proper tension between Divine Sovereignty and the human response of faith, instead of putting all of the focus on God’s work and none on man’s response.

then I agree to an extent, but we must also consider the flip side of the statement ”instead of putting all of the focus on God’s work and none on man’s response” – non-Calvinists need to stop putting all of the focus on man’s response and none on God’s work.  Thus, while I don’t feel we should go as far as Tim suggests (see above), I’m not so sure either about Cross’ interpretation of Chapman’s speech.  To conclude this section, however, I include Cross’ closing words which set a good tone for the GCR conversation:

Here is my main concern:  We need to be careful that we do not enter a time where questions about the GCR or theological differences are dismissed or different positions are not allowed to be presented on the areas where we differ for fear that someone will lose their job or they will be shouted down. If Dr. Chapman was wrong about Calvinism, then someone needs to say so, … I will defend the right of Calvinists to be in the SBC, even though they think that their view is the only correct view. Actually, I respect that. Why would you hold to a view that you don’t think is correct? At the same time, I will defend Dr. Chapman’s right to question that view or to question the GCR, even if he is shown to be mistaken about part of it or is responding to a caricature. That is where dialogue comes in and without dialogue, we have no hope for cooperation. There should be enough room for different voices in the SBC and we should be able to disagree on these issues and still work together.

So, going back and reading Dr. Chapman’s address, I can say that I disagree with him on his perspective on Calvinism (not that the correct view is a divine tension but that Calvinists diminish faith), but I do not disagree with his main point that we should keep Christ and His gospel central to all that we do and that we should cooperate together to take His gospel to the ends of the earth. Let’s not lose the main point because we disagree with the direction the person is coming from. If we do that, then all dialogue will break down and we will never be able to work with those who differ from us in certain areas.

Keep Christ central. Love one another. Agree on the main things. Partner for missions.

Thank you for these words, Alan.

In light of this GCR, I have a question – what is meant by “non-Calvinist” in these discussions?  Throughout my reading on this issue, the term “non-Calvinist” has been thrown around quite a bit with no real definition.  I wrote previously that the term “Calvinist” needed to be clarified in the GCR debate, but so does “non-Calvinist.”  When we refer to a non-Calvinist, do we automatically assume that this person is Armenian in his soteriology with “non-Calvinist” serving as a euphemism for  the Armenian view point?  Or, are there other views of soteriology that fall under this umbrella term (non-Calvinist) plays a role in SBC life?  While some may see the question as trivial and the answer obvious, I believe it is necessary that we clarify what we’re speaking of for arguments sake, for what may be happening is that we have many people arguing past each other while using the same words.

To Judge or Not to Judge: Christians & the Death of Michael Jackson

The death of Michael Jackson wrought many responses on the blogosphere from fans and non-fans alike.  Christians even chimed in on the unexpected death of this cultural icon, which is not unsual, but what stands out is the various tones in which Christians commented on Michael Jackson.  Some spoke with gracious words – while condemning some of Jackson’s actions, they grieved over Jackson himself; however, some Christians presented nothing less than pure vitriol with some almost rejoicing that Jackson is dead.  Many responded to these remarks with a similar remark – Christians shouldn’t judge, but instead to love as God is love (the former part of this statement referring to Matthew 7:1, I’m sure).  While this is true to an extent, does Scripture teach Christians to abstain from any form judgment?  I would say no.

It is true that Jesus, in Matthew 7:1-6, teaches that believer are not to be judged, lest they be judged.  States as such, this seems to allude to any and all judgment; however, in verse 2-4, Jesus clarifies what he means here by referring to one judging according to one’s own standards (verse 2).  Verse 3 carries this further to paint the picture that Jesus is speaking to one who judges with the mindset of finding the faults of others while ignoring his own faults.  This person nit-picks the faults and sins of others, seemingly straining to find anything to point out while ignoring his own glaring faults.  Jesus, in verse 5, calls this person a hypocrite, for this person speaks against sins in others but commits those very sins himself.

Paul speaks to this form of judgment in Romans 2:1-16 and chapter 14.  Romans 2:1 states:

Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself, for you who judge practice the same things (NASB).

