LSU Football & Les Miles: The Organization Takes on the Personality of its Boss

I must confess from the outset that I am writing as a completely biased, emotionally involved LSU football fan who probably can’t see things as they really are, especially after yesterday’s complete heartbreaker.  Nonetheless, I want to share some thoughts for fellow LSU fans to offer feedback on.

If I am not mistaken, it’s widely held that the employees of a company, to whatever extent, takes on the personality of the boss (and this can even be applied to divisions within the company, as the employees in a particular division takes on the personality of its manager, etc.).  I believe what we’re seeing at LSU is the manifestation of this idea.

It’s been well chronicled at College Football News how Les Miles’ game management leaves much to be desired, particularly when clock management comes into play.  During LSU’s magical run in 2007, CFN questioned the decisions of Miles (for instance, the way the end of the Auburn game played out despite the positive outcome for LSU) while other news outlets were lauding Miles for being gutsy, a gambler.  At the time, I ignored the warning signs and just enjoyed the wild ride of 2007.  2008 brought about a disappointing season with a very inconsistent offense and defense.  Yet, I chalked it up to the quarterback saga and a weird, defensive co-coordinator thing going on.

Now with 2009 almost in the books, I’ve come to believe that what we’ve been witnessing is the real Les Miles – a man with great coaching ability, but lacking focus and attention to detail.  I wonder if Les was able to win in his first three years, culminating in the BCS Championship,  because he was primarily using Saban’s guys – guys who know who to be focused and stay focused (say whatever about Saban, but he is able to make his team match his intensity and focus).  Now that Saban’s guys are practically gone, we’re beginning to observe those raised up under Miles.  Like Saban’s teams match his focus and intensity, so we’re seeing that Miles’ teams match is lack of intensity (or seemingly lack of intensity) and his inability to maintain a high level of focus.

As such, sit back LSU fans and expect the wild, heart-wrenching ride of a Miles-led team.  At the pace we’re going, it may be a while before we see another consistent, intense, and focused LSU team.  (I sure hope I’m wrong.  I hope that all of this is just the musings of an upset fan still in at an emotional low after yesterday’s loss.  Yet, part of me tells me that this could not be further from the truth.)

Les Miles = Brain Cramp for LSU

Does a coach’s knack for significant brain cramps in key games count for justification for firing him? Les Miles has cost LSU too many games with his brain cramps. Ugh. Tough loss, and this one isn’t necessarily on the team, but the coach. Ugh.

Quantum Physics – Any Good Reads?

The Double Slit - electrons acting as waves & particles

I’ve recently become insterested in quantum physics and its possible philosophical implications.  As such, any of you SBTS-ers or fellow seminarians ready anything recently (print or on-line) that helps to explain this branch of physics?  I would also like to know of any attempts to apply the concepts of quantum physics to life over all; i.e., what are its implications?

Falling Asleep While Reading a Good Book

L always has to read before going to sleep because, in her words, "I can't sleep good."

 My sweet L.  A night never passes without her requesting a book to read before going to sleep.  My wifey caught this moment the other night.

HT: Ang

The Relationship Between Theology and Philosophy: Any Good Books?

As stated in an earlier post, I am currently reading K. Scott Oliphant’s book Reasons {for Faith}.  Based on a preliminary scan of the book, I thought Oliphant was going to deal with what the relationship of philosophy is to theology: what the essence of the relationship is, how it is played out, etc.  Unfortunately, as I get deeper into the book, the more I realize that the book is more of Oliphant’s working out of the philosphy of religion – how the Christian can predicate things to God (His goodness, etc.), for instance.  Oliphant deals very little with the actual relationship between theology and philosophy.

As such, what books are out there that deals with the essence of the relationship between theology and philosophy?  Not so much with the application of it, but what the relationship entails, etc.  Hope that is clear.

Recent Posts/Articles on the Logan Controversy

Here’s an update on recent news/info regarding the Logan Controversy:

Trevin Wax at Christianity Today writes a post titled “A Private Matter” in which he questions Chapman’s claim that the reasons for Logan’s firing is a matter that’s to be kept private.  Trevin contrasts Dr. Chapman’s actions to that of SBC president Johnny Hunt, who listened to the concerns of SBCers over the lack of diversity amongst the members of the GCR Task Force and made adjustments accordingly.

Likewise, Tim Brister at Provocations and Pantings, reacts against the form letter sent out by the EC to those who have contacted EC members in regards to Logan’s firing.  Timmy raises some important questions in light of the rather general, non-descript letter:

Is the Executive Committee providing such a response for legal cover?  What are we to think when even their own members were unaware of what happened to Clark Logan?  Is this another disappointing move in the wrong direction in order to avoid being accountable, transparent, and forthright with Southern Baptists? Is this generic response indicative that the Executive Committee officers are listening to the voice of Southern Baptists and giving appropriate attention to such an important (and public) matter?

Timmy, like Trevin, compares Chapman’s response (or lack thereof) to the Logan Controversy with Hunt’s response to concerns voiced about the GCR Task Force.  I encourage you to read his post (note the form letter included) and read the comments.

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).