Matt Privett

This week America, and indeed the world, has been reminded that life is temporary.  It is but a vapor.  The deaths of three high profile celebrities – one of them, Michael Jackson, probably equaled by only Elvis Presley and The Beatles as the biggest musical acts of modern times – only serve to underline that truth.  While those celebrities lived lives most Americans can only dream of and envy, right now their earthly riches are doing them no good whatsoever.

Believers are at an advantage in that we have the Word of God, the Bible.  We know that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and life, and that no man comes to the Father but through Him.  But that assurance comes with the responsibility to follow Christ wherever He leads us and proclaim the gospel.

With that in mind, this week the Southern Baptist Convention took place in Louisville, KY, and at issue, in my mind, was what kind of Convention we will be.  Will we be about the status quo, which shows numbers and influence declining?  Or will we be about examining ourselves to see how we all, from local church to the national convention level, can be better at obeying the Great Commission?

This morning I preached a sermon at my church, Pleasant View Baptist Church, that speaks to the heart of this issue.  The sermon, titled “What It Means To Be Jesus’ Witnesses In 21st Century America,” is taken from Acts 1:4-8 (which happens to be the same text Dr. Danny Akin used for his sermon “Axioms of a Great Commission Resurgence,” but this is not that sermon).  In the sermon I speak about how the church must remember where we have come from, remember where we are going, and remember where we are.  In doing this, we will remember that we, those who trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, are to be His witnesses.

I encourage you to listen to the sermon and, as always, I welcome feedback.

For future reference, you can download sermons by clicking the Sermons link below or subscribing to The MATTrix Podcast on iTunes.

There’s an old saying that goes something like this:  “If you’re not going forward, you’re going backward.”  Well, for the morning and most of the afternoon session of Day One of the 2009 Southern Baptist Convention, it seemed many in the room were determined to keep Southern Baptists stuck in neutral.

After some introductory matters the day really got going with the introduction of motions.  Hitting leadoff was Dr. R. Albert Mohler, five-point Calvinist and President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  He was there to present a motion that the messengers appoint the President of the SBC to appoint a task force to examine all of the ways that Southern Baptists can obey the Great Commission better, more efficiently and effectively.  This was part of what has been termed the “Great Commission Resurgence,” an effort led by SBC President Johnny Hunt and Dr. Danny Akin, President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.  The motion having been made, it went to the Committee on the Order of Business.  So far, so good.

Things went downhill from there.

The next messenger proceeded to make a motion that was aimed at Mark Driscoll and Acts 29 churches.  Now let me start there for those of you not up to speed on what I’m talking about.  Mark Driscoll is the Pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle and has been known in the past for using language many deem inappropriate for the pulpit.  Plus, he doesn’t preach that you have to abstain completely from consuming alcoholic beverages.  The Acts 29 Network of churches is a missions-oriented network which, by and large, consists of churches that also don’t take a hard line on alcohol.  They are also largely Calvinistic.  These matters are of no small concern to many Southern Baptists, who over the past few years have made it abundantly clear that Calvinism and alcohol are the threats to the SBC, in their opinion.

Things got worse when Morris Chapman, President of the SBC Executive Committee, got up to give his “report.”  There was no report, but instead a long speech in which he warned the SBC about Calvinists and about cooperation with those outside of the SBC (neither Driscoll nor the Acts 29 Network is SBC).  Chapman went so far as to insinuate, and I do not believe I am exaggerating, that theological study and debate were somehow less holy and obedient to the Bible than Lottie Moon going to China to do missions, as if the serious pursuit of theology and rabid evangelism are mutually exclusive.  The speech was a divisive abomination which I plan on dealing with more fully when I have more time.  But needless to say, those in favor of a “Great Commission Resurgence” (hereafter GCR) and Mohler’s motion were disheartened, as searching #sbc2009 on Twitter will show.  I, for one, was angry and still am about the caricatures and misrepresentations Chapman made about Calvinists.

