FAST Blast: The best player-coach ever — Bill Russell or Jesus of Nazareth?


HALL OF FAMER BILL RUSSELL won 11 NBA championships, all with the Boston Celtics. He was a five-time league MVP. Old-school basketball fans are familiar with the incredible exploits of the legendary center.

What’s lesser-known is this: For the last two titles in that amazing stretch — in 1968 and 1969 — Russell was Boston’s player-coach. Further, he was the first African-American coach in the NBA, according to

After the ’69 title, Russell retired on top, riding off into the proverbial sunset. In 1980, he was voted the “Greatest Player in the History of the NBA” by the Professional Basketball Writers Association. Since then, Michael Jordan and perhaps LeBron James have laid claim to that lofty honor, although some still say that Russell is the NBA’s best ever.

What’s indisputable is that Russell has the most championships as a player in NBA history. And two came while he was also the coach.

The concept of player-coach is intriguing — even more so when we consider the bedrock reality of the Christian faith: God incarnate. The cornerstone of the Christian worldview is that God entered the arena of human history. But once in the arena, he didn’t sit in a VIP seat or stand on the sideline as a coach. Rather, he joined the fray on the field of play, essentially as a player-coach.


I grew up in the Church, so I’m no stranger to this notion. At the same time, I’ve wrestled with questions — mainly, whether the Christian faith is true. By the way, I have the same question about every other faith, philosophy and worldview: Are any of them true? Or is truth so elusive in this life that it’s beyond discovery?

Jesus of Nazareth is the ultimate player-coach proclaimed by the Christian faith, the pivotal figure in human history, according to the biblical record. He says that truth can be known because He can be known, and He is the Person most worth knowing, and He is the embodiment of truth — again, according to the biblical record.

His incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection are the three most essential events known to humankind, and they’ve resulted in what the human heart longs for, the new start of a new creation — yes, according to the biblical record.

Yet how can we know the biblical record, penned by ancient writers, is actually historical? In fact, given the congenital tendency of human nature to fib, fabricate and otherwise falsify, how can we know that any written record is historical and true?

Let’s revisit these existential and postmodern questions in a moment. But first let’s look at some quotes of record — as reported by 21st-century writers — about the fine art of coaching in the context of our player-coach discussion.


Conchita Martinez, who won the 1994 Wimbledon title, coached tennis star Garbine Muguruza during her run to the Wimbledon title in 2017. During the tournament, Muguruza said of her coach:

“She’s helping me to deal with the stress — it’s a long tournament. She knows how to prepare, how to train … having her by my side gives me confidence.”

“Having her by my side…” Sound familiar? Jesus is described in the gospels as “Immanuel, God with us” — the player-coach who knows how to prepare and train because he’s been there. The player-coach who is on our side.

Green Bay Packers safety Ha Ha Clinton-Dix is working to complete his college degree in criminal justice and has forged a close friendship with judge Donald R. Zuidmulder, who has served as a life coach for the former Pro Bowler. Says Clinton-Dix: “He’s kind of like my second grandfather. It’s definitely a blessing to have him on my side.”

Notice the theme? Here’s another quote in the same ballpark…

Soccer manager Pep Guardiola, who coaches Manchester City, was previously the manager at Barcelona. Another coach, Stuart Pearce, once visited Guardiola at Barcelona. Says Pearce: “He gave me a great insight into how to be a good manager. As we said goodbye and walked away, he turned around and said, ‘By the way, get a Messi in your side.'”

FYI, American fans: “side” means “team” — and of course “Messi” refers to Lionel Messi, who is regarded as the best player in the game today … by Barcelona supporters, anyway. Real Madrid fans say this designation belongs to Cristiano Ronaldo. Among soccer fans worldwide, the general consensus is that the debate about who holds the coveted best-player title begins and ends with these two luminaries.


“Get a Messi in your side,” Pep Guardiola advises his fellow coaches. Or, if the NBA is your league of choice, get Bill Russell on your team as your player-coach.

Biblical writers advise something similar — get Jesus of Nazareth by your side, on your side, and in your side.

He’s the epitome of every stellar player and player-coach in the universe. He’s the only person — the quintessential Person — who can raise your game so your endgame is knowing Him as the author of life and thus becoming the best person you can be. Apart from Him, New Testament writers say, we’re left with the worst we can be, and even worse than that … in the worst-case scenario, forever.

Jesus is the way we can ultimately become the shining stars we were meant to be … forever.

As He declares, quoted in the gospel of John: “I am the way, the truth and the life.” A controversial statement in a postmodern world? Perhaps — but the key question is this: Does it reflect reality? In other words, is it true? Which brings us back to the existential question regarding how we can know what’s truly true and historically accurate.

C.S. Lewis, the noted British writer and scholar, connects the question to the issue of authority:

“Don’t be scared by the word authority. Believing things on authority only means believing them because you’ve been told them by someone you think trustworthy. Ninety-nine per cent of the things you believe are believed on authority.

