FIFA U20 predictions

So the FIFA U20 World Cup ended last night. Well, that's not entirely true. The quarter-finals ended last night, and so did the participation of every host city except for Toronto and Edmonton. Since I live in Ottawa and attended every game there, it feels like the tournament is over for me. Especially because I don't have television and will be unable to watch the remaining matches.

It doesn't matter though, because even though we are only at the semi-final stage, it is clear that Argentina will win. Which means that as an England fan, I don't want to watch the rest of this tournament.

I figured that this tournament might provide me with some joy because England wasn't in it. (England's non-participation in this tournament is not an indictment of their footballing acumen. Most European powers decided to give this tournament a miss, instead focusing on the European U21 championships that happened a few weeks earlier, where England ultimately did quite well, losing an interminably long penalty shoot-out to Netherlands in the semi-final. In fact, many traditional European powers including Netherlands, France, Italy, and Germany did not go to the tournament in Canada.) England, the nation that invented football, has not won a major footballing tournament since 1966, so their non-participation was actually seen by me as an opportunity to avoid disappointment. And since their arch-rivals Argentina were in this tournament I figured that the three lions on my chest gave me free reign to cheer for whoever was playing against Argentina. Since Argentina opened the tournament five teams have disappointed me, with only one managing to score against the Albicelestes, and only one other denying them a win.

The only thing worse so far would have been cheering against Chile. Up to this point, Argentina has been undefeated, has conceded only one goal, and has won every game except one. The only team with a better record has been Chile, who have won every game but one without conceding a single goal. True, they were forced to overtime in their quarter-final against Nigeria, but in the 30 extra minutes they put four goals past the Flying Eagles.

But we are entering the semi-finals, which is where fairytales end. Cinderella teams never make it past the semi-finals. Both Turkey and South Korea made it to the semi-finals of World Cup 2002, but the final was contested by Brasil and Germany, the two countries who have appeared in more finals than any other. The only exception to this hard and fast rule is the (glorious) surprise of Greece winning Euro 2004. But anomalies like that only occur once a century.

Argentina will roll over Chile, without needing extra time. (Argentina are the only semi-finalist who have not yet gone to extra time this tournament.) The Czech Republic will spoil the party for Austria, the team whose performances thus far actually mean they deserve to win the trophy.

The inevitable Argentina v Czech Republic final on Sunday is a foregone conclusion. It is interesting that the final will be a rematch of the first game of the tournament, where the two countries battled to a hard-fought nil-nil draw. But one should not let that result fool you into thinking that these two countries are evenly matched.

If we count victories in penalty shoot-outs as ties rather than wins, we can see that going into the semi-finals Argentina boasts a record of 4 wins and 1 tie, while Czech Republic have taken the tough road to the semis, with only 1 win and 4 ties.

The teams are markedly uneven in terms of goals as well. Since their opener the Czech Republic have conceded in every game they have played, and have not scored more than 2 goals in any single game. When excluding penalty shoot-outs their goals for-against is an unconvincing 7-6. Compare this to Argentina, whose for-against is a startling 11-1, helped immensely by a 6-0 thumping of Panama, who the Czechs only managed to beat 2-1.

Expecting more disappointment I will be cheering heavily for Austria, and especially for Chile, this coming week.


Other interesting factoids:

- The 4 semi-finalists come from only two groups (groups A and F). This means that the final could be one of two possible first-round rematches: Argentina v Czech Republic, or Chile v Austria. In both cases, the first round game finished 0-0.

- Austria has won each of their knockout stage matches by the same scoreline (2-1) with the same substitute (Erwin Hoffer) scoring the winning goal in both.

- Czech Republic have won all of their knockout stage matches on penalties. None of the other semi-finalists have yet gone to penalties.

- Argentina's victory over Mexico in Ottawa was the only quarter-final not to go to extra-time, though interestingly the only goal of the game was scored in first-half stoppage time.

Bad Dreams

It seems that every time I have nightmares they always involve me missing something that I was really looking forward to.

For example, the other night I dreamt that the North American leg of the Turn It On Again tour had been announced and both the Vancouver and Seattle shows were entirely sold out.

