Baseball Realignment

Rather than subjecting you to diarrhea of the keyboard, it was great to take a bit of a break.  But back by popular demand … well, that could be an overstatement … nevertheless, I’m back and ready to blog. 

While I was gone, many of the higher-ups in the baseball world spent some time discussing how MLB might realign their divisions to solve a few of their issues.  For quite some time, baseball has been tinkering to see how it can reinvent itself, whether it be an exhibition game that gives home field advantage in the World Series, interleague play that serves no real purpose, or a luxury tax that supposedly helps small market teams.  This experiment proves to be no different. 

I will start by saying that there are aspects of the present alignment that make very little sense … for Texas to play in the American League West is bad geography … for Pittsburgh to play in the National League Central also strikes me as odd.  But, attempting to blow up divisions and leagues over THESE matters seems a bit drastic.  However, there were a few other motivations for changing things up that are noteworthy.  Ken Rosenthal mentions several of these in this article.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/rosenthal-realignment-proposal-022510

IF … and that is one big if … changes need to be made … allow me to offer my own radical realignment; one that takes time zones, geography, and payrolls into consideration … and doesn’t include some of the bonehead ideas presented by MLB.

American League

Northeast – Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Phillies 

Central – Blue Jays, Tigers, Indians, Reds, Pirates

Southeast – Braves, Rays, Nationals, Marlins, Orioles

All of these teams are in the Eastern time zone, which would cut down on traveling and make scheduling for television easier.  Because geography and payroll have a degree of overlap (cities with a massive fan base and huge TV contract can afford to spend more money), putting the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, and Phillies together in one division would make for great competition.  With the wild card in place, there will still be an opportunity for two of these teams to make the playoffs each year.  However, with these being four competitive clubs, the assumption the Yankees will win every year is not safe.  Both the AL Central and the AL Southeast allow for teams with similar payrolls to be grouped together in a way that would enhance geographical competition and keep traveling at a minimum. 

National League

Midwest – Twins, Brewers, Cubs, White Sox, Cardinals

Southwest – Astros, Rangers, Rockies, Royals, Diamondbacks

West Coast – Mariners, A’s, Giants, Dodgers, Angels, Padres

Once again, these geographical configurations overlap a great deal with payroll, allowing smaller to mid-market teams a better chance of making the playoffs in both the NL Midwest and NL Southwest.  In the same way the NL Central is aligned presently, the NL West Coast would consist of 6 teams, with two of these being larger payrolls in the Dodgers and Angels. Still, the wild card allows both of these teams access to the playoffs each year. 

Before I present this to Bud Selig, any thoughts?

Tiger vs. McGwire

Too much going on over the last few weeks to post, though much I wanted to post about … John Stewart vs. Bill O’Reilly, the Tea Party Convention, Elton John’s statement concerning Jesus being gay, global warming supposedly disproved by snow in the winter, etc. … but alas, I was distracted by more important matters such as my wife and my ministry. 

This morning all the major networks, along with numerous minor networks will be carrying a 5 or so minute apology from Tiger Woods for his “transgressions.”   Let me just start by saying, I don’t believe Tiger Woods owes me anything … He owes his wife a confession/apology.  He owes his family a confession/apology.    He owes his sponsors a confession/apology. Most importantly, he owes YHWH a confession/apology… but not me, nor anyone else that I can think of.  

In fact, it is us who owe him an apology.  I find it interesting that Tiger has been vilified for the type of behavior our culture shamelessly promotes … (maybe I’m cynical, but I just assume that a good number of people with fame and opportunity are involved in such things) … and for the Christian, we believe that Christ has exposed our own sin lying within the depths of our hearts.  Certainly, the reality of the indwelling sin of humanity does not excuse Tiger’s acting upon those inclinations. However, being forced to air out his dirty laundry to a people who use his fall to distract from our own failings is just as telling of the depravity within our culture as Tiger’s deviant behavior.  Simply put, my challenge is to resist the temptation to watch this circus.