“I believe there is such a place as New York. I haven’t seen it myself. I couldn’t prove by abstract reasoning that there must be such a place. I believe it because reliable people have told me so. The ordinary man believes in the Solar System, atoms, evolution, and the circulation of the blood on authority — because the scientists say so.

“Every historical statement in the world is believed on authority. None of us has seen the Norman Conquest or the defeat of the Armada. None of us could prove them by pure logic as you prove a thing in mathematics. We believe them simply because people who did see them have left writings that tell us about them: in fact, on authority. A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life.” — from Mere Christianity

So authority and trust go hand in hand. No one can avoid the issue — scientists, theologians, historians, journalists and sports fans alike … plus everyone else across the spectrum of disciplines and worldviews.

By the way, I have this on good authority: The best player-coach is the best Person to have on your side.

© Bruce William Deckert 2018



FAST Blast: An invitation to visit Serengeti Stadium in the New Year


This FAST Blast represents a first — the first time I’ve posted about Serengeti Friendship: Soccer Forgiveness, a book for young people of all ages that was part of the World Cup Exhibit at the Nelson Mandela Foundation.

The revised edition, published in November 2017, is available at

How did I hear about the book? OK, full disclosure: I wrote it.

On the one hand, I hesitate to tell you about the book because I hope to avoid an unhealthy self-promotion. On the other hand, I believe the story is worth reading, and in order for people to read it, apparently they need to know about it.

In that vein, I had an opportunity to write about Serengeti Friendship for the Sports Spectrum magazine website. Here’s the link to that article:

‘Serengeti Friendship’ offers amazing take on friends, forgiveness for young people and families

In Serengeti Friendship: Soccer Forgiveness, Serengeti Stadium is the host site for the Wild Animal World Cup. If you make the trip for the big event, I hope you enjoy the scenery and the soccer action.

Happy New Year — and best to you and yours in 2018!

— Bruce William Deckert

Non Sequiturs + Other Quasi-Funny Stuff #11


Unintentional humor from the Internet journalism realm — actual excerpts, published to the Web, in bold. (The all-caps headlines are mine.)


The Denver Broncos needed to find a way to help rookie quarterback Paxton Lynch in a must-win win, and they did just that.

Hmm, a must-win win — is that similar to a must-see see? Or perhaps the writer meant to write: must-win game.



Barcelona [has won the Copa del Rey] on 28 occasions, including both of manager Luis Enrique’s two seasons in charge.

Correct me if I’m wrong — but both and two mean, shall we say, the same thing. Removing one would be a classic case of “less is more.”



Russell Westbrook’s previous tripe-double high for a season was 18, set last season.

What’s a tripe-double, you ask? The dictionary says tripe is the stomach of a cow, sheep or other ruminant. But maybe, just maybe, that’s supposed to be: triple-double.



But it shows that the Bengals are committed to doing whatever it takes to move this team forward instead of spinning their wheels in reverse…

Let’s see … the idiom “spinning your wheels” refers to being stuck while trying to move forward. But it isn’t enough for the NFL’s Bengals to simply spin their wheels — they do so in reverse. Creative use of the idiom, or a misplaced description? You be the judge.


MATH 101

...The Boston Celtics [recorded] a 117-114 home triumph over the Miami Heat … the Celtics needed all 52 points that Isaiah Thomas scored…

I’m no math whiz, but if Isaiah Thomas had scored 50 points, the Celtics still would have won — by one point: 115-114, for the math-challenged among us. So … they didn’t exactly need all 52 of his points.



“We didn’t have much success getting pucks past him. That was part of the reason we weren’t able to beat him.”— after a loss, an NHL player speaks about the opposing goaltender

No commentary necessary — simply enjoy the humorous obviousness, tip your cap and move on.

© Bruce William Deckert 2017

All-Name Teams: A to Z


Featuring names from across the world of sports…

Welcome to a special edition of the All-Name Teams:
In alphabetical order from A to Z, here is a list of athletes whose first and last names begin with the same letter.*

“Never throughout history has a man who lived a life of ease left a name worth remembering.” — Theodore Roosevelt

“You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High … he was named Jesus.” — the Gospel of Luke

Andre Agassi — tennis
Benjamin Becker — tennis (the opponent in Agassi’s last match)
Cal Clutterbuck — hockey
David DeJesus — baseball
Ezekiel Elliott — football
Fabio Fognini — tennis
Gail Goestenkors — basketball
Hozumi Hasegawa — boxing
Israel Idonije — football
Jussi Jaaskelainen — soccer
Kyle Korver — basketball
LaRon Landry — football
Majestic Mapp — basketball
Natalie Novosel — basketball
Orion Outerbridge — basketball
Paul “The Truth” Pierce — basketball
Quint Kessenich — lacrosse
Roger Rinderknecht — cycling
Sammy Sosa — baseball
Tim Tebow — baseball, football
Ugueth Urbina — baseball
Victor Valdes — soccer
Wes Welker — football
Xander Bogaerts — baseball
Yamileska Yantin — volleyball
Zinedine Zidane — soccer

* But there are two exceptions — their first names begin with the proper alphabetical-order letter, but not their last names. If you know of any athletes for these two categories — Q and X — please let me know!