Cultural Curiousity

So the other day I watched, online, a 25-minute news feature by CBC reporter Mark Kelley.

The feature is called "Seven", and the premise is that the reporter spends seven days in a particular situation.

This particular episode (Part I, and Part II) featured Kelley spending 7 days with evangelical Christians.

Seven days with evangelical Christians doing anything in particular? Going on a missions trip? Lobbying Washington? Holding news conferences? Not really - just 7 days with evangelical Christians.

Can you believe it? Simply by existing, us evangelicals are a news story! The fact that I woke up in the morning is newsworthy.

This, or course, is great news. What other groups gets that kind of free air time?? This is PR that we can't buy.

And unfortunately we aren't capitalising like we should.

Ok I don't want to just rag on my co-religionists, because of course I love them. But I have to point this out. There is this gloriously beautiful clip in this feature where the reporter asks a couple of young Christians "so what is the one thing you think I should know?"

!!! BA-ZING!! People, this guy (albeit for showbusiness purposes) has just ASKED YOU to present the gospel to him! You cannot ask for a better opportunity! (Actually, in your prayers last night you probably did ask for an opportunity this golden, come to think of it.)

And so these eager, young, intelligent Christians answered his question. The one thing that Mark Kelley and CBC viewers need to know is that . . . media stereotypes about Christians aren't always correct?!?!? Come ON guys! What a terrible answer to give!

And that was the one thing I was left feeling after watching this feature. Kelley highlighted a bunch of Christians (and not crazy out-of-the-mainstream Christians either. He went to ATF, Teen Mania, xxxchurch.com, etc) fighting culture wars. And when an opportunity to evangelise came along they were so busy fighting smut and unwholesome entertainment that they didn't recognise it.

Ok, so I don't want to give them too hard a time. Besides, the guy who plays Jesus at Holy Land Orlando did take the opportunity to make a gospel presentation to Kelley, which was fabulous.

(And just a few days prior I watched a magnificent interview on The Standard with Franklin Graham where Graham, no matter the question, always managed to bring his answer back to the death and resurrection message of Jesus. It was beautiful; whether the interviewer tried to talk about humanitarian aid, politics, or relations with Islam, Graham always managed to end up talking about sin and salvation. It was a great interview.)

All I'm saying is that when the secular world wants to talk about politics, economics, or semantics, we should always be mindful of why we bear the name of Christ. We bear the name to glorify the name, and we should air it as much as we bear it.

Seriously, the fact that we are combatants in the "War on Christmas" is tragic. We should spend a whole lot less time worrying about whether Christ is in our retailers adverts and more time worrying about whether Christ is in our neighbour's hearts.

One thing this amusing CBC feature taught me is that we are a cultural curiousity. Let's engage the culture-watchers, not just amuse them.

Advice on Marriage from me, a single guy

Unfortunately, the church in Canada has totally missed the boat. Completely.

I am, of course, talking about the definition of marriage.

First, let me be totally clear about this issue. The issue is not same-sex marriage. The issue is the definition of marriage. And our first mistake was letting our political opponents define the debate. As soon as pastors and Christian leaders started using the term "same-sex marriage" you knew that they had already lost. Calling it same-sex marriage already implies ownership of marriage by same-sex couples. By giving a name to something you don't believe exists you are tacitly admitting that, though you may not like it, it does certainly exist. It exists, because it has a name! So we had a debate about "same-sex marriage", not about the "definition of marriage". Our first critical mistake was not defining the debate.

Our second mistake was a lot more crucial. It had to do with how we reacted when we lost the debate and Parliament redefined marriage. And interestingly, the reaction by the church was quite different depending on which age group we are talking about. The reaction of older Christians was naive and stubborn, but the reaction by younger Christians was downright stupid.

The reaction by older Christians was, quite simply, reactionary. 'If we dig in our heels, rally the troops, and stream to the ballot box, we can elect Christians who will restore traditional marriage,' was their thinking. Like I said, naive. Naive, because anyone who reads the polls, watches the news, or reads the newspapers knows that this parliament is not going to restore traditional marriage any time in the foreseeable future. It was also stubborn because these Christians failed to entertain new political tactics and insisted on using the same old methods of political engagement which had been so hopeless in the past.