On the other hand, another public figure who recently confessed his sin, Mark McGwire, does owe me an apology … Tiger’s actions were not directly tied to how he performed on the course, but McGwire’s behavior was.  It is no secret that I love the St. Louis Cardinals.  I actually witnessed the hoax of McGwire tying Roger Maris’ record of 61 HRs in a season in 1998.  I drove to St. Louis.  I paid money for the seat.  And in the aftermath, I regret it.  McGwire, along with the rest of the juiced era, caused extensive to our national past time, and now, after having offering what was either a dishonest or disillusioned apology, only as a means of entering  back into the baseball realm, we are to simply hear the confession and move on.  Pitchers and catchers reported yesterday to Spring Training, and thus baseball has begun again.  However, rather the focus being on what should be a great upcoming season for my St. Louis Cardinals, focus will be on Big Mac … and understandably so.  We are still waiting for a real apology.

The Thrill is Gone

Tuesday night I sat down in front of the television for something I had been anticipating for years … the beginning of the conclusion to the epic tale that is Lost.  When we last saw those left from Oceanic 815, along with all the other ‘passengers’ they picked up along the way, a hydrogen bomb had been detonated by our friends, leaving us with the cliff hanger of whether they had stopped the ‘incident’ that ultimately lead to their presence on the island, or whether they themselves had caused the ‘incident.’  But, instead of getting resolution to this question, what I got was … well … I really don’t know what I got. 

During the Lost hiatus, after having heard rave reviews about it, my wife and I sat down with the first season of Fringe.  Immediately, I knew I didn’t like it … it was just a little too sci-fi for me personally, though my wife (the daughter of a scientist) loved it, and continues to watch.  But, whereas with Fringe, I knew what I was getting and just opted to pass, the writers of Lost seemed to have pulled something akin to a bait and switch.  Lost was a character show playing brilliantly off the philosophical themes of faith versus reason, free will versus determinism.  While there were initially a few spooky elements that raised one’s curiosity about the mysterious island, elements that in all fairness did increase as the show progressed, you were essentially getting diet sci-fi, and thus it was palatable to a much larger audience. 

However, though season five began to cheat on the diet with the entrance of time travel into the equation, season six has abandoned restraint completely, embracing some sort of binge indulgence of island spirits inhabiting other bodies and multiple life scenarios simultaneously existing … and you thought time travel was complicated.  I’m sure I should have been prepared for this, given ‘Locke’s’ efforts to kill the mysterious Jacob and at the same time laying on the beach in a box. However, all in all, the first episode just left me confused and disinterested.  I don’t know why we spent 30 minutes killing off a character I assumed to be dead.  I don’t know why there are even more inhabitants on what must actually be a fairly large island … (maybe they landed back in Australia).  I don’t know why Desmond is on the plane with Jack, while missing are Mr. Eko, Anna Lucia, Shannon, etc.  But what’s worse is I don’t know if I care. It would take something drastic for me to give up on this show after my commitment thus far, but the fact that it even crossed my mind points to a very disappointing premier. 

Singing in the Rain

It’s been a crazy week, so I am just now getting a chance to post.  Last night, I traveled for five hours while it rained constantly … though safety may be a concern, I actually enjoy driving in the rain very much, especially when I can DJ the music I often associate with the rain.  So, in posting today, my thought was to search the depths of my iPod, and in honor of the movie High Fidelity, list my top five songs to listen to during the rain.

5.  Wonderwall – Ryan Adams

Though this subdued cover of the upbeat Oasis classic has nothing to do with rain whatsoever, it is as appropriate for a dreary day as anything out there.

4.  Everything in its Right Place – Radiohead

In actuality, there are numerous Radiohead songs that could have made the list, but this is one of my favorites, and I find myself searching for it each time the forecast looks rough.

3.  Dreams – Fleetwood Mac

This is an easy one because of the refrain ‘thunder only happens when it’s raining,’ but Stevie Nicks’ beautiful, yet haunting, voice is what seals the deal here.

2.  Raining in Baltimore (Live in New York – 1998) – Counting Crows

The pain in Adam Duritz’s voice as he grapples with loneliness and depression is extremely moving, with the motif of rain being present throughout.  I can listen to this song on repeat, over and over, that is, until I either fall asleep or start crying.