All-Name Teams #21


Featuring names from across the world of sports…

I like your last name. Can I have it?
— a bride to her husband

Don’t forget your wife’s name. That will mess up the love.
— an 8-year-old girl’s marriage advice

In honor of my daughter and her husband, who were married July 1, this All-Wedding Team has only two members.

All-Wedding Team
Kayla Tyson née Deckert — soccer
Andrew Tyson — lacrosse

Normally, each All-Name Team has five members because the rules of my longtime favorite sport (basketball) allow five players per team on the court.

All-Wedding Day Team 1
Kayla Day — tennis
Andrew Gaze — basketball
Jameill Showers — football
Diamond Stone — basketball
Destiny Vaeao — football

All-Wedding Day Team 2
Hap Day (aka Clarence Henry “Happy” Day) — hockey
Ereck Flowers — football
Adoree’ Jackson — football
I.J. Ready — basketball
Vincent Valentine — football

FAST Blast: On worldviews, detecting truth and Messiah College soccer


Related posts
Intangibles at heart of stellar Messiah College soccer program
Reflecting on sports, holiness and Messiah College soccer
Musing about relative truth, exclusive claims, Messiah soccer
On worldviews, ‘reasonable disagreement’ and Messiah soccer


This blog post completes a five-part series on Messiah College soccer and related life-and-faith motifs. If you’re just joining us, no worries — while this post caps the series, it can also stand alone.

ALLOW ME TO NOTE once more, in the interest of full disclosure: I’m a Messiah College soccer parent. My daughter Kayla completed her Messiah career this past fall and graduated this May.

Her class produced a four-year record of 86-6-7, back-to-back Final Fours, and a run to the 2016 national championship game after a rocky start to the season. Yet after that 2-2 start — yes, by Messiah’s standards, 2-2 is a rocky beginning — the Messiah women didn’t lose another match, until the championship game.

In the title game, they fell 5-4 on penalty kicks despite outplaying their opponent (in my view) throughout regulation and overtime. Of course, that’s how soccer works sometimes.

Speaking of Messiah’s standards: 12 Final Fours and five national championships (NCAA Division III) and an undefeated regular-season conference record in 17 seasons under coach Scott Frey.

Messiah’s overall record in that time frame — regular season and postseason — is 362-20-20. I’m no math whiz, so correct me if I’m wrong: That’s an average of barely more than one loss per season. Wow.


Naturally, such success has resulted in media coverage, and that’s where I left off last post. We’ve examined a philosophical reference to reasonable disagreement by an reporter in his outstanding story on the Messiah women’s soccer program and what sets it apart on and off the field.

Essentially, the context is the ever-present disagreement about the meaning of life.

When human beings consider the meaning of life, it seems there are as many faiths, worldviews and philosophies to choose from as there are eateries in New York City. Clearly, consensus is elusive if not impossible. Given the numerous menu options in this surging sea of worldview rumination, how can we discern the truth?

Apparently, we need to search, investigate, discuss, mull, and hope and pray we arrive at the right conclusions about matters as weighty as life’s meaning — especially, the origin and identity and destiny of human beings. In other words: Where did we come from? Who are we? And where are we going?

Every worldview addresses these questions, and everyone must answer the question of which worldview is truly on track.

Which brings us back to — how can we ascertain whether something is true? We consider evidence, we contemplate, we seek to verify … and ultimately, we must decide what to believe. And take steps based on that decision.

Another option: We can decide that the worldview question is impossible to answer, a la agnosticism, which maintains that big-picture truth can’t be known. But note the contradiction: The agnostic says we can know that truth can’t be known. In other words, it’s true that we can’t know truth.

I confess, I don’t exactly like the elusiveness of the truth-seeking process.

I tend to prefer that these life-and-faith issues (especially the life-and-death ones) be crystal-clear and so self-evident that we all agree — like the basketball scouts who found and followed LeBron James. Given the uncertainty of the age, I see the appeal of agnosticism.

Yet besides its inherent contradiction, I sense that agnosticism misses out on the necessity of commitment, and when we’re commitment-shy, we miss out on … love.


The Christian worldview proclaims that truth can be known — not fully because humans are finite, but known nonetheless. In fact, Truth and Love are embodied in a Person: Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God and the Son of Man.

This worldview infuses the ethos of Messiah College and the Messiah soccer program.