The reaction by younger Christians was, for the orthodox, infuriating. The thinking of younger Christians on this issue was the dullest example of 'cutting edge' thinking I have ever seen. Their thinking, insofar as I can divine it, was something like this: 'The church has gotten a bad name for a long time by always taking unpopular and judgemental stances on issues in society. Let's completely forget about the marriage debate and instead focus on more important issues.' So far so good - so what is the problem with this thinking? Well, there are a number of problems with this thinking.

One significant problem is the refusal by young Christians to take a stand on any social issue that is unpopular. The traditional definition of marriage is not a popular position, but that does not make it any less correct. The willingness of many young Christians to abandon the debate in favour of 'more important' issues is a prime example of spinelessness and a tragic lack of commitment to unpopular Christian positions.

An even larger problem with this position is that young Christians vowed to focus instead on 'more important' issues (which really just meant more socially acceptable issues) without articulating a positive Christian vision of what a focus on more important issues would look like! So many young Christians have decided that it means fighting AIDS - a noble calling to be sure. But instead of using a Christian approach to the AIDS epidemic, they are following non-Christian approaches. These young Christians are sending money and manpower to the Stephen Lewis Foundation, completely oblivious to the fact that Stephen Lewis's approach to HIV/AIDS is hardly consistent with a Christian approach to the crisis.

After seeing the church lose the debate on the definition of marriage, young Christians quickly and uncritically shifted their social justice efforts to socially acceptable issues, and did so in a manner that is not consistent with a Christian view of cultural engagement. I won't get into it in great detail, but let me just say that if we as Christians are going to fight HIV/AIDS (which of course we should), then we should first articulate a positive Christian vision of how to do so, instead of blindly following the advice of the opinion pages in secular newspapers. I won’t get into it here, but put simply it is the difference between Stephen Lewis's approach and Rick Warren's approach.

This band-wagoning with secularists on social issues is indicative of the attitude of many young Christians. It represents an unwillingness to go against the grain of societal norms; an unwillingness to defend unpopular positions, even if they are biblical; and a preference for following over leading.

All this to say that due to the stubbornness of traditionalists and the repudiation of traditional values by progressives, the Christian church in Canada has missed a gilt-edged chance to preach a remarkably positive message about marriage, the family, and the church's place in society.

So what should the church have done when they lost the definition of marriage debate? Well as you can tell by my polemic against progressive Christians, I don't think we should have simply abandoned the marriage issue and let the state take full ownership of it. Nor do I think we should have stuck our head in the sand, or drawn a line in the sand. If there is one thing our Lord taught us it is that we should stay away from sand.

What should the church have done? It's a suggestion I first heard in 2003 from Wes Burr, and it's brilliant.

The Christian church in Canada should stop performing civil marriages and only perform religious marriages.

Do I mean to say that we should encourage Christians to get married before God and never sign a marriage certificate?

Absolutely.

What a teaching moment this would be! This would be the perfect way to send the message that God, not the state, defines what marriage is. If God's Kingdom is not of this world, then no government-issued piece of paper can tell you when you are or are not married in the sight of God.

It would also show the church's complete commitment to the separation of church and state. In fact Church and state are so separate that we have repudiated any and all state involvement is the sacred matter of Christian marriage! What a great teaching that would be.

And legally speaking, the consequences would be virtually nil. Young Christian couples who got married before the alter without signing a civil marriage certificate would not have to worry about losing the tax and legal benefits of civil marriage, because after 6 months this little concept called "common-law partnership" would kick into effect by default. So the state would give you the title of "common-law", but it would matter not one whit - you are married before God, and you haven't polluted your marriage by accepting an unholy, secular definition of what marriage is.

By refusing to perform civil marriages, the church would have a perfect opportunity to teach not about the evil of same-sex marriages, but about the blessedness and sanctity of God-ordained Christian marriage.

But the Canadian Christian church has not done that. Instead of seizing a golden opportunity to demonstrate how the church can be a positive innovator in a society that it is in but not of, we have opened up a new fissure between never-say-die traditionalists and malleable, trend-chasing progressives.