Things did not get better the further we got, because by the middle of the afternoon session there were no less than four and possibly as many as six or seven separate motions made that were against Driscoll and Acts 29.  There had been literature distributed by some Missouri Baptists led by Roger Moran during the day, and now the strategy of some of the anti-GCR contingent was clear:  link the Calvinism issue with the Driscoll issue and fan the flames of bad old fashioned SBC moralism to defeat the GCR.

By the time motions were done for the next to last time I had to get out of the convention hall and walk around a little.  I wanted to make a motion to show these people they were wrong.  That wouldn’t fly.  I decided to take a different approach, making a different motion I felt passionately about.  Earlier someone had made a motion that Lifeway ban all of Mark Driscoll’s books.  I decided to write a motion saying they should ban “The Shack” by William Paul Young [they sell it with a theological disclaimer].  I got a pad of paper and started writing, eventually deciding to edit my comments to exclude specific reference to that book.  Here is what I wrote:

Mr. President,

Whereas Southern Baptists trust Lifeway Christian Stores to sell books and materials that are edifying to the body of Christ and theologically sound, I move that the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention, June 23-24, 2009, in Louisville, KY, urge Lifeway to remove from its retail outlets any book in which they feel it is necessary to add a theological warning or disclaimer.

In the end, I searched my heart and determined that, while I firmly believe in the motion, my motives were not pure (anger, revenge).  Ironically, someone did offer a somewhat similar motion, mentioning “The Shack” and much more.  It was not a very well worded motion and I suspect it will be referred to Lifeway tomorrow and pretty much dismissed, as mine very well may have been.

During that last batch of motions there were a few made with the idea of defending churches who cooperate with Driscoll or Acts 29.  It was good to hear motions made in defense of cooperating for the gospel, but I still had a bad taste in my mouth.

The afternoon session concluded and it was dinner time.  The donuts and some milk got rid of the bad taste.  I suppose I’ll mention here that I saw two “celebrities” today as well – Alex Kendrick of “Facing the Giants” and “Fireproof” fame, and “Million Dollar Man” Ted DiBiase.

Everyone was gearing up for the evening session, which would feature debate of Mohler’s Great Commission Task Force resolution.  He began the debate with a passionate, eloquent defense about not being afraid to ask questions of ourselves, of being clear, of trying to be better for the sake of obeying the Great Commission.

Then, the first person to speak against the motion did so by railing against Calvinism and pronouncing to practically be the evil that will destroy the SBC.  Never mind that there is no mention of Calvinism or Arminianism in the GCR document.

Up stepped Frank Page, Pastor of First Baptist Church Taylors, SC, President of the SBC in 06-07 and 07-08, and author of “Trouble with the TULIP,” a book in which he sought to refute Calvinism.  Page gave a passionate little speech in favor of the Task Force, which I felt was huge coming from him when people had tried to turn the debate over the motion into a debate about Calvinism.  That moment made me proud.

What didn’t make me so proud was the next guy, who tried to make a parliamentary end run around the motion by making an amendment (he called it a “substitute motion”) that instead boasted confidence in the International Mission Board and North American Mission Board and said the Task Force wasn’t necessary.  Mohler stepped to the plate again to say that, while he is confident in our two missions agencies, there is nothing wrong with a task force outside of any SBC agency to see what is needed.  We shouldn’t be afraid to ask these questions, he said.

The amendment was defeated after taking much time.  Then, a young man from the Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, TX (a big church) gave an impassioned speech about the younger generation of Southern Baptists, who got saved in SBC churches, getting behind this because they love the SBC and want to see it get even better.

When he was done it was time to vote, and lo and behold, the motion passed overwhelmingly.  Barry McCarty, the parliamentarian, estimated a 95-5 margin.  So at the end of the day, there are some positive feelings about what’s going on in the SBC.  One can only hope that this “one small step” will carry over… not only into a more effective SBC, better use of Cooperative Program dollars, and the gospel going forth… but also into our state conventions and local conventions.  My God be glorified by a bunch of sinners known as the Southern Baptist Convention!