1.  Riders on the Storm – The Doors

There is actually the sound of rain as the song begins and ends.  Though Lester Bangs says that Jim Morrison is “a drunken buffoon, posing as a poet,” it is this song that leads me to believe there is some actual talent there.  This is my go-to song if I am traveling long-distances in the rain.

Honorable mentions include:  November Rain, Guns and Roses;  To Shelia, Smashing Pumpkins;  Fool in the Rain, Led Zeppelin,  No Rain, Blind Melon … and yes, ‘Rainy Days and Mondays’ was left off the list intentionally. 

Rather than my list being the final word, may it be a conversation starter.  Would love to hear other suggestions.

The Lovely Bones

Once again, a little late on the movies, but I thought I would go ahead and review this one as well.

First a best-selling novel plugged by Oprah, The Lovely Bones tells the story of Susie Salmon, a 12-year girl who is brutally murdered at the hands of a serial killer living next door.  Upon her death, Susie enters into a realm referred to as ‘the in-between,’ where she is able to watching her family and friends cope with the reality of her disappearance, along with the police investigation surrounding her death, and the paranoia that plagues her captor.  As far as the acting went, Mark Walhberg, Rachel Weisz, Susan Sarandon, and Stanley Tucci, are all seasoned performers who played their parts well, though it was Saoirse Ronan, the 15-year old actress who first appeared in Atonement, stealing the show in her starring role as Susie.  However, despite their valiant efforts, I felt like this story had been told before.

In 1944, C.S. Lewis published a short story entitled The Great Divorce based on a similar premise to The Lovely Bones.  In Lewis’ tale, the narrator finds himself riding on a bus with what he eventually learns are fellow ghosts traveling towards heaven.  Throughout the story, the characters accompanying him are engrossed in the unfortunate incidents, missed opportunities, destructive relationships that existed throughout their lives.  However, rather than choosing to get off the bus and enjoy the heaven that awaits them, the ghosts continue riding and reflecting on the events of the past.  Here Lewis was not portraying his beliefs on the afterlife, but was pointing out that our attachment to a broken world keeps us from enjoying all that God has to offer … Hell, for Lewis, is essentially those in rebellion getting the separation from God they desire. 

However, in The Lovely Bones, the inability to move beyond a life gone wrong is seen as virtue rather than vice.  Susie is not able to enter ‘heaven’ until she is able to assist in resolving all aspects of the tragedy of her life, including an incredibly strange resolution at the end.  Sadly, the movie points to a longing within a contemporary worldview to make sense of tragedy when there is no longer a God capable of redeeming the situation.  Susie must create her own redemption before moving on to something seemingly secondary to the here and now.  But, for the believer, though we are not to make light of the present, we are to recognize, in the words of Paul, that “our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.”  The movie is a very muddled attempt at providing hope, and ultimately, in my humble opinion, falls flat.

Grandstanding and the Gospel

Over the years, I have been very conflicted concerning the subject of Tim Tebow.  On the one hand, he is a phenomenal athlete who consistently dominated my Volunteers, along with most of the SEC, pretty much from the time he began playing with Florida.  I wish him well as enters the draft, and hope he can silence the naysayers doubting his ability to cut it as an NFL quarterback.  He is a stand-up guy, and when a week can’t pass without one of Tennessee’s players being arrested, it is nice to see a college athlete who is respectable.  Beyond his athletic abilities and his character, I respect that Tebow is a brother in Christ, and is passionate about the Christian faith. 

 

That said, something has troubled me about the phenomenon that is Tim Tebow, which is not his message, but his method … the out-of-context passages under the eye potentially trivializing the scriptures, often being filmed as he participates in mission work and speaks at various events, the confidence that borders on arrogance, etc. … and by giving him an iconic status, Evangelicals haven’t helped Tebow in this regard. (Ted Kluck wrote a great article in Christianity Today this past fall on this subject www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/augustweb-only/135-11.0.html?start=1)  And while there is a certain amount of understandable zeal from a college student in his situation, as Tebow has gained increased notoriety, it can become difficult to tell where public interest stops and attention seeking begins, leading me at times to question if some if his actions could be a tad self-serving, or even misguided. 