In a speech my daughter gave at the 2016 Division III Final Four banquet, she spoke of her Messiah soccer experience: “I saw friendships that were marked by a willingness to care for the other in radical, sacrificial ways. Most importantly, what I found was the foundation from which all these actions stemmed — the desire to love God and love others. Although soccer is what brought our team together, that is not the foundation of our program. Our goal is to point back to God.”

Kayla’s teammate and classmate, Erin Sollenberger, likewise spoke about Messiah women’s soccer (or MWS) at the team banquet that closed the 2016 season: “I know my life wouldn’t be what it is now without the caring hearts of my best friends who … showed me what the unconditional grace and love of Christ looks like. MWS is so not about soccer. Sure, it brings us together, but our God is at the root of it all.”

Compare those quotes with a comment by Phoenix Suns coach Earl Watson, who previously coached in the San Antonio Spurs organization. In an story, he discussed his coaching journey, including his interview with the Spurs — which took place in the immediate wake of his brother’s death.

Watson expressed gratitude to the Spurs for hiring him “at a time when I was very fragile in my life.”

“I went to [my brother’s] funeral on a Saturday, and [met] with the Spurs on Monday. Three days,” Watson says. “I guess you could say I got lucky because I ended up in a place that wasn’t about basketball — it was about family and love.”

Sound familiar? Sure does. That comment could readily be applied to … Messiah soccer.

Under coach Gregg Popovich, the Spurs are known for their selfless, team-first, play-the-right-way culture — which has resulted in the most NBA titles of the past two decades (five, tied with the L.A. Lakers in that time span).

Let’s place Watson’s quote side by side with excerpts from the two Messiah teammates above.

• Suns coach Earl Watson
“I ended up in a place that wasn’t about basketball — it was about family and love.”

• Messiah wing Erin Sollenberger
“MWS is so not about soccer. Sure, it brings us together, but our God is at the root of it all. … My best friends … showed me … the unconditional grace and love of Christ.”

• Messiah defender Kayla Deckert
“I saw … a willingness to care for the other in radical, sacrificial ways … [and] the foundation from which all these actions stemmed — the desire to love God and love others. Although soccer is what brought our team together, that is not the foundation of our program. Our goal is to point back to God.”


To me, the symmetry of these sentiments is exquisite. One significant difference, though, is that the two soccer players credit God outright as the source of such love, while Watson doesn’t mention God (though he reportedly believes in God).

This brings us full circle … back to a comment, cited in a previous post, by Messiah forward Marisa Weaver: “It’s just kind of impossible to love someone else unless you have the love of Christ in you.” Which prompted this remark by the reporter: There is ample room for reasonable disagreement on the exclusivity of such sentiment…

So, yes, a skeptic might say: Look, a secular pro team like the Spurs has the same culture as a Christian college team like Messiah … that proves you don’t need God — in fact, it might even prove God doesn’t exist.

But that critique has a counterargument: What if the unseen God of the universe — unseen like oxygen, perhaps — is the lone source of the selfless love that causes people and teams to flourish … whether they believe in Him or not?

What if knowing Jesus Christ — connecting with Him and receiving his heart, like a transplant patient who would die otherwise — is the only way to secure the well-being offered by the Giver of love and life?

And what if growing in the Creator of the cosmos — like a grafted branch on an apple tree — is the sole means of bearing the fruit of love that keeps us from withering away?

Can this counterargument be verified? In this life, I guess not. And in some ways that drives me crazy, because I’d prefer a here-and-now guarantee that erases all questions and avoids all discord. Instead, we’re left with plenty of disagreement and uncertainty in the worldview realm.

Yes, this can drive me crazy — but maybe I shouldn’t be surprised … because sometimes true love does that too.

So I suppose no worldview, faith or philosophy can be proved in a manner that removes all dispute. It appears that disagreements and doubts are an ongoing component of human experience — and healthy doubt can detect error, like a TSA airport scanner, in the pursuit of truth.

Perhaps no worldview can be proved beyond reasonable disagreement, but maybe the worldview that’s true can be known beyond reasonable doubt.

© Bruce William Deckert 2017

FAST Blast: Reflecting on worldviews, ‘reasonable disagreement’ and Messiah soccer


Related posts
Intangibles at heart of stellar Messiah College soccer program
Reflecting on sports, holiness and Messiah College soccer
Musing about relative truth, exclusive claims, Messiah soccer


MESSIAH COLLEGE SOCCER has garnered media attention galore, which isn’t exactly a surprise.

The men’s and women’s soccer programs at Messiah have combined for 24 Final Fours and 15 national titles, so you’d expect their on-field success to be reported by media outlets near and far.

One such outlet is, as noted in my previous post:
Musing about relative truth, exclusive claims and Messiah College soccer

Yet coaches and players alike emphasize that off-field intangibles truly set the program apart.

In an excellent story on Messiah women’s soccer, forward Marisa Weaver (who is graduating this May) explained the program’s essential intangible:

“What makes our team so good and so together is that we love each other,” Weaver said. “But we wouldn’t be able to love each other just from ourselves. You get annoyed with people, you say things you shouldn’t have said and all that kind of thing. It’s just kind of impossible to love someone else unless you have the love of Christ in you. I think that’s what is different.”