We have very little time left to reverse this trend, and I hope we seize the opportunity very soon.

Auburn Belinda on CBC

For anyone who watched the Liberal Leadership coverage on the CBC network this weekend, the real story was Belinda Stronach's new hair colour. Love her or hate her, there is no denying that Belinda's new dark hair is a very flattering look for her. Many people told me that they weren't expecting to see Belinda looking like that.

But it should come as no surprise - Belinda is always changing her colours.





(I am here all week people.)

Be Thou my Vision

This weekend has been a whirlwind that has once again left my head spinning as I think about the state of evangelicalism today.

At the time of writing this paragraph, the most read and most e-mailled story on news.bbc.co.uk is about a high-profile American evangelical. To my left sits a book by a leading Canadian evangelical, signed by the author with the message "God Bless, 'Cousin'" written on the inside cover. To my right sits a ticket stub from an event with a leading Canadian evangelical musician and British Christian writer.

First, let me say that I have always believed that part of the success, dynamism, and appeal of evangelicals lies in the fact that we are a very self-reflective bunch. We are constantly re-assessing our doctrines, attitudes, and actions in light of solo scriptura (and soli deo gloria, and all those other cool Latin slogans). And headlines on the BBC like "Sex-row US pastor 'bought-drugs'" definitely cause us to reflect.

This was not the first time that Ted Haggard made headlines though. In November 2005 the cover story of Christianity Today was a great deal more positive. In fact it was down-right inspiring. The story "Good Morning, Evangelicals!" urged readers to "Meet Ted Haggard, the NAE's optimistic champion of ecumenical evangelism and free-market faith." The church was being re-invigorated by a leader who preached a simple and re-vitalised evangelicalism; who spoke to the White House every week; and who was seemingly unflappable.

I don't know about you, but I was ready for an optimistic champion of ecumenical evangelism and free-market faith. It was a breath of fresh air in the midst of many equally unattractive options. Whether it was the schmarmy, off-putting prosperity gospel of Osteen and Schuller; the nay-saying, anti-traditionalist negativity of Wallis, McLaren, and Bell; the impossible-to-acheive, type-A, executive style evangelism of Jakes and Hybels; or Falwell and Dobson, unable to get their worthy messages past unfair stereotypes that dogged them. Even the evangelical population at large was starting to tire of these leaders, leaders all suffering from some kind of malaise. The general feeling was that they all had some of the Truth, but each had their own handicap that stopped it from being truly compelling. That is where Haggard, I think, was able to shine. I think he came to the forefront because he had the ability to relate to people comfortably and naturally. Harper's magazine decided arbitrarily, in February 2005, that Haggard and Dobson were the two most influental evangelicals in the USA. Haggard made the TIME magazine list of 25 most influental evangelicals. And the ChurchReport.com list of 50 most influental. And any list made since the 2004 election. I know that when there was a difficult issue that I did not have time to research and think through, I would just take my opinion from whatever the NAE put out. After all, they shared my values so why wouldn't I want to share their opinions? Under Haggard's leadership the NAE became a valuable opinion-leader in the marketplace of ideas.

The situation with Haggard has come at a time when it looks like evangelicalism has peaked and fallen from its throne in America. The 2000 and 2004 elections, with all their talk of "values voters" really made a lot of people believe that it was the Bible-thumpers country now, thank you very much. Of course in hindsight we should have realised that this was a lot of media hype. Certainly evangelicals had a lot of momentum in 2004, but their conquest was far from complete. They had momentum in 2004, but now in 2006 Christianity Today is referring to evangelical voters as "dispirited". What happened in just two years?

Well three things happened. The evangelical community supported a war they were never entirely comfortable with, in hopes that the President would reciprocate and support pro-family measures that Washington would never be entirely comfortable with. Needless to say, the Godsquad was disappointed: the unjust war became even more unpopular, and as thanks for their support President Bush nominated two Supreme Court justices who were iffy on life ethics and family values, while all the while never really put any effort into promoting abstinence-only sex ed, real protections for marriage, or serious pro-life reforms in areas like private stem-cell research. Also, environment became the hot topic of the day and evangelicals were slow to get behind creation care.