Paul had just spoken in chapter 1 how God had handed man over to his sinful lusts, for man, having seen His eternal power and divine nature (1:21), had chosen instead to follow his own desires.  The believers Paul is writing to seems to have been committing the same acts spoken of in chapter 1, as Paul says they were stubborn and unrepentant (verse 5), committing the very acts they condemned others of (verse 1).  As such, they were the hypocrites Jesus spoke of in Matthew 7:5.

While much more can be said of these two passages, the point I want to bring out is that Jesus and Paul were speaking against the believer judging as if he (the believer) were in the judgment seat as Judge.  Here, the believer acts as if he has the right to condemn others for their sin.  Yet, in doing so, the believer puts himself in a place reserved only for the Lord Jesus Christ, acting in such a way that he – the believer – is somehow entitled to pass judgment as Judge to whomever he deems out of line.  The end, then, of this kind of judgment is an issue of pride – one condemns others of their sins, causing him to feel righteous, better off … whatever, and ends up sinning himself.

The Christian, however, is not called to completely abstain from judging.  In Matthew 7:15-20, Jesus warns believers against false prophets and tells them that they will be able to distinguish between true prophets and false prophets by their fruits, implying that believers are to judge others’ actions and words to determine whether they are of the Lord or not.  In one of his most direct epistles, Paul bluntly confronts the Galatians for turning from the Gospel taught them by Paul to a false gospel.  Paul holds no punches, clearly letting the Galatians know of their wrong (Paul, in chapter 2, even tells how he confronts Peter and his sin).  Again, in 1 Corinthians, Paul condemns a man for having relations with his father’s wife (1 Cor. 5:1-13), clearly judging the man for his sin.  What, then, is the difference between these passages and the ones mentioned above?  I believe the answer lies in the standard by which one judges and the end to which one judges.

The act of judgment as referred to in Matthew 7:15-20, Galatians, and 1 Corinthians 5 is done so in light of God’s Word, which serves as the standard of judgment (as opposed to one’s own standard referred to in Matt. 7:1-2).  One knows is able to discern the fruit of another only in light of God’s Word, in which we are taught the characteristics of the godly person and of the fool (one who goes against God’s ways and follows his own path).  Paul, then, in 1 Corinthians 5 is able to call the actions of the man who had relations with his father’s wife as immoral, that he was wrong in committing such an act because of what God says in His Word about proper relationships.  Paul is able to scold the Galatians for their abandonment of the Gospel because of what he was taught by Christ and the Scripture.  Christians, then, should not shirk from calling sin as it is – sin.  God’s Word is clear at to what is in direct opposition to God, and we as believers must not abstain from calling out sin and standing against it.  The believer, however, must not stop at pointing out sin.  Crucial to God’s Word serving as the standard of judgment is the end to which one judges.

Paul, when pointing out the sins of the Corinthians and Galatians, did not stop after telling them where they went wrong.  Paul went one crucial step further and sought to restore the believers into a right relationship with Jesus Christ.  Paul confronted them with their sin in order that the believers would confess and repent of their sins.  In 1 Corinthians, Paul seeks to restore the church to unity found in Jesus Christ, while in Galatians, Paul exhorts the believers to return to the freedom from the Law found only in Christ.  Paul judges others only to point them back to Christ through His Word.  As such, the proper end we should seek for when pointing out sin is that of restoration.  Galatians 6:1 -

Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself so that you too will not be tempted (NASB).

But, what of the unbeliever?  As stated earlier, the issue at hand was Christians judging Michael Jackson and his death.  Again, I do believe that we are to call sin for what it is; yet again, however, to what end are we doing it and by what standard?  Is one pointing out and harping on the sins of unbelievers with no mention of the forgiveness and salvation of God through faith in Jesus Christ?  If so, then that person is no better than the hypocrite of Matthew 7:5, for who does not sin and do the things they condemn others of?  But, if one points the unbeliever to the Gospel of Christ, pounding home the free grace and mercy of God through Jesus Christ rather than harping on the sin, then I think he is right on.  Again, the end is to ultimately point one to Jesus Christ, the Judge of the world.  We are not to condemn one for their sin; that is for God and God alone (1 Cor. 5:13).

May God have mercy on us for when we have acted as Judge against others; may we rest in His sovereignty and judgship, remembering that it is the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin.  We are to be faithful servants to the Gospel, walking in obedience to His Word.