There is ample room for reasonable disagreement on the exclusivity of such sentiment, but it bonds those who share it.


In my previous post, I addressed one aspect of the reporter’s philosophical comment that followed Marisa’s quote — namely, exclusivity.

Now let’s examine the reporter’s reference to ample room for reasonable disagreement. He is referring, of course, to Marisa’s affirmation that it’s “impossible to love someone else unless you have the love of Christ in you.”

Her assertion stems from the belief that Jesus of Nazareth — i.e., Jesus Christ — was and is God incarnate, who in love created the universe and human beings, and who therefore is the source of true love. Presuming that reality, it is literally impossible to love others unless you have the love of Christ in you.

And here’s the irony: Supposing the Christian worldview is true, Christ is the source of love for all human beings — even those who don’t believe in Him. In other words, all the love we experience from family and friends ultimately comes from God, and this love from God enables us to love others. Whether we realize it or not, God’s love is the model for our love and the resource that makes all love possible.

Clearly, not everyone agrees with that assessment of love — since there are as many philosophies and faiths as there are booths at a flea market.

Perhaps an extended analogy will help shed light.

Let’s say an eccentric and wealthy uncle sets up a bank account with $100,000 for each of his nieces and nephews.

By the way, the nieces and nephews have never met this eccentric uncle. He resides on another continent for reasons that are mostly beyond his control, and he lives essentially off the grid — so no phone calls or FaceTime.

When necessary, he communicates with his siblings via snail mail and an occasional email sent from some out-of-the-way café, which prevents his precise whereabouts from being traced.

Upon turning 21, each niece and nephew is given access to the bank account. The wealthy uncle, for reasons only he fully knows, asks his siblings to keep his identity secret as long as they can — in fact, some of his nieces and nephews don’t know he exists until they turn 21 and receive the $100,000.

Now, let’s suppose this uncle is your uncle, and mine too. When we hit 21, we’re told we have this relative who we never knew existed who has bequeathed a sweet bank account to us.

You might wonder if the $100,000 actually came from this long-lost uncle you’ve never met.

I might question whether this uncle is fictitious. Maybe my parents fabricated an uncle. Perhaps, I muse, my parents are flush with cash (unbeknownst to me) and they don’t want me to think the money is from them because they’re concerned it might make them appear gratuitous.

But on family birthdays and holidays, all of these cousins withdraw funds from their bequeathed bank accounts, and give gifts and furnish meals — as a way of showing love.

Whether or not the nieces and nephews believe the uncle is real, he is the resource for their means of showing such love to their families and others, including strangers via food pantries and the like.


Let’s return to the espnW reporter’s comment: In the phrase ample room for reasonable disagreement, I take him to mean that reasonable people disagree about the source of love and the meaning of life.

Yes, that sentiment resonates. Dissent and uncertainty seem to attend these big-picture issues. Yet in the face of this agree-to-disagree circumstance, it seems to me that one factor looms as the most essential: Which take on the meaning of life is accurate? In other words, which worldview is true?

An acquaintance once asked me where my son and daughter went to college, and I answered: “Messiah College.”

Apparently unfamiliar with this Christian college in Pennsylvania — a first-rate academic institution with two powerhouse soccer programs — his response was: “Are they trying to save the world?”

I sensed a quasi-mocking skepticism in the query. But a follow-up question begs to be asked: Does the world need to be saved?

I surmise that most reasonable people agree on the answer, though some might rephrase the question. For example, to some people the following might be more palatable: Is something wrong with the world? While there is plenty of good in this world, I submit that only the most deluded and out-of-touch people would say, “Nothing is wrong with the world as it is.”

Actually, a few belief systems assert just that, and claim the wrong we see in the world is merely an illusion. The devotees of such beliefs might say those who believe otherwise are deluded and out-of-touch. This brings us back to the quintessential query mentioned several paragraphs ago: Which worldview/philosophy/faith is true?

The answer to that question is the worldview worth buying into — no matter how mistaken or deluded it may seem.

If you could travel by time machine to 18th-century America and tell the colonists that someday a long oceangoing voyage wouldn’t be necessary to get to the New World because an apparatus called an airplane would be able to fly over the sea, they might have inquired about the amount of wine you had imbibed.

Of course, you would be right — your far-seeing worldview would be true.

What of traditional Christian claims such as the resurrection from the dead, the new creation and a heaven-or-hell endgame? Pie in the sky, or airplane in the sky?

Here’s another bedrock principle of the Christian paradigm: God gives people the freedom to love Him (or not) and to disagree with Him.

Which brings us back to … reasonable disagreement. Since human beings differ regarding these elemental questions and issues, consensus will be elusive. So how can we arrive at the truth?