One: our support for the war really hurt us. Two: the President did not go to bat for us like we hoped he would. Three: we were viewed as irresponsible on the environment. With this as the backdrop, the Haggard situation is really not more than a diversion. Nonetheless, it is hard to think of American evangelicalism as anything but 'in trouble.'

* * *

But how would we describe Canadian evangelicalism today? Well a Torontonian would hardly believe that it existed. But interestingly, in a far less Christian country a quieter, less triumphalist evangelicalism is really doing quite well. On Friday morning I went a Prayer Breakfast in Surrey where the speaker was none other than the truly unflappable Deborah Grey. Two evangelical pastors gave the opening and closing prayers, evangelical songs were song, and the choir from the local Christian private school sang. And it was one of the songs of that choir that really struck me from the morning: "Be Thou My Vision oh Lord of my Heart. Not be all else to me, save that Thou art."

The name of Jesus was repeated used that morning in front of an audience that was made up of a lot of non-Christians. When she delivered the keynote address Deb Grey unapologetically credited her life to Jesus Christ, and she closed her speech by reading her testimony of how she came to faith in Christ. When she finished speaking Deborah Grey, the first ever Member of Parliament for the no-holds-barred Reform Party, sang a song called "The Lighthouse", a bold, blatant, and unapologetic call to accept Jesus Christ. The intended audience of the Prayer Breakfast was leaders in the community, and the message was that good leaders need someone even better to lead them; someone to whom they can say "Be Thou My Vision".

* * *

I finished my weekend with a concert at Johnston Heights Evangelical Free Church. Adrian Plass and Steve Bell were putting on a tour called the Story & Song tour, and it wasn't really a concert because Plass is an author and humourist, and Bell spent half of his set speaking. It was great to see a British author that (largely due to my mother's influence) I had come to be quite a fan of. I had even lived just 10 miles away from his house for a year while I lived in England, but I never actually met him until this weekend. I had met Steve Bell 5 years ago, but I didn't get to see all of his concert in Three Hills in 2001. I watched his set this weekend, and his performance blew me out of the water. What really stuck out for me was Steve Bell's comment: "It's nice that you are here. With the . . . Women of Faith conference this weekend I thought no one would be here. So it's nice to see you here." Steve Bell is a funny guy and meant it to be tongue-in-cheek, but I just thought it interesting that on one particular weekend in a Canadian city two seperate faith events would compete for a "captive Christian audience", and both would, incidently, end up doing quite well.

While CTV Newsnet did their best to exaggerate the Haggard story far beyond its natural life the Body of Christ continued on, largely unbothered. I don't buy the argument that marrying faith with politics has been the achilles heel in America. Deb Grey proved that principled and committed faith can be a positive influence on government. But Steve Bell and Adrian Plass reminded us that whatever you marry your faith to--be it your career, your community, or your politics--should never become the ultimate goal. "Be Thou My Wisdom and Thou my True Word." The Lord is the centre of what we do, and that is what makes it worth doing. And that is why we can continue on unabated in the shadow of a supposedly catastrophic meltdown south of the 49th.

Has politics been built up as an idol in the US evangelical community? Oh, no doubt. That is what has allowed David Kuo to write books such as his latest one. Whenever we lose sight of "Be Thou my Vision" we run the risk of choosing another guide. That is why we don't sign "Be Ted Haggard my Vision" or "Be World Vision my Vision" or "Be (popular Christian personality or ideal) my Vision".

If there is one thing that this Haggard scenario has told us it is that neither Christ nor Christianity are going anywhere.
Let's just hope we keep our eyes trained on our Vision.


"Heart of my own heart, whatever befall,
Still be my Vision, O Ruler of all."

Top of the WHAT?

So I phoned home the other day. I must have got my parents in the middle of a football highlights show, because my father picked up and said, "We're watching Top of the Match."

To which I replied, "Top of the Match?? Father, did you just combine the names of two of the most successful BBC shows of all time, Top of the Pops and Match of the Day, and create a new programme?"

"Yes," replied Dad with a chuckle. "Top of the Match."