Perhaps the guy looking at “The Kramer” said it best:  “It’s repulsive, yet I can’t look away.”  As someone who has only seen a handful of episodes of “Jon & Kate Plus Eight,” I don’t fall into that category, but it seems that much of America, particularly white women between the ages of 25 and 39, is addicted to their story.  For one only giving the show a passing glance, it might have seemed like this was a positive example of a Christian family managing an extraordinary scenario which, all things told, was a positive story about family life in a time devoid of such stories.

Alas, the more America has gotten to know the Gosselins the more the warts are becoming evident.  Perhaps unwilling to look their own imperfections in the mirror, the populace has taken the route of the tabloids by excoriating Jon for alleged improprieties, and at the very least, unwise decisions with members of the opposite sex.  And now, if magazine covers are any indication, the wolves are out for Kate as well.

This week America tuned in to the season premiere of the show. James Poniewozak has some interesting thoughts on the Time.com Tuned In Blog:

As for that part: where to start? With Jon’s moaning that he and his wife had “not signed up for public scrutiny”? (I’m guessing the contract mentioned somewhere that a freaking TV show was involved.) With Kate’s indignity at being criticized for traveling for her “job,” namely, national appearances to publicize her rearing of the eight kids who are home with Jon? With his passive denial of responsibility, or with her aggressive foisting off of it?

It’s clear what Jon & Kate has become now: It’s The Hills for old people. Like MTV’s reality show, it’s less a TV series than a media environment, where the broadcast itself is only the starting point. You need to follow the coverage in the tabs and on the gossip shows in order to get the full storyline and the context.

Watching the confessional interviews themselves last night—with all those publicist-managed phrases about “my choices” and “this situation”—would have been near-unintelligible to someone who hadn’t followed any of the wider media coverage of the show. (And what does it say when Kate Gosselin is willing to be more forthcoming with People magazine than with the producers of her own TV show?)

The hitch, however, is that on The Hills no one gets hurt but the blonde little hamsters whirring around on the fame wheel. Once kids are involved, it gets less cute. The episode kept switching to the adorable kids—shown with Mom or Dad but generally not both—singing Happy Birthday and eating cake while their parents debated how they could stay married so as to maintain the family business. Their tableau of forced domestic bliss—with the parents mostly either separate or at opposite ends of the picnic table—gave the usually sweet scenes with the children the tone of a horror movie: we know what’s lurking in the background, even if they don’t. Hearing Jon talk about his alleged dalliances to the camera, then sing The Wiggles’ “Fruit Salad” to his kids, was just chilling.

Here’s one pastor’s recommendation for a couple that has at least professed belief in Christ and has been noted for posting Bible verses on the walls around their house:

1.  Repent of your sins and confess them to one another.  I don’t know your sins.  You do, though, and so does the Lord.

2.  Go back to the Bible and reevaluate what the Lord has said regarding the biblical roles of a husband, wife, father, and mother.  Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, and Titus 2 are good places to start.

3.  If you are not already, get plugged in with a body of believers in which the Word of God is unashamedly and unapologetically preached.

4.  Cut out the personal appearances across the country and refocus your efforts on being what God has called you to be in your marriage and family.

5.  Get out of the contract and get off of my television as soon as possible.  The longer you are under America’s magnifying glass the greater the chances the sunlight will shine through it just right and burn you up.

As for the rest of us, there’s always another season of some time-wasting, unedifying reality show for America to devour.  We can survive without “Jon & Kate Plus Eight.”  The question is, “Will the Gosselins survive with it?”

By now you probably know that Supreme Court Associate Justice David Souter has announced he will retire at the end of this judicial term.  President Obama’s selection will most likely not reshape the court, but will extend the status quo, which is to say, extend the legal murder of unborn babies, among other things.  The President spoke in the press room about Souter and about how he’ll go replacing him.

You can read Obama’s entire carefully worded statement right here, but I have reposted a paragraph I feel is most pertinent:

I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.