More on that question (and potential answers) next time…


P.S. Full disclosure: I’m a Messiah soccer parent — my daughter Kayla completed her Messiah career this past fall. And I was a copy editor at when the espnW feature appeared.

© Bruce William Deckert 2017

FAST Blast: Musing about relative truth, exclusive claims and Messiah College soccer


Related posts
Intangibles at heart of stellar Messiah College soccer program
Reflecting on sports, holiness and Messiah College soccer


THE MESSIAH COLLEGE SOCCER PROGRAM has been chronicled by a multitude of media outlets, including … and, yes, this blog!

(If only could boast the page views this blog enjoys — wait, maybe the reverse is the case. But I digress…)

Savvy sports fans and media mavens alike would agree that Messiah soccer has warranted the coverage. Messiah women’s soccer has been to 12 Final Fours and won five national championships, which is tied for the most titles in NCAA D-III women’s soccer history.

Messiah men’s soccer has also been to 12 Final Fours, winning 10 national championships — the most titles in NCAA men’s soccer history across Divisions I, II and III.

Messiah coaches and players will tell you that while they aim for on-field success, it isn’t the be-all and end-all of the program. They’re also aiming for something more intangible yet more enduring than their on-field achievements.

A first-rate feature on Messiah women’s soccer highlighted the distinctive signature of a program which endeavors to achieve success that’s defined by more than a win-loss record.

Full disclosure: I’m a Messiah soccer parent — my daughter Kayla completed her Messiah career this past fall. Plus, I was a copy editor at when this feature appeared.

The espnW feature quoted several players, including Marisa Weaver. Kayla and Marisa are part of a senior class that graduates from Messiah with a four-year record of 86-6-7, having reached back-to-back Final Fours and the 2016 national championship game.

By the way, the previous class was 88-4-8 — and when you have to go back only one year to find a record that surpasses 86-6-7, that tells you something about the quality of the program in the win-loss realm. But the wins and losses don’t tell the whole story … or perhaps the plentiful wins are the result of intangibles that aren’t evident to the casual observer.

Marisa outlined that reality for the reporter:

“What makes our team so good and so together is that we love each other,” Weaver said. “But we wouldn’t be able to love each other just from ourselves. You get annoyed with people, you say things you shouldn’t have said and all that kind of thing. It’s just kind of impossible to love someone else unless you have the love of Christ in you. I think that’s what is different.”

There is ample room for reasonable disagreement on the exclusivity of such sentiment, but it bonds those who share it.


I appreciate the clarity of Marisa’s comment. And I can understand the reporter’s follow-up thought. Let’s take a closer look at the life-and-faith motifs that are interwoven with Messiah soccer and this media report.

The reporter offers a philosophical phrase that’s well-stated: There is ample room for reasonable disagreement on the exclusivity of such sentiment….

First, let’s examine exclusivity.

Exclusive claims are a hot topic in this postmodern world, which declares that no absolute truth exists — instead, truth is relative — and asserts that no science, philosophy or religion can explain life and existence for all human beings.

Yes, I realize the reporter didn’t refer to postmodernism directly. Yet since a distrust of exclusivity weaves like Kevlar thread through postmodern thought, the mention of this theme gets me musing.

I grew up in a distinctly postmodern world, and I grew up in the church — seemingly a paradoxical tension.

The church makes absolute truth claims and professes a traditional morality, while the culture at large embraces a more fluid take on reality and morality.

Perhaps differences between worldviews — Christian, postmodern and otherwise — are comparable to differences in scientific opinion.

For example, some scientists assert that one universe exists: i.e., a traditional cosmology. Other scientists maintain that multiple or parallel universes exist: i.e., the multiverse, a newer theory — or a quasi-theory, depending on your definition of the term theory.

These concepts of the cosmos are mutually exclusive. In other words, if there is one universe, that rules out the possibility of multiple universes (and vice versa). You know, Logic 101.

Which leads us to the contradiction of the postmodern protest against exclusive claims: When a postmodern thinker says, “There is no absolute truth because truth is relative,” we can see after minimal reflection that this statement is — you guessed it — exclusive. Such a statement is an exclusive claim because it excludes the possibility of absolute truth … while inconsistently affirming that something is absolutely true — namely, that there is no absolute truth!

Bottom line, the statements we human beings make tend to be exclusive by definition.

If you disagree, clearly you’re entitled to, and correct me if I’m wrong — you can post a comment below. Yet I can’t seem to escape the notion that exclusive/absolute claims are a nonnegotiable component of human experience. And it’s virtually impossible to avoid making them.


So anyone is free to disagree with a Christian worldview which proclaims that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, the Son of Man, and the ultimate source of love and truth.

However, when people object to the claims of the Christian faith on the grounds of exclusivity, they apparently are overlooking the multiple ways they make exclusive claims.

A proponent of New Age philosophy once told me, “It doesn’t matter what you believe — as long as you’re comfortable with it.” Such an approach, it appears, is cut from the same cloth as the truth-is-relative camp.