Matt Summers has another persepctive to this very same issue here.

When Christians Quit Acting Like Christians

While looking for various Christian responses on the death of Michael Jackson, I came across this poll from Landover Baptist Church.  Here is a snapshot of the poll (as of 6/26, 10:40 pm):

No! He was a very confused individual, but could have found Jesus. Instead, he’ll go to Hell.		1	9.09%
Yes! He deserved to go to Hell, and I hate him.		5	45.45%
No. He was misunderstood and falsely accused by people who wanted his money.		1	9.09%
No, but I’m glad there won’t be another Michael Jackson album.		1	9.09%
Why limit the party to Christians? Let’s all celebrate!		3	27.27%

I have no words for this.  It’s truly an afront to Scripture and how we as Christians are called to live in this world.  It’s sad.

SBC Executive Committee Presidential Report:What’s Calvinism Got to Do With It?

***This was originally under a different title, but I think I misconstrued a term used in it.***

SBC.net has on its webpage today the Executive Committee’s Presidential report (see here) presented by Morris Chapman on 6/23 at the SBC Convention.  This is the first time I had the chance to read the entire transcript (I was unable to be present for the presentation, as my eldest daughter had swimming lessons).  I appreciate the opening tone Chapman took when addressing the convention, calling for Baptists to flee the temptation for cultural relevance at the sacrifice of the Gospel and to flee the temptation of comparing one self to another other than Christ.

What particularly stood out to me in his presentation were his words warning against vain-ambition:

To those of us who are always pressing for a higher profile in convention life or climbing the ladder of ambition, the LORD would tell us that the greatest place is the place of service. It is the lowly floor of the basin and the towel, not the throne of power and authority. We must prefer to kneel at another’s feet in service, than to stand in the synagogues and street corners. And when God chooses to bless one of his servants for their faithfulness, we must avoid watching with benign interest – and often a critical spirit. We must follow the example of Christ himself, and seek to be the servant of all.

Wise words to all, especially to us young ministers getting started in the ministry.  Am I seeking to make myself known – to gain recognition and respect of others  - or am I seeking to move up the ministerial ladder, or am I seeking to serve the Lord through humble service of His people.  Sadly, I believe I find myself too often desiring to make a name of myself rather than seeking to minister to God’s people and reaching out to the lost.

Chapman recognizes the sense of change sweeping our convention and encourages Baptists to abstain from a critical spirit and to cooperate for the furtherance of the Gospel.

Oddly, Chapman’s address moves from encouraging to what seems a critical (spirited) treatise against Calvinism.  Per Chapman:

The Southern Baptist Convention is experiencing a resurgence in the belief that divine sovereignty alone is at work in salvation without a faith response on the part of man.

Some are given to explain away the “whosoever will” of John 3:16. How can a Christian come to such a place when Ephesians says, “For by grace are you saved through faith” (Eph. 2:8)? I do not rise to become argumentative, or to change minds already convinced of one perspective or the other. But I do rise to state the obvious. Man is often tempted to design a theological theory in light of a biblical antinomy in order to clarify what God is trying to say.

Man’s system will be inferior to God’s system now and forever. Why is it so difficult to accept from God what we cannot fully explain? After all, He didn’t begin to tell us everything He knows, but what we need to know to be redeemed and live righteously. The belief that sovereignty alone is at work in salvation is not what has emboldened our witness and elevated our concern for evangelism and missions through the ages. This is not the doctrine that Southern Baptists have embraced in their desire to reach the world for Christ.

If there is any doctrine of grace that drives men to argue and debate more than it drives them to pursue lost souls and persuade ALL MEN to be reconciled to God – then it is no doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man both are taught in the Bible. Both are necessary elements in the salvation experience. A healthy tension (an antinomy) exists in the Bible with regard to these two important biblical truths. Both are present in the salvation experience.

As Alan Cross at Downshore Drift asks:

So, why Dr. Chapman? Why do this here and now?  I am wondering if he was trying to illustrate that many of the proponents of the GCR are Calvinists and he was trying to show that Calvinists are not really Great Commission people so a GCR supported by Calvinists was an oxymoron. I know that Dr. Chapman disagrees with the GCR on the basis of Article IX which calls for a reorganization of the SBC, but could he have brought up the Calvinism issue to try and create a wedge in people’s minds before the vote tonight?

My question, though, is whether Calvinism is the real issue at hand?  I understand that many hold to Calvinism in the SBC, but how does Chapman define Calvinism here?  There are Calvinists who hold to the idea that because God elects some to salvation, then believers have little to no reason to evangelize.  This view, however, is not representative of all Calvinists, and probably not even to a majority of Calvinists.   Some hold to only parts of Calvinism, while some hold to all five points of Calvinism all the while holding the belief in the biblical mandate to evangelize the lost with the Gospel.   Complaints and arguments  made against Calvinism within SBC circles seem to have failed defining what exactly is meant by “Calvinism.”

Back to my original question, though (is Calvinism the real issue?) … I believe what some are reacting to is hyper-Calvinism (an unbiblical view).  This, I believe, is a legitimate concern for the church.  Anyone who sees evangelism as unnecessary is treading in very dangerous theological waters.  However, to use the term “Calvinist” in this way and to paint all Calvinist in this light is to commit a hasty generalization.  In addition, non-Calvinists are using the charge of “Calvinism” in the sense of “hyper-Calvinism,” then why is it that “Calvinist” institutions like Southern are heavily involved in missions – the very act of going out to evangelize the lost?  Why are “Calvinist” believers (see Timmy Brister,  one that comes immediately to mind) very passionate to see the lost won to Christ and carrying out this passion by actually evangelizing the lost?

I believe some are also operating from the idea (or fear?) that Calvinists (in whatever sense used) will soon require the doctrine of Calvinism as a measuring stick for membership in the SBC.  This, however, is unfounded.  What evidence is there to back this claim up?  Instead of facing Calvinists with arguments supporting one’s view against Calvinism (and for whatever soteriology they hold to), some instead argue from generalizations and unsupported opinions.  So, if Calvinism is truly the issue at hand – the issue of concern for our denomination for the lack of drive in reaching the lost – then I am unclear as to exactly why it is other than a reaction from fear of a “Calvinist takeover” on the part of some or a misunderstanding of what Calvinism is in the context of the SBC.

Chapman is somewhat correct in stating: “If there is any doctrine of grace that drives men to argue and debate more than it drives them to pursue lost souls and persuade ALL MEN to be reconciled to God – then it is no doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ.”  But, in the  case of the SBC, is it the doctrine that is driving believers to debate more than seeking the lost, or is it our pride and our own doctrinal stances?

The real issue, then, is the seemingly lack of drive to reach the lost on the part of SBC churches (in general), and this a result not of Calvinism in our midst.  Rather, the lack of drive for evangelism is a result of our pride and self-service.  To regain our evangelistic fervor that once defined the SBC, we must repent and seek the Lord’s face, seeking to serve others in humility.  This repentance and renewed evangelistic drive, I believe, is now happening in our denomination; may the Lord’s Spirit sustain within us a broken and contrite heart.

What Am I Getting Myself Into? – Revisited

I was reviewing some old blog posts today and came across one I’d written on 1/2/08  in response to Trevin Wax’s challenge to read 100 books in one year.  Here’s my original post.  In it, I challenged myself to read 50 books in 2008.  Sadly, I am here to report that I did not reach my goal.  Let’s chalk that one up to a busy schedule and life, not from a lack of desire.

I must say, however, that I may be reading about that much when, Lord willing, I enter the doctoral program at seminary.

LSU Baseball Back on Top!

Texas can only watch on as LSU celebrates sixth national title. -courtesy of "The Truth" blog at www.collegebaseballtoday.com

Okay, so this is one day late, but let me say, “Geaux Tigers!”  It’s great to see LSU Baseball back  as one of the preiminent programs in the nation.  While much of a team’s success is due to the play on the field, the coach plays a significant role in a team’s success as he must manage personalities, keep the players motivated and cognizant of the goal at hand, etc.  Bob Starkey at Hoop Thoughts provides a great little post on Paul Mainieri the coach, which is reflective of Paul Maineiri the man as well.  Check it out.

Some interesting tidbits:

• T0mmy Lasorda weighs in on LSU’s victory.  He knows Mainieri via Paul’s father.
• A blog with a great title: “No more skip, the smoke clears, Mainieri puts his stamp on this program“, which aludes to the previous two coaches for LSU Baseball.