Empathy, understanding, and the ability to identify with people’s hopes and struggles are admirable qualities for anyone sitting as a judge.  What Obama means by that, however, should be of some concern to Americans.  But I’ll get to that in a moment.

The rule of law should be one of the foremost things a judge is dedicated to in his or her position.  I would rather the President have said he will seek someone who honors the Constitution, and not merely “our constitutional traditions.”  Constitutional traditions are really whatever you want them to be.  Is it Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS?  A Supreme Court Justice, like the President, has the duty of upholding the Constitution, not honoring so-called traditions.  A Justice is to interpret and rule based on the Constitution and nothing else.

I wish that every judge in America respected “the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role.”  However, I doubt that President Obama’s views on those matters would coincide with the nation’s founders.  Judicial restraint is not something many Democrats since the early 20th century have campaigned on.  One can only hope Obama’s appointment respects the limits of the judicial role more than some of the other judges on the bench.

The last sentence of the paragraph is the most troubling to me.  He said, “I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.”  With all due respect to the President, I do not want someone who shares his respect for constitutional values, because based on his positions and some of his own previous statements, some of which was unearthed during the campaign, he has little respect for the Constitution and constitutional values.  Consider, for example, this 2001 Chicago radio interview when Obama was an Illinois Senator, in which he suggests that the Constitution is “deeply flawed”:

The Obama presidency is predicated on a belief that the Constitution does not do enough to bring about redistributive change (i.e. the socialist agenda of redistributing wealth).  Couple the video with these comments he had about the nomination of now Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005:

The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts’ record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General’s Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.

I want to take Judge Roberts at his word that he doesn’t like bullies and he sees the law and the Court as a means of evening the playing field between the strong and the weak. But given the gravity of the position to which he will undoubtedly ascend and the gravity of the decisions in which he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the Court, I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting.

Obama basically rejected Roberts on the basis of his belief that Roberts sides with bullies and that he doesn’t use his position “as a means of evening the playing field between the strong and the weak.”  Mr. President, it isn’t the job of a judge to even the playing field.  It is the job of a judge to make decisions in cases based on existing law.  For a Supreme Court Justice that means the Constitution of the United States of America.

Before he was President, Obama used a similar argument to reject the nomination of Samuel Alito in 2006:

I have no doubt that Judge Alito has the training and qualifications necessary to serve. He’s an intelligent man and an accomplished jurist. And there’s no indication he’s not a man of great character.

But when you look at his record – when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I have found that in almost every case, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless; on behalf of a strong government or corporation against upholding American’s individual rights.

There is nothing in Obama’s statements to suggest that the rule of law should be something to which a judge should be dedicated.  Obama concluded, “In sum, I’ve seen an extraordinarily consistent attitude on the part of Judge Alito that does not uphold the traditional role of the Supreme Court as a bastion of equality and justice for United States citizens.”  Obama seems to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of the founding of this country.  It wasn’t for equality that they fought the British, but for liberty.  It wasn’t for an evening of the playing field, but for secession.

So when the President today said that he will look for someone with the qualities of “empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes,” understand what he means by that.  He isn’t looking for a judge.  He’s looking for an activist.  He’s looking for a social and political revolutionary with a robe.

ALSO SEE:  Senator Barack Obama on Supreme Court Justices (Politics Daily)

No, I’m not about to quote Kenny Loggins’s “Nobody’s Fool,” off the soundtrack of Caddyshack II.  On the contrary, one of the posts on this site which has generated the most interest both within the comment thread and in other places is my review of William P. Young’s The Shack.  My review is far from the best one out there so I thought I would pass along two of the better ones by other believers out there.

And if you haven’t read my review, here it is.

Tim Challies’s review

Gary Gilley’s review

At 8:13am, my wife and I welcomed Hannah Grace Privett into the world. She weighed 6 lbs. 9 oz. and measured 19 inches long. To paraphrase something my wife said a few minutes ago, our children are the greatest thing God has allowed us to do. Children truly are a gift from the Lord and I cannot comprehend myself or anyone else thinking otherwise.