On the one hand, that comment sounds welcoming, warm and fuzzy. On the other hand, do you detect a pitfall in this thinking? I do too — to wit: What if you’re comfortable with something that doesn’t line up with what’s real?

Let’s look at some examples of exclusivity in everyday life and society — we may not think of these as “exclusive claims” … but again, with minimal reflection, we can see that they are:

Directions — To travel by plane from New York City to London’s Heathrow Airport, a pilot utilizes specific latitude and longitude coordinates — exclusive to Heathrow — or the plane won’t end up in London.

Finances — Your bank account says you have $10,000 in savings … because, in fact, you deposited $10,000 when you opened your account yesterday. (No, this math question is not on the SAT.) However, you want to withdraw $20,000. You’re comfortable with it, but the bank balks. Why? Because banking truth isn’t relative.

Law — A prosecution witness says a murder suspect was in a shopping mall at 5 p.m. on Christmas Eve, but a defense witness says the suspect was at a restaurant 10 miles away. These contrary reports are, safe to say, mutually exclusive.

Medicine — A patient undergoes heart bypass surgery but learns afterward that the doctor bypassed the wrong artery. Whether or not the doctor was comfortable with the relative truth of his surgical work, the patient’s heart problem remains.

Sports — The New England Patriots won Super Bowl LI in February, defeating the Atlanta Falcons in overtime via a historic 25-point comeback. Falcons fans may still be in shock, and surely wish their team won … but the game featured an exclusive outcome.

The advocates of a truth-is-relative approach might object to the above examples.

Perhaps they would say that truth is relative, not in everyday concrete matters, but in more mysterious matters. Or that exclusive claims are unavoidable in our day-to-day lives but should be discarded when considering ultimate reality.

Yet, even as I continue to wrestle with this topic, I wonder — how could truth be relative in the realm of ultimate reality when it’s the absolute opposite of relative in the rest of our experience?

Stay tuned — in my next post, we’ll examine the reporter’s reference to reasonable disagreement … and more.

© Bruce William Deckert 2017

Follow-up post
Reflecting on worldviews, ‘reasonable disagreement’ and Messiah soccer

All-Name Teams #20


Featuring names from across the world of sports

And now we’re grown-up orphans … never knew their names.
We don’t belong to no one, that’s a shame.
… And I won’t tell ’em your name.
— “Name” by Goo Goo Dolls (the band)

All-Construction Team 2
Kristin Carpenter — volleyball
Na’il Diggs — football
Derrick Mason — football
Robin Soderling — tennis
Nail Yakupov — hockey

All-Farm Team 1
Gareth Bale — soccer
Kenjon Barner — football
Pat Tillman — football
Zacharias “Buck” Wheat — baseball
Rayfield Wright — football

All-Heart Team 2
Shasta Averyhardt — golf
Su’a Cravens — football
Matt Hartline — football
Tysyn Hartman — football
Michael Hartvigson — football

FAST Blast: Reflecting on sports, holiness and Messiah College soccer


Related posts
Intangibles at heart of stellar Messiah College soccer program
Musing about relative truth, exclusive claims, Messiah soccer


FOR THE MOMENT, let’s view sports through the prism of the scientific method and examine the following statement: The Messiah College soccer program is successful.

Which multiple-choice option most accurately describes that statement:

A. Hypothesis
B. Theory
C. Accepted Fact

If your knowledge of Messiah College soccer is minimal or nil, you have no choice but to choose A — such is the scientific method. However, if you’re conversant with Messiah soccer and/or the Division III soccer landscape, you know the indisputable answer is C.

Indeed, Messiah is a small-college soccer powerhouse. To say the program is successful is clearly far more fact than theory — it’s akin to saying New Jersey is on the East Coast, or water is wet, or the grass is green on Messiah’s Shoemaker Field.

Here is the evidence, by the numbers, for the success of the Messiah women’s soccer program:

• 12 Final Fours
• 5 national championships
• 9 national championship games overall
• 17 straight NCAA tournaments
• 6 undefeated seasons
• Conference regular-season record, past 17 seasons: 113-0-3
• Record under coach Scott Frey: 362-20-20

Coach Frey has been at the helm for those 17 seasons, from 2000 to 2016. To my knowledge, his winning percentage at Messiah is the best in college soccer history among coaches with 10-plus years of experience — across NCAA Divisions I, II and III.

Those five national championships are tied (with UC San Diego) for the most in NCAA D-III women’s soccer history; the first championship game was played in 1986.

And here is the evidence, by the numbers, for the success of the Messiah men’s soccer program:

• 12 Final Fours
• 10 national championships
• 10 national championship games overall
• 19 NCAA tournaments in past 20 years

Those 10 national championships are the most in men’s college soccer history — across NCAA Divisions I, II and III — and the first D-III championship game was played in 1974.