 

One such example is the upcoming Focus on the Family advertisement that will air during this year’s Super Bowl.  The commercial will highlight Tebow’s mother carrying Tim to full-term despite being advised to terminate the pregnancy.  This will promise to be a moving story that very much appeals to my sensibilities as one with a concern for the unborn.  Certainly, Focus on the Family has a ‘right’ to air the commercial, and Tim Tebow has the ‘right’ to participate in this ad.  I do not question their right to free speech, but what I have are some questions concerning the wisdom of the ad.

 

First, and most unimportant, is this wise for the Super Bowl?  Once having a policy in place against airing highly controversial religious and/or political advertising during the Super Bowl, CBS rejected the United Church of Christ in 2004 in their attempt to broadcast an advertisement condemning numerous churches for their policies on homosexuality in light of their own.  However, CBS states that under the new policy, the UCC’s ad would be acceptable.  Does ‘Focus on the Family’ realize the box that it is opening here by setting this precedent, and do we as Christians want to be the ones opening the box?  While Super Bowl commercials have been disappointing from time to time, spending a four-hour game watching mudslinging from any/every group that can raise 2.5 million dollars isn’t my idea of a good time … NAMBLA, anyone?

 

Second, and more important, is this wise for the pro-life movement?  Over the last decade, pro-life Christians seem to have figured out that public protest/condemnation isn’t exactly the most effective way of reaching those struggling with making decisions concerning unwanted pregnancies, or reaching the conscious of the nation.  It was when more compassionate approaches such as an emphasis on crisis pregnancy centers and adoption came into the picture that things began to shift.  This is not to deny the important role of public statements and legislation.  However, I am uncertain if this is the proper place for such a statement, and I also am uncertain of the objective of this commercial.  However, what I am certain of is that though Focus on the Family’s commercial will not be intentionally hostile, it will be interpreted by its opponents as adversarial. 

 

Lastly, and most important, is this wise for the sake of the gospel?  For many, Tebow’s views will be equated with Christianity, and understandably so, for they derive from his Christian worldview … but this commercial will not present the most important message of the Christian faith, namely the gospel of salvation by grace through faith.  Therefore, for many people, this advertisment will only be a message of condemnation, leading me to wonder, ‘how might this be received by someone who has participated in an abortion?’  Will moral grandstanding bring broken people closer to message of forgiveness through faith in Jesus Christ, or does it have the potential to create an ‘us versus them’ dynamic where those who need the gospel feel like our enemies? 

 

Once again, I find myself conflicted … Though protecting life should be our concern as Christians and we should be not fearful of publically expressing our views, to paraphrase Paul in Ephesians, the truth must be presented with love, and this speaks not only to the content and tone of our message, but the method of that message as well.

Up in the Air

Living in Meridian, Mississippi has its pros and cons … as is the case with living anywhere … but one of the biggest cons for me is that I have to travel great distances (at least an hour) to see a movie in the theatre that has been nominated for anything.  Generally, ‘Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs’ is showing on six of the eight screens, and usually for a solid month … so when movies such as ‘Up in the Air’ come out, I am no longer even tempted to check and see if it will be here … there’s no chance.  So, on my recent vacation, I had a couple of hours before meeting up with a few friends, and I decided to catch the film by my lonesome.  There is something strangely enjoyable about watching a film by yourself … and quite literally, I was the only person in the theatre … but doing so as you watch a movie about 21st Century isolation … well, that provided a good 2 hours of reflection. 

The movie stars George Clooney as Ryan Bingham; a man whose position in life requires him to disconnect from people … he is hired by corporations to systematically fire their excess personnel in the midst of our nation’s economic woes.  As those receiving their pink slips get upset, angry, depressed, and/or worried, Bingham is there to recycle clichés about their promising future, and get them out of the building so that he might move on to his next victim.  Being masterful at his job, he enjoys all aspects of it, which includes being on the road 11 or so months out of the year, meeting others travelers with similar leases on life, and working towards an 8-digit frequent flyer mile goal.  

Everything is rolling along (picture the suitcase in the airport for effect) for Bingham, that is, until a recent Ivy League graduate is brought in to make this efficiency outfit more efficient.  Natalie, played by a grown-up Anna Kendrick from the Twilight movies, enters into the picture suggesting that Bingham and those like him, be taken off the road, and placed in a cubical to do the same job over the internet.  After having fired others for years, Bingham is extremely unhappy that his job might be changed, and a conflict of age verses experience ensues.  The solution offered to this squabble; Bingham must take Natalie on the road with him to prove the “dignity” of the way things have been done.  From there, the adventure begins. 

The movie is well-done, entertaining, funny, thought-provoking, and while a little racy at times, well worth seeing.  Clooney’s character, an inspiration to those in my age demographic, and even beyond, who wear their independence and self-reliance as a badge of honor, is forced to evaluate who he is and what he has sought after as the movie unfolds.  Similar to John Mayer’s new album, there is an attempt to convince himself that an isolated way of life is best.  However, lying beneath the surface is the fact that we, as human beings, are made for community, and while real relationships are messy and complicated, they are very much necessary for our development and well-being.

Winning Elections or Solving Problems?

Last week, the Senate seat held by Ted Kennedy for close to half a century became occupied by a Republican, in what is arguably one of the most ‘blue’ states in the country.  And while Democrats are quick to argue that this isn’t necessarily a referendum on the national health care debate, there is a great concern at just how quickly the winds of change are blowing in a different direction among a forgetful electorate.  For Conservatives, this, along with victories in several other gubernatorial races, is a sure sign that independents have turned on the president, making it clear that health care reform is dead, and the hopes for the presidency in 2012 are very much alive.

In my particular context, most of the people I know lean (or are have chosen to reside permanently) to the right of things politically, so there is a great deal of excitement about Scott Brown.  However, I have been curious to know of the motivation behind all of this enthusiasm; is this an opportunity for Republicans to apply free market principles to the problem of health care, or are they simply content to take back the executive and legislative branches from the Democrats? I posed this question on facebook, and though I was given very little response on my page, a good friend posted the same question on his page, leading to a very interesting discussion.

I had a sneaking suspicion when asking the question that I already knew the answer. Therefore, I wasn’t surprised that any questioning of Republicans immediately lead to my being written off as a liberal (the beauty of the two-party system mindset), though I am staunchly independent.  Nor was I surprised that the way to argue against health care reform is frame the discussion as bankrupting the nation to provide for the poor and lazy.  Too often, the argument  against reform consists of something to the effect of, “this isn’t my problem, don’t raise my taxes.”   However, what continues to surprise me is the a number of people who argue this way are conservative Christians who have either ignored, forgotten, or overlooked the constant theme of concern for the poor in the scriptures.  One of the more overt passages is found in I John 3.17, which states, “If anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?’

On the subject of health care, the question for believers is not “should our nation concern itself with the millions of people who cannot get/afford coverage?” The answer to this question for the Christian must be in the affirmative.  The question is, “What is the best way to reach that end?”  It is here where Democrats and Republicans will differ, for the primary difference between the two parties is that one seeks to solve problems through the means of government intervention, while the other seeks solutions through the free market … both of which, by the way, are acceptable political philosophies for the believer.  So, while the Democrats seek to pass a bill that will cost trillions of dollars to solve health care, Republicans should counter, not with an indifference to the problem at hand, but with solutions consistent with their political philosophy that will provide coverage for more people … solutions such as, but not limited to, tort reform and breaking down state lines of insurance companies … and not only should they counter, but if they are fortunate enough to bounce back from 2006 and 2008, they should be leading the charge on this discussion in the future.  Why take up such a toxic issue, you might ask?  Because if they don’t provide solutions, they shouldn’t be surprised when remedies are suggested, or even passed, by the other party of which they will not agree.  If Republicans believe that increased spending and big government will bankrupt the country, then provide small government solutions when given the opportunity.  Not only will you be helping people get health insurance, but it would give your political philosophy a tremendous amount of credibility.

My concern however is that when entering into the voting booth, too many are simply content to win elections and stop the other party, rather than looking at this as an opportunity to solve problems using their political philosophy … And if winning elections is the only concern, what happens to our broken health care system?  Ultimately, everyone loses if health care is not solved … the Republican party will lose again in future elections, the nation will lose as it seeks solutions through increased spending and greater debt, and the uninsured will lose as they wait for politicians to accomplish the purpose behind their being elected.

The Swinging Pendulum

I wouldn’t say that I grew up in a legalistic environment … most of my legalism at an early age was self-inflicted.  However, liberation from legalism through the gospel was a profound experience for me … understanding that my righteousness before God was found, not through personal holiness, but in Christ alone was news that changed the way I perceived Christian living, and thus Christian freedom.  Rather than seeking God’s approval through rigid adherence to a code of ethics, I should seek approval through the one whose account has been credited to me.  Obedience therefore flows from what Christ has done, not as a means of supplementing it, but responding to it … allowing the law to become a delight to embrace, rather than a burden to bear.  What I needed to remedy my legalism was a notion of Christian freedom found through the gospel. 

However, as I survey the landscape of Christendom, embracing the freedom we have as believers doesn’t seem to be the problem anymore … I no longer encounter believers who resist the “evils” of secular music or R-rated movies, which in many ways, is a good thing … However, the opposite end of the spectrum seems to be the problem now … the pendulum has swung so that an emphasis has been placed on ‘freedom’ so much so that concern for personal holiness no longer registers.  Such freedom is not ‘Christian’ freedom.

I am a television, movie, and music junkie … I would like to include reading as well, but most of my reading now is theology and biblical studies, and as much as I enjoy these, I say this to my shame.  Fiction is a wonderful thing and is a necessary aspect of being an effective preacher, according to David Gordon, in his book ‘Why Johnny Can’t Preach’ … But, I digress …  Concerning various forms of media, I am sometimes shocked at what Christians choose to expose themselves to without giving it any thought at all.  I will resist the temptation to mention anything specifically as to allow people to make there on decisions on these matters, but quite frankly, there are many forms of media where there is nothing redeemable in them whatsoever … others are more subtle, but have axes to grind that are against a Christian worldview.  My concern is not so much that Christians interact with media … even media of which I personally don’t have the stomach … but that they are doing so in a thoughtless manner … they aren’t so much engaging with the culture, but simply lapping up whatever the culture presents without any discretion.  This strikes me as a problem, but it is one that I don’t know how to address without being written off as a legalist. 

In my thinking, I have attempted to differentiate between those forms of media that glorify sin versus those that acknowledge the reality of it, with the former being something that I would chose to avoid.  Certainly, I do not believe that I must agree with everything said or done to enjoy a movie … in fact, often times, I enjoy those things I disagree with more … However, the celebration of sin is something I don’t expose myself to.  My opting to do so stems from a several reasons … First, I am a sinner who doesn’t need to tempt myself further than I am already tempted.  Second, by supporting media that is hostile to my worldview, I am participating in it’s continuation, for Hollywood, the networks, the studios, they put out what people are buying.  We get what we pay for, quite literally.  Third, what our society is watching is shaping it.  While this is certainly a more complicated process than what some might present, we would be foolish to think media does not have a major impact on our mainstream culture.

And in the same way the gospel was the remedy to my legalism, the gospel must also be the solution to the problem at the other end of the spectrum.  What we, as the church, need is to recover the notion that the gospel of Christ frees us from not only from the penalty of sin, but from its power and presence as well so that we might pursue lives of holiness.

Turning 30

When I was a much younger man, my father once told me that a person should not open their mouth until they are 30 years old … the reason being … every word you ever said would be something you would eventually take back, having changed your mind on a host of issues.

Well, I have almost been 30 now for 2 weeks, and let me say, there may be something to this, for I feel as if I have arrived.  So, if you would please disregard the last 30 years, and only listen to what I have to say from this post on, I would appreciate it greatly.  From here on out, you are getting the good stuff.