The name Hannah is a reminder of God’s faithfulness and blessings upon those who follow and trust Him even in the midst of pain (1 Sam 1:1-2:10).  Her middle name, Grace, is a constant reminder of the wonderful gift of God, salvation, by the grace of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph 2:8-9).

Joshua and Lilyann were brought over earlier today by Ms. Sharon from church. We fully expected Lilyann (13 months old today) to have a freak-out, but on the contrary, she was excited and wanted to play with her little sister. Joshua was excited as well, but I can tell he wants his Mommy and Daddy.

I have tried to upload pictures this afternoon to Facebook and Flickr, but without success. I shall try to do that again later, so check for more pictures there. But for now, here are three of them…

What would the world be like if there were no resurrection?  We live in a culture in which doubt about the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is ever-increasing.  The apostle Paul dealt with this issue in 1 Corinthians 15.  Listen as I talk about that, about this essential part of the gospel of God.

Find it on The MATTrix Podcast on iTunes, or listen and/or download here…
“A World Without the Resurrection” (1 Cor 15:12-22)

I’m happy to announce that I’ve entered the world of podcasting.  My podcast, The MATTrix, is mainly designed as an avenue for anyone, anywhere to hear my sermons.  You will also, on occasion, find commentary and more.  Your feedback is welcome and I invite you to subscribe on iTunes today.

Click on this link to find my podcast, or search “The MATTrix” in the iTunes Music Store.

Some quick hits from my sermon this morning…

• Jesus came back to Capernaum after leaving for several days.  He had amazed the crowds by teaching with authority, healed Simon’s mother-in-law and many others, and cast out many unclean spirits.  The crowds were clamoring for Him, even upon His return.
• Jesus was “speaking the word” to them.  The substance of His earthly ministry was not healings or casting out unclean spirits, it was His words; namely, “The time is fulfilled; the kingdom of God is at hand.  Repent and believe in the gospel.” (Mark 1:14-15)
• Coming upon a home overflowing with people, with no possible way to get through them, four men showed initiative to get their friend, the paralytic, into a personal encounter with the Christ.  This was an act of faith.  Of course, they probably had no idea about the cross or the resurrection that was to come, but they believed what had been revealed to them about the person of Jesus – He was anointed by God and preaching the coming of the kingdom.  He had authority to heal and cast out demons.
• There is a subtle sense of desperation on the part of the friends, and most probably the paralytic as well, to get to Jesus.  Being in Capernaum, by this time they would have been familiar with who Jesus is and what He is capable of.  They acted upon what they believed about Jesus, and that faith was honored.
• “And seeing their faith Jesus said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”  One question here is whether or not the friends’ faith was efficacious in the salvation of the paralytic.  The answer, when you consider the weight of Scripture, is unmistakable, “No!”  So when Mark writes this way, what does he intend?  I conclude that the faith is two-fold, speaking on the one hand about the friends and on the other hand about the paralytic.  The friends’ faith is their act of intercession on behalf of the paralytic, tearing through a man’s roof to make sure he saw the Healer.  The paralytic’s faith in Christ was honored specifically and salvifically in that he was forgiven.
• Intercessory faith (like that of the friends) is seen several times in the Gospels.  Two other instance in Mark include the father who petitioned Jesus to heal his daugther in Mark 5:21-43 and the Syro-Phoenician woman who begged Jesus to heal her demon-possessed daughter in Mark 7:24-30.
• It’s interesting that Jesus gave the paralytic and the friends what they were not seeking.  They sought physical healing.  Jesus addressed his spiritual need first.
• This is the first mention of someone in Mark having faith.  Jesus uses the imperative verb “Believe” in 1:15.  This is the first case of someone having faith.  Interesting that it is linked to action and not knowledge.  Faith certainly must entail knowledge and believing a set of beliefs, but it also demands action.
• Suddenly in verse 6 the story diverted from Jesus and the paralytic with his friends to Jesus and the scribes.
• The scribes actually ask the right question:  Who can forgive sins but God alone?  But it is clear from Jesus’ response that their hearts are not right.  Of course not, because they are also thinking Jesus is blaspheming.
• Linking the forgiveness of sins to the paralytic is not necessarily what surprised the scribes.  What surprised them is that Jesus was the One doing the forgiving.  He didn’t attribute the forgiveness to anyone else, the Father included.  He simply said, “Son (or child), your sins are forgiven.”
• At the same time He was healing the man He was making a huge statement to the scribes about His own identity.  He is “the Son of Man.”  Any scribe worth his parchment would have recalled Daniel 7, where “the Son of Man” is a specific name for the Messiah, who would come with the clouds of heaven and be presented before the Ancient of Days, and given dominion, glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and men of every language might serve Him… the One whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom that will never pass away.  That’s who Jesus is… THE Son of Man.  This would not have escaped the scribes.
• Jesus forgave sins, made a statement about who He is, then gave authoritative proof by commanding the paralytic to get up, take up his pallet, and go home.  And so, he did in the sight of everyone.
• The reaction of the crowd is great.  They were amazed (nothing new there), but they also glorified God (that is new) and said, “We have never seen anything like this.”
• Apart from Christ we are that paralytic.  Unable to move to Christ on our own, we might be shown Christ by others, but we are completely reliant on Him to raise us up, and He will on the basis of faith.  Jesus is the only One who can heal your spiritual paralysis.

And away we go…

The “It’s Not the Play-In It’s the Opening Round” Game – Morehead State over Alabama State (for no other reason than Morehead is here in KY).

First (but not Opening) Round

Midwest Region:  Louisville over Morehead State, Ohio State over Siena, Utah over Arizona, Wake Forest over Cleveland State, West Virginia over Dayton, Kansas over North Dakota State (possible upset!), Boston College over Southern Cal, Michigan State over Robert Morris. 

West Region:  Connecticut over Chattanooga, BYU over Texas A&M, Purdue over Northern Iowa, Washington over Mississippi State (possible upset!), Utah State over Marquette, Missouri over Cornell, Maryland over California, Memphis over Cal State Northridge.

East Region:  Pittsburgh over East Tennessee State, Oklahoma State over Tennessee, Florida State over Wisconsin, Xavier over Portland State, Virginia Commonwealth over UCLA, Villanova over American, Minnesota over Texas, Duke over Binghamton.

South Region:  North Carolina over Radford, Butler over LSU, Western Kentucky over Illinois, Gonzaga over Akron, Arizona State over Temple, Syracuse over Stephen F. Austin, Clemson over Michigan, Oklahoma over Morgan State.

Second (but really the Third) Round

Midwest Region:  Louisville over Ohio State (in a close game), Wake Forest over Utah, West Virginia over Kansas, Michigan State over Boston College (although I could go either way).

West Region:  Connecticut over BYU, Washington over Purdue, Missouri over Utah State (danger), Memphis over Maryland.

East Region:  Oklahoma State over Pittsburgh (shocker!), Florida State over Xavier, Villanova over Virginia Commonwealth (with the benefit of a Philly crowd), Duke over Minnesota.

South Region:  North Carolina over Butler, Gonzaga over Western Kentucky, Arizona State over Syracuse, Oklahoma over Clemson (depends on which Clemson shows up).

Regional Semifinals (Finally a Term that is Correct)

Midwest Region:  Louisville over Wake Forest, West Virginia over Michigan State

West Region:  Connecticut over Washington, Memphis over Missouri

East Region:  Oklahoma State over Florida State, Duke over Villanova

South Region:  North Carolina over Gonzaga, Arizona State over Oklahoma

Regional Finals

Midwest Region:  Louisville over West Virginia

West Region:  Memphis over Connecticut

South Region:  Duke (yuck!) over Oklahoma State

East Region:  North Carolina over Arizona State

National Semifinals

Louisville over Memphis, North Carolina over Duke (in College Basketball Armageddon)

National Championship Game

North Carolina 89, Louisville 82