Which program has the most national championships in college soccer history, across all divisions? The D-I North Carolina women, with 21.

By the way, you’ve likely noticed the 12-year delay between the first D-III men’s title game and the first women’s title game. Apparently, Title IX didn’t get an invite to that NCAA dance for a dozen years.

Note: The above info is based on statistics from the NCAA and Messiah websites — and since my daughter Kayla just completed her Messiah career, I naturally have more interest in the women’s program … so consider the additional women’s stats a minor coup for Title IX.


Moreover, the Messiah men’s and women’s soccer programs share a singular distinction: The two teams have won national championships in the same year. No other college or university soccer program in the country can claim such synchronized titles — in NCAA Divisions I, II or III.

Accomplishing that unprecedented feat once, however, wasn’t enough for Messiah soccer. Twice wasn’t enough, either. Or thrice.

When you blaze a trail to the mountaintop and the view is magnificent, why not make the trek again … and again?

The Messiah men’s and women’s soccer programs have won national championships in the same year four times — in 2005, 2008, 2009 and 2012.

Widening the scope to all college sports reveals that only two other schools join Messiah in the Men’s-Women’s Same-Sport/Same-Year National Championship Club. The closest competition: Connecticut men’s and women’s basketball. Both programs captured Division I national titles in 2004 and 2014.

The other club member: In 1984 the University of Central Missouri, known then as Central Missouri State, won the men’s and women’s Division II basketball titles.

To review — and pay attention closely in case there’s a test — here’s the tally for dual national titles:

Messiah College, 4 — all other NCAA schools, 3

Note: If I’ve missed another college that has dual titles, please let me know — based on my knowledge and research, these three schools are the only members of this exceedingly exclusive club.


Some of the terms employed in this post — singular, distinction, exclusive — dovetail with one of my earlier posts:
Who wants to be holy? Reflections on sports and holiness

The gist of that post is this premise: Root words indicate that to be holy means to be set apart and distinct, and we can glean lessons about holiness from the world of sports.

That concept applies exquisitely to Messiah soccer and the statistics associated with the men’s and women’s programs. Their success sets them apart — makes them, in the root-word sense, holy.

While Messiah’s soccer numbers are staggering, both programs quantify big-picture success in ways that can be measured only outside the lines. Naturally, as a Christian college, Messiah’s goals for holiness go beyond scoring goals and winning games.

Yet some might question: Why would anyone want to be holy?

This view may perceive holiness as boring or needlessly rule-based. Some critics perceive a holier-than-thou attitude in the church and cite that as a reason to dismiss the Christian faith.

But Jesus of Nazareth had a distaste for that type of holiness, too.

Remember the root words mentioned above: Holiness means being set apart and distinct. Another root word: wholeness. Yes, to be holy is to be whole.

This begs a different question: Why would anyone not want to be holy?

In other words, who wouldn’t want to realize the distinction of a record-setting athletic program (or fill in the blank with your enterprise of choice)? And who wouldn’t want to experience the wholeness symbolized by a well-trained athlete on a field of play?

So … here’s a further question: How can we acquire the holiness we desire?

Perhaps there are as many answers to that query as there are philosophies, religions and worldviews.

Messiah women’s soccer (or MWS) has a tradition of closing the season with a celebration banquet. Each senior speaks and articulates the program’s core values — for one, investing in relationships — and notes the astonishing impact those friendships have on the team’s success. They also speak of the One they believe is the source of all true friendship, and all true holiness: Jesus of Nazareth.

One of my daughter’s teammates says: “I know my life wouldn’t be what it is now without the caring hearts of my best friends who taught me, guided me, listened to me, shared with me, and above all showed me what the unconditional grace and love of Christ looks like.”

She continues, “MWS is so not about soccer. Sure, it brings us together, but our God is at the root of it all.”

My daughter’s comments about MWS coincide with those sentiments (also quoted in my previous post, but worth repeating here):

“I saw friendships that were marked by a willingness to care for the other in radical, sacrificial ways. Most importantly, what I found was the foundation from which all these actions stemmed — the desire to love God and love others. Although soccer is what brought our team together, that is not the foundation of our program. Our goal is to point back to God…”

These teammates and friends attest that the Creator of the universe is the foundation for the excellence that infuses Messiah College soccer — they see God’s reality not as a hypothesis or theory, but as an established fact.

Of course, not every college, Christian or secular, enjoys the success of Messiah’s soccer programs. It’s safe to say that believing in God doesn’t guarantee on-field success, or any other kind of success as defined by society.

Yet when an individual or a team struggles — as the Messiah women did early this past season before making a run to the national title game — these players and coaches also see God as the source of the perseverance needed to continue pursuing excellence as He defines it … and to not give up.

Do you long for wholeness and excellence — for holiness? Where do you believe that longing comes from?

And what is your hypothesis for how such holiness can be attained?

© Bruce William Deckert 2017

%d bloggers like this: