Today has been declared Barry Bonds Day in San Francisco. Bonds is being given a day because last night he broke one of the most revered records in sports—the career home run record. He hit career home run #756 off of Washington Nationals pitcher Mike Bacsik.
I put an asterisk beside Bonds’ name in the title of this post in order to make the point that the record of his accomplishment should perhaps be qualified in some way. Having made that point, I must hasten to say that I don’t believe that asterisks should actually be used in that way, even in this case. When Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth’s single season home run mark in 1961, then Commissioner of Baseball Ford Frick decreed that Maris’ total of 61 would bear an asterisk in the record books because he had hit those home runs over a 162 game season whereas Ruth had hit his 60 over a 154 game season. Such distinctions are misguided because each era of baseball is different from every other era. Stadiums change, baseballs change, bats change, and athletes change. If baseball is going to have records, distinctions cannot be made due to the differences in eras.
I say that even about the “steroid era”—with some qualifications.
I don’t believe that an asterisk should be placed beside Bonds’ career total, whatever that turns out to be, unless and until it is proven that Bonds used steroids. Should such use by him ever be proven, I still don’t believe that an asterisk should be placed beside his total. Perhaps, though, multiple asterisks should then be used, as is sometimes done when respectable publications need to let readers know that a curse word was used but don’t want to spell it out—he would thus be listed in the record books at B***Y B****S. Truth be told, I really believe that if it is ever proven that Bonds used steroids, asterisks will not go far enough. Instead, his name should be removed completely from the record books. I would, by the way, say the same thing about Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa or anyone else were it to become known for a fact that they had used steroids.
The way that many (perhaps most, maybe even the vast majority) of us baseball fans have been compelled to think about Bonds’ pursuit of Aaron’s record is a shame, really. On last night’s Atlanta Braves radio broadcast, announcer Pete Van Weiren pointed out how strange last weekend was for baseball fans. It should, he said, have been one of the greatest weekends in baseball history. New York Mets (and former Braves) pitcher Tom Glavine won his 300th career game, New York Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriquez became the youngest player ever to reach 500 career home runs, and Barry Bonds tied Hank Aaron’s career home run record. But, Van Weiren pointed out, while there was some excitement about Glavine’s and Rodriquez’s accomplishments, there was not much excitement about what Bonds had done, at least not outside of his home base of San Francisco.
I remember very well the excitement that accompanied Aaron’s pursuit of Ruth’s career home run record. That is not to say that all was sweetness and light, because it wasn’t. Ruth was and is venerated and rightly so; some people still regard him as the greatest home run hitter of all time even though his record has now been eclipsed twice. He was far and away the greatest home run hitter of his era while Aaron did have some peers who were right up there with him, Willie Mays and Frank Robinson in particular. Ruth also is usually credited with being the individual most responsible for making major league baseball the cultural phenomenon that it is. So, some folks had legitimate respect for the Babe and genuinely regretted seeing his record fall. There was an ugly side to some people’s negativity toward Aaron’s pursuit, especially in those who just did not want to see a black man break a white icon’s record. At least we are spared that sort of thing this time around. I was a fifteen year old devoted Braves fan in 1974 and so I was thrilled when Aaron broke the record, although, because of a misguided sense of religious duty, I did not actually get to witness it because our church’s youth choir was singing at a local church’s revival service that night!
I want to say what many others have said: in America a person is innocent until proven guilty and Barry Bonds has not been proven guilty of anything. On the other hand, he has not been charged with anything so the fairly abundant circumstantial evidence has not yet been put to the test. The way that we jump to conclusions makes me a little nervous. On an episode of the Bob Newhart Show, Bob was hosting a local television talk show. One night he had as a guest a man who owned “the world’s smallest horse.” Bob asked him, “How do you know it’s the world’s smallest horse?” The man replied, “Just look at him!” We’ve done that with Bonds. We look at how he appeared when he was gangly young outfielder with the Pittsburgh Pirates and at how much larger and stronger he became late in his career and we say, “Of course he used steroids—just look at him!” I myself weigh seventy pounds more at age 48 than I did at age 20. Still, Bonds' real power surge occurred late in his career in ways that are unprecedented in major league baseball. I can’t honestly say that my power has increased. But I say again: if it is ever proven that Bonds’ used steroids, his name should be erased from the record books.
I have a picture of Hank Aaron hanging on the wall in my study. Beneath it is a framed editorial cartoon by Marshall Ramsey that depicts a young boy and his father visiting the Baseball Hall of Fame. The father is holding a copy of Juiced by Jose Canseco. His son, pointing at the plaques of Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron, asks, “What kind of performance enhancer did they use?” The father replies, “Talent.”
Ruth and Aaron, so far as anyone can tell, used no artificial performance enhancers. Ruth died long before I came along, but I have seen for myself the dignity and class with which Henry Aaron has carried himself and the fine way in which he has represented the game of baseball. Let’s face it—Bonds would be an unpopular home run king even if steroids did not exist. That is true because of his perceived egotism and self-centeredness. The allegations of steroid use just make it worse.
We can argue from now until A-Rod breaks Bonds’ record about who the greatest home run hitter of all time truly is. But given the choice of having either Aaron or Bonds speak to your church or civic group or elementary school or of having either or them come to your home for dinner, whom would you choose?
And that’s because ethics, dignity, fair play, class, and respect still mean something in this old world, thank God.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Reactions and Responses to The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, Pt. 12
For Dawkins, Darwin is god.
It may seem like that must surely be an exaggeration, but I’m not so sure. In chapter 5, “The Roots of Religion,” Dawkins maintains that every generalized trait must be explained in light of Darwinian evolution. I fail to follow his logic; if natural selection explains some things, I don’t see why it follows that it has to explain everything. But, Dawkins seems to think that it must. Therefore, it seems that Dawkins things of Darwinian evolution in much the same way that the Christians that he so despises think about God, since we certainly feel compelled to explain things in light of and in terms of God.
So, Dawkins must explain why it is that “no known culture lacks some version of the time-consuming, wealth-consuming, hostility-provoking rituals, the anti-factual, counter-productive fantasies of religion” (p. 166). On a genetic level, natural selection would ordinarily weed out such wasteful practices. Since everything must be explained in terms of natural selection, why, Dawkins wonders, have the “wasteful” practices of religion not been eliminated?
One possibility, Dawkins suggests, is that religion is an unfortunate, useless, and harmful byproduct of some originally useful adaptation. We ask, he says, why a moth flies into a candle, when that behavior is in fact a misfiring of their otherwise useful navigation system. So, perhaps the perpetuation of religious belief and practice is a similar misfiring. It is useful and helpful that children are psychologically predisposed to follow the direction their parents. Perhaps, then, the passing on of religious belief is a misfiring of an otherwise useful trait. Dawkins fails, though, to explain why and how religious beliefs and practices originated, even if we could accept his explanation of why they continue to be passed along. And, it is of course indisputable that religious beliefs and practices are handed down from parent to child.
Dawkins suggests another factor that may be in play: the tendency in humans toward dualism and teleology. “A dualist believes the mind is some kind of disembodied spirit that inhabits the body and therefore conceivably could leave the body and exist somewhere else” (p. 180). Teleology is the “assignment of purpose to everything” (p. 181). Dawkins suggests that the human may have evolved toward a predisposition to dualism and teleology out of a need to have short-cuts in our decision-making process as it relates to survival. That is, if we could cut to the chase and draw a conclusion about the intention of someone or something, that might help us survive (the possible attack by a predator, for example). He further suggests that our tendency toward religion may be a misfiring of that otherwise helpful tendency. We developed the mistaken sense that there were mind and intentionality where there were in fact no such things, and that may have led to our religious impulses.
Another possibility is that God in fact has revealed himself in nature, in history, in Scripture, and supremely in Christ. It is also just possible that the religious impulse, wherever it came from, is at its heart a positive and helpful one and that the negative outcomes of religious practice may in fact be the unfortunate misfirings of an otherwise good and helpful tendency.
It may seem like that must surely be an exaggeration, but I’m not so sure. In chapter 5, “The Roots of Religion,” Dawkins maintains that every generalized trait must be explained in light of Darwinian evolution. I fail to follow his logic; if natural selection explains some things, I don’t see why it follows that it has to explain everything. But, Dawkins seems to think that it must. Therefore, it seems that Dawkins things of Darwinian evolution in much the same way that the Christians that he so despises think about God, since we certainly feel compelled to explain things in light of and in terms of God.
So, Dawkins must explain why it is that “no known culture lacks some version of the time-consuming, wealth-consuming, hostility-provoking rituals, the anti-factual, counter-productive fantasies of religion” (p. 166). On a genetic level, natural selection would ordinarily weed out such wasteful practices. Since everything must be explained in terms of natural selection, why, Dawkins wonders, have the “wasteful” practices of religion not been eliminated?
One possibility, Dawkins suggests, is that religion is an unfortunate, useless, and harmful byproduct of some originally useful adaptation. We ask, he says, why a moth flies into a candle, when that behavior is in fact a misfiring of their otherwise useful navigation system. So, perhaps the perpetuation of religious belief and practice is a similar misfiring. It is useful and helpful that children are psychologically predisposed to follow the direction their parents. Perhaps, then, the passing on of religious belief is a misfiring of an otherwise useful trait. Dawkins fails, though, to explain why and how religious beliefs and practices originated, even if we could accept his explanation of why they continue to be passed along. And, it is of course indisputable that religious beliefs and practices are handed down from parent to child.
Dawkins suggests another factor that may be in play: the tendency in humans toward dualism and teleology. “A dualist believes the mind is some kind of disembodied spirit that inhabits the body and therefore conceivably could leave the body and exist somewhere else” (p. 180). Teleology is the “assignment of purpose to everything” (p. 181). Dawkins suggests that the human may have evolved toward a predisposition to dualism and teleology out of a need to have short-cuts in our decision-making process as it relates to survival. That is, if we could cut to the chase and draw a conclusion about the intention of someone or something, that might help us survive (the possible attack by a predator, for example). He further suggests that our tendency toward religion may be a misfiring of that otherwise helpful tendency. We developed the mistaken sense that there were mind and intentionality where there were in fact no such things, and that may have led to our religious impulses.
Another possibility is that God in fact has revealed himself in nature, in history, in Scripture, and supremely in Christ. It is also just possible that the religious impulse, wherever it came from, is at its heart a positive and helpful one and that the negative outcomes of religious practice may in fact be the unfortunate misfirings of an otherwise good and helpful tendency.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Parenting through Discipline
(A sermon based on Proverbs 13:24; 22:6; Ephesians 6:1-4)
I once heard a mother expressing the frustration that so many parents feel. She was talking about the behavior of her three children, the youngest of whom was then on the brink of adulthood. “I just don’t know,” she said. “We tried it both ways. We were extremely strict with the first two, and they both rebelled. So we were very lenient with the third and she took advantage of the situation. It just has seemed that nothing works.” Most parents understand what this mother was experiencing. The problem is how to discipline our children most effectively.
The goal should be to discipline our children so as to guide them into making wise choices and decisions about their own lives. Therefore, we must not confuse “punishment” with “discipline.” The latter may sometimes include elements of the former, but they are not the same thing. So the first thing we may need to do as parents is to change our vocabulary; we are talking about “discipline,” not “punishment.”
We will use the various sections of Ephesians 6:4 in organizing our thoughts.
The theology of discipline (“of the Lord”)
The discipline of which we speak is Christian discipline. That is, it is to be based on Christian principles. The discipline that we exercise in our homes should be rooted in who God is, especially as he is revealed to us in Jesus Christ. By thinking about that we begin to acquire a theology for our discipline.
God is loving. As our heavenly Father, God loves us. In his love, he is concerned that we become the people he wants us to be and that we need to be. Even when we, God’s children, are disciplined by him, it is because he loves us.
God is involved. That is, God is involved in the lives of his people. His love leads to his involvement. While many people believe that God created the world and its inhabitants and then detached himself from it, it seems to me that the active love of God, especially as seen in the life of Jesus, militates against such a notion. God’s love is active and can lead to discipline. In Hebrews 12, the writer interprets persecution of his readers as a form of discipline from the Lord. Then he quotes Proverbs 3:12: “For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.”
God is just. By nature, God acts with justice. In the final judgment, for example, reward and punishment will be assigned to the choices we have made, not according to some unfairly designed arbitrary system.
God is sovereign. That is, God is in a position of authority over us. Nevertheless, he has given us the ability to make choices. What discipline comes our way or what progress we make is a consequence of our choices.
The pitfalls of discipline (“Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger”)
While Ephesians 6 counsels children to obey their parents, it also instructs parents on how not to discipline their children. The relationship is a reciprocal one. The child’s obedience assumes proper parenting; proper parenting should result in the child’s respectful obedience. To “provoke your children to anger” is to cause them to feel wrath that can lead to bitterness (cf. Gustav Stahlin, TDNT, V, 419). Mishandled and misapplied discipline can drive our children away in anger and bitterness. Now, anger is to be expected on the part of our children when we discipline them. I am not saying that we should avoid discipline that angers our children. But there are pitfalls to be avoided that, if not avoided, could lead to lasting damage and bitterness.
Permissiveness. I would term permissiveness “a lack of active, exhibited love.” All parents have had their child wail, “You don’t love me! If you loved me, you wouldn’t do this to me!” Nothing could be farther from the truth and even children know that somewhere down deep. From very early on, children are testing the limits. By nature they are explorers. One thing for which they are seeking is a knowledge of whether Mom and Dad love them. And if we let them get away with anything and everything, what is communicated to them is “Mom and Dad don’t care what I do or what happens to me; therefore, I’ll do whatever I want regardless of how it hurts me or them.”
Authoritarianism. Kevin Leman has said that we need an authoritative rather than an authoritarian approach to parenting. Authoritarian parents try to control their children and make all of their choices for them [Kevin Leman, Making Children Mind Without Losing Yours (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1984), pp. 22-27]. Authoritative parents, on the other hand, recognize that they have a special responsibility to raise their children to be adults who are capable of making sound choices. The authoritarian parent has a stifling influence on a child’s life and all too often a crippling influence on the child’s ability to make decisions. This effort always to keep a child under our thumb without allowing her to take some chances usually leads to open rebellion which may or may not occur until the so-called “mid-life crisis.”
Inconsistency. All parents need a plan for parenting. We need to decide what we hope to accomplish in the raising of our children and how we are going to accomplish it. We definitely need a plan for discipline. Otherwise our children remain thoroughly confused. C. Leslie Mitton said that we can provoke our children to anger by “inconsistency, so that the same action by a child may one day be greeted with amusement and another day by angry condemnation” [Ephesians, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), p. 212]. Leman calls the same phenomenon a “yo-yo of inconsistency” between permissiveness and authoritarianism (pp. 26-27).
The practice of discipline (“bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord”)
What would the practice of Christian discipline be like? The following adjectives apply.
Educational. The Greek word variously translated as “nurture” (KJV), “discipline” (NRSV), and “training” (NIV) has in its background the general meaning of “education.” In this case, the education is designed to be correct and corrective. We are, as Proverbs 22:6 puts it, to “train up a child according to the way he should go, and when he gets old, he will not leave that way” [my translation].
Even the biblical teachings about “the rod” have an educational connotation them. Leman said,
The Jews believed in discipline, true, but when biblical writers used the word rod they were thinking more of correction and guidance rather than hitting and beating. For example, the shepherd used his rod not to beat his sheep but to guide them. We are all well acquainted with that phrase from the Twenty-third Psalm, “thy rod and thy staff they comfort me”…. But I doubt that many of us would feel very comforted if the Lord’s rod was waling away at our heads or bottoms at every wrong turn we made (pp. 23-24).
The point is that guidance is an important element in discipline. As Christian parents, the uppermost thing in our minds should be to equip our children to make decisions for themselves. We will not always be there, and sooner or later they will declare their independence.
Consistent. Have a plan and stick to it. If there are both a mother and a father in the home, you must work together, having the same goals and methods. If one parent is more permissive than the other, be sure that our wise children will pick up on that and play one parent off against the other. This situation of course becomes more complicated if the parents are divorced. But most vital is this: be consistently involved in the lives of your children. They must know that we care. We must consistently show our love for them no matter what. Consistent, steady, uniform discipline is one way to show that love. Love is revealed when we set fair limits and then enforce them.
Purposeful. In general, discipline should relate to what we are trying to accomplish. If we want submissive, indecisive children who will almost certainly finally rebel, then authoritarianism that majors on corporal punishment will suffice. If we want manipulative, spoiled children whose greatest accomplishment is the cutting of corners, then permissiveness will suffice. But if we want children who are raised “in the Lord,” that is, if we want them to learn to make responsible choices and to learn the right way to go, then purposeful discipline is called for.
Kevin Leman calls this type of parenting “reality discipline.” What is real, he says, is that everything we do has consequences. Therefore, good discipline will allow those consequences to take effect. For example, let’s say that your five-year-old has been getting increasingly troublesome at the dinner table. He just doesn’t want to eat. Purposeful discipline will let him know that he does not have to eat, but if he doesn’t, there will be nothing else until breakfast. In other words, if he says he is not hungry, throw his food into the garbage, excuse him from the table, and forbid him from having a snack or anything else until breakfast the next morning.
Or let’s say that you have told your fourteen-year-old daughter that during her summer vacation she has certain chores to do each week. You tell her that as long as she accomplishes her weekly tasks by the end of the week the weekend is hers to do with as she pleases (as long as she pleases to go to church on Sunday, of course). So the youth group is going to Six Flags on Saturday. On Friday night she asks you what you think about her “wearing these shorts” tomorrow. “Tomorrow?” you ask. “What’s tomorrow?” “Oh, you know—Six Flags.” But you know that she has not done her chores and that even if she worked all night she couldn’t finish them. What do you do? You say, “I’m sorry, but you can’t go. You haven’t done your jobs this week.” Cold and cruel, our children would say. The way reality operates, we would say.
Always, with any discipline, direct your attention to what the children have done. Make sure that they know that you love them no matter what.
I once heard a mother expressing the frustration that so many parents feel. She was talking about the behavior of her three children, the youngest of whom was then on the brink of adulthood. “I just don’t know,” she said. “We tried it both ways. We were extremely strict with the first two, and they both rebelled. So we were very lenient with the third and she took advantage of the situation. It just has seemed that nothing works.” Most parents understand what this mother was experiencing. The problem is how to discipline our children most effectively.
The goal should be to discipline our children so as to guide them into making wise choices and decisions about their own lives. Therefore, we must not confuse “punishment” with “discipline.” The latter may sometimes include elements of the former, but they are not the same thing. So the first thing we may need to do as parents is to change our vocabulary; we are talking about “discipline,” not “punishment.”
We will use the various sections of Ephesians 6:4 in organizing our thoughts.
The theology of discipline (“of the Lord”)
The discipline of which we speak is Christian discipline. That is, it is to be based on Christian principles. The discipline that we exercise in our homes should be rooted in who God is, especially as he is revealed to us in Jesus Christ. By thinking about that we begin to acquire a theology for our discipline.
God is loving. As our heavenly Father, God loves us. In his love, he is concerned that we become the people he wants us to be and that we need to be. Even when we, God’s children, are disciplined by him, it is because he loves us.
God is involved. That is, God is involved in the lives of his people. His love leads to his involvement. While many people believe that God created the world and its inhabitants and then detached himself from it, it seems to me that the active love of God, especially as seen in the life of Jesus, militates against such a notion. God’s love is active and can lead to discipline. In Hebrews 12, the writer interprets persecution of his readers as a form of discipline from the Lord. Then he quotes Proverbs 3:12: “For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.”
God is just. By nature, God acts with justice. In the final judgment, for example, reward and punishment will be assigned to the choices we have made, not according to some unfairly designed arbitrary system.
God is sovereign. That is, God is in a position of authority over us. Nevertheless, he has given us the ability to make choices. What discipline comes our way or what progress we make is a consequence of our choices.
The pitfalls of discipline (“Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger”)
While Ephesians 6 counsels children to obey their parents, it also instructs parents on how not to discipline their children. The relationship is a reciprocal one. The child’s obedience assumes proper parenting; proper parenting should result in the child’s respectful obedience. To “provoke your children to anger” is to cause them to feel wrath that can lead to bitterness (cf. Gustav Stahlin, TDNT, V, 419). Mishandled and misapplied discipline can drive our children away in anger and bitterness. Now, anger is to be expected on the part of our children when we discipline them. I am not saying that we should avoid discipline that angers our children. But there are pitfalls to be avoided that, if not avoided, could lead to lasting damage and bitterness.
Permissiveness. I would term permissiveness “a lack of active, exhibited love.” All parents have had their child wail, “You don’t love me! If you loved me, you wouldn’t do this to me!” Nothing could be farther from the truth and even children know that somewhere down deep. From very early on, children are testing the limits. By nature they are explorers. One thing for which they are seeking is a knowledge of whether Mom and Dad love them. And if we let them get away with anything and everything, what is communicated to them is “Mom and Dad don’t care what I do or what happens to me; therefore, I’ll do whatever I want regardless of how it hurts me or them.”
Authoritarianism. Kevin Leman has said that we need an authoritative rather than an authoritarian approach to parenting. Authoritarian parents try to control their children and make all of their choices for them [Kevin Leman, Making Children Mind Without Losing Yours (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1984), pp. 22-27]. Authoritative parents, on the other hand, recognize that they have a special responsibility to raise their children to be adults who are capable of making sound choices. The authoritarian parent has a stifling influence on a child’s life and all too often a crippling influence on the child’s ability to make decisions. This effort always to keep a child under our thumb without allowing her to take some chances usually leads to open rebellion which may or may not occur until the so-called “mid-life crisis.”
Inconsistency. All parents need a plan for parenting. We need to decide what we hope to accomplish in the raising of our children and how we are going to accomplish it. We definitely need a plan for discipline. Otherwise our children remain thoroughly confused. C. Leslie Mitton said that we can provoke our children to anger by “inconsistency, so that the same action by a child may one day be greeted with amusement and another day by angry condemnation” [Ephesians, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), p. 212]. Leman calls the same phenomenon a “yo-yo of inconsistency” between permissiveness and authoritarianism (pp. 26-27).
The practice of discipline (“bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord”)
What would the practice of Christian discipline be like? The following adjectives apply.
Educational. The Greek word variously translated as “nurture” (KJV), “discipline” (NRSV), and “training” (NIV) has in its background the general meaning of “education.” In this case, the education is designed to be correct and corrective. We are, as Proverbs 22:6 puts it, to “train up a child according to the way he should go, and when he gets old, he will not leave that way” [my translation].
Even the biblical teachings about “the rod” have an educational connotation them. Leman said,
The Jews believed in discipline, true, but when biblical writers used the word rod they were thinking more of correction and guidance rather than hitting and beating. For example, the shepherd used his rod not to beat his sheep but to guide them. We are all well acquainted with that phrase from the Twenty-third Psalm, “thy rod and thy staff they comfort me”…. But I doubt that many of us would feel very comforted if the Lord’s rod was waling away at our heads or bottoms at every wrong turn we made (pp. 23-24).
The point is that guidance is an important element in discipline. As Christian parents, the uppermost thing in our minds should be to equip our children to make decisions for themselves. We will not always be there, and sooner or later they will declare their independence.
Consistent. Have a plan and stick to it. If there are both a mother and a father in the home, you must work together, having the same goals and methods. If one parent is more permissive than the other, be sure that our wise children will pick up on that and play one parent off against the other. This situation of course becomes more complicated if the parents are divorced. But most vital is this: be consistently involved in the lives of your children. They must know that we care. We must consistently show our love for them no matter what. Consistent, steady, uniform discipline is one way to show that love. Love is revealed when we set fair limits and then enforce them.
Purposeful. In general, discipline should relate to what we are trying to accomplish. If we want submissive, indecisive children who will almost certainly finally rebel, then authoritarianism that majors on corporal punishment will suffice. If we want manipulative, spoiled children whose greatest accomplishment is the cutting of corners, then permissiveness will suffice. But if we want children who are raised “in the Lord,” that is, if we want them to learn to make responsible choices and to learn the right way to go, then purposeful discipline is called for.
Kevin Leman calls this type of parenting “reality discipline.” What is real, he says, is that everything we do has consequences. Therefore, good discipline will allow those consequences to take effect. For example, let’s say that your five-year-old has been getting increasingly troublesome at the dinner table. He just doesn’t want to eat. Purposeful discipline will let him know that he does not have to eat, but if he doesn’t, there will be nothing else until breakfast. In other words, if he says he is not hungry, throw his food into the garbage, excuse him from the table, and forbid him from having a snack or anything else until breakfast the next morning.
Or let’s say that you have told your fourteen-year-old daughter that during her summer vacation she has certain chores to do each week. You tell her that as long as she accomplishes her weekly tasks by the end of the week the weekend is hers to do with as she pleases (as long as she pleases to go to church on Sunday, of course). So the youth group is going to Six Flags on Saturday. On Friday night she asks you what you think about her “wearing these shorts” tomorrow. “Tomorrow?” you ask. “What’s tomorrow?” “Oh, you know—Six Flags.” But you know that she has not done her chores and that even if she worked all night she couldn’t finish them. What do you do? You say, “I’m sorry, but you can’t go. You haven’t done your jobs this week.” Cold and cruel, our children would say. The way reality operates, we would say.
Always, with any discipline, direct your attention to what the children have done. Make sure that they know that you love them no matter what.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
The Major League Baseball Trade Deadline
(Sabbath Blog #28)
[Note: On Sundays I write about subjects that I enjoy and thus have fun writing about; thus the label “Sabbath Blog.”]
The Major League Baseball non-waiver trade deadline passed at 4:00 p.m. Eastern on Tuesday, July 31. The deadline always generates a lot of excitement. Teams that are in contention for a championship try to plug holes or improve their lineup. Teams that are out of contention try to trade their veteran commodities for a package of prospects that might help them get into contention somewhere down the road.
The biggest deal of this trade deadline season was made by my favorite team, the Atlanta Braves, and the Texas Rangers. It was also a good example of how such trades work. The Rangers traded their veteran but still young power-hitting first baseman, Mark Teixeira, and veteran left-handed reliever Ron Mahay to the Braves for the Atlanta team’s top prospect, catcher/first baseman Jarrod Saltalamacchia, and four other top prospects. The Braves are the team in contention and they needed to shore up weaknesses at first base and in the bullpen. They got one of the best first basemen in the game. But, they gave up some potential superstars; I think that Salty, as he is called, is going to be a real good one and I hated to see him go. The Braves have a chance to win now, though, and so the deal is a good one for them; Teixeira hit a home run in each of his first three games with the team.
Fans hate to see their team trade away one of their superstars. I’m sure that Texas fans hated to see Teixeira go. But, if sometime in the future some of those youngsters that the Rangers got in return for him pan out, they’ll look back on it as a good trade.
My favorite example of how that can work out happened on August 12, 1987. The Detroit Tigers were trying to win the American League Eastern Division championship. They needed a veteran pitcher. The Atlanta Braves were, on the other hand, 50-63 and headed nowhere; they would eventually finish 20.5 games out of first place. So, the Tigers sent a young Class A pitcher named John Smoltz to the Braves for Doyle Alexander. The trade paid off immediately for the Detroit team as Alexander would go 9-0 with a 1.53 ERA over the remainder of the season and the Tigers would win the division.
Since reaching the major leagues in 1989, Smoltz, of whom almost no one had ever heard when the trade was made, has become one of the greatest pitchers in baseball history; he will probably be a Hall of Famer when he becomes eligible. He has compiled 203 wins against 143 losses and has compiled a 3.26 career ERA. During the three years that he served as the Braves’ closer, he amassed 154 saves. He has also been one of the most successful postseason pitchers in history with 15 wins, 4 losses, 4 saves, and an ERA of 2.65.
So, you just never know. The truth is, of course that for every star like Smoltz that emerged from one of those trades there have been a dozen who never quite made it. Still, hope springs eternal when your team is down on its luck. I know; I’ve been following the Braves since they moved to Atlanta in 1966 and believe me, some of those years were lean ones.
I hope, of course, that Teixeira helps the Braves win a World Series this year. If Salty helps the Rangers win one five years from now, so be it. Of course, being a baseball fan, I reserve the right to whine about it, anyhow.
[Note: On Sundays I write about subjects that I enjoy and thus have fun writing about; thus the label “Sabbath Blog.”]
The Major League Baseball non-waiver trade deadline passed at 4:00 p.m. Eastern on Tuesday, July 31. The deadline always generates a lot of excitement. Teams that are in contention for a championship try to plug holes or improve their lineup. Teams that are out of contention try to trade their veteran commodities for a package of prospects that might help them get into contention somewhere down the road.
The biggest deal of this trade deadline season was made by my favorite team, the Atlanta Braves, and the Texas Rangers. It was also a good example of how such trades work. The Rangers traded their veteran but still young power-hitting first baseman, Mark Teixeira, and veteran left-handed reliever Ron Mahay to the Braves for the Atlanta team’s top prospect, catcher/first baseman Jarrod Saltalamacchia, and four other top prospects. The Braves are the team in contention and they needed to shore up weaknesses at first base and in the bullpen. They got one of the best first basemen in the game. But, they gave up some potential superstars; I think that Salty, as he is called, is going to be a real good one and I hated to see him go. The Braves have a chance to win now, though, and so the deal is a good one for them; Teixeira hit a home run in each of his first three games with the team.
Fans hate to see their team trade away one of their superstars. I’m sure that Texas fans hated to see Teixeira go. But, if sometime in the future some of those youngsters that the Rangers got in return for him pan out, they’ll look back on it as a good trade.
My favorite example of how that can work out happened on August 12, 1987. The Detroit Tigers were trying to win the American League Eastern Division championship. They needed a veteran pitcher. The Atlanta Braves were, on the other hand, 50-63 and headed nowhere; they would eventually finish 20.5 games out of first place. So, the Tigers sent a young Class A pitcher named John Smoltz to the Braves for Doyle Alexander. The trade paid off immediately for the Detroit team as Alexander would go 9-0 with a 1.53 ERA over the remainder of the season and the Tigers would win the division.
Since reaching the major leagues in 1989, Smoltz, of whom almost no one had ever heard when the trade was made, has become one of the greatest pitchers in baseball history; he will probably be a Hall of Famer when he becomes eligible. He has compiled 203 wins against 143 losses and has compiled a 3.26 career ERA. During the three years that he served as the Braves’ closer, he amassed 154 saves. He has also been one of the most successful postseason pitchers in history with 15 wins, 4 losses, 4 saves, and an ERA of 2.65.
So, you just never know. The truth is, of course that for every star like Smoltz that emerged from one of those trades there have been a dozen who never quite made it. Still, hope springs eternal when your team is down on its luck. I know; I’ve been following the Braves since they moved to Atlanta in 1966 and believe me, some of those years were lean ones.
I hope, of course, that Teixeira helps the Braves win a World Series this year. If Salty helps the Rangers win one five years from now, so be it. Of course, being a baseball fan, I reserve the right to whine about it, anyhow.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Popular and Professional Religion
As those of you who have been slogging along with me know, I have lately been attempting a dialogue with the Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion. A scientist friend of mine who has read the book tells me that there is not too much real science in that book and that may be true. My problem is that I do not know enough about science to evaluate that for myself. Dawkins has me at a distinct disadvantage because he is a professional scientist while I cannot claim even amateur status. He has inspired me to try to learn more about it, though, and that’s a good thing.
Dawkins also knows a good bit about religion although frankly he may know just enough to be dangerous. That he has such knowledge is not surprising. Everybody knows a lot about religion—or so they think. Indeed, religion is ubiquitous in human culture, so every human being is exposed to religion in one form or another.
Those of us who are adherents of a particular religion usually think that we know all about it. We also figure that we have a pretty decent understanding of all of the other religions about which we have heard. The truth is, though, that everyone’s understanding is incomplete. We Christians are mainly familiar with the particular brand of Christianity that we practice but the practice of Christianity varies from region to region, culture to culture, and tradition to tradition. There is great diversity of belief and practice in the Baptist faith that I practice, for example. It should go without saying that our understanding of other people’s religion is even more incomplete than is our understanding of our own. Too often we only “know” what we have heard or what we have read. We are all too prone to make sweeping generalizations when it comes to other people’s religions. As a Christian, I know better than to begin a sentence with “All Christians…” but I am not always as careful to avoid saying “All Muslims…” or “All Scientologists…” or “All atheists….”
As a professional religious person, the more I have come to know, the more I know how little I actually know. And I give most of my time to trying to understand.
As a professional religious person, I am always dealing with popular religion, by which I mean that kind of religion that is practiced by the person in the pew or that is talked about by the person on the street. I have been a Baptist for my entire life and a Christian for most of it. I have three degrees in Religion. I have been a pastor for twenty years and have taught Religion on the college level on either a full or part-time basis for much of that time. I read and write about the Bible and Christianity and Church and religious issues every day. Yet I am confronted every day by ordinary people who don’t have the training that I do and the experience that I do yet who think that they understand the Lord and the Bible and the Church and the world as well as or better than I do.
And of course, the truth is that often they do. The reasons for that are many. For one thing, when you get right down to it, what matters the most in religion is simple child-like faith, just like Jesus said. For another thing, when one sits down with one’s Bible with the intent to learn and with a spirit of submission and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, one can learn amazing things. For another thing, non-professionals are not encumbered with some of the layers of scholarly tradition and with some of the consciously or unconsciously felt obligations to the academy that professionals feel.
Still, even well-meaning adherents of popular religion can be and are wrong about some things. The same is true of the professionals. All of us need to take a regular large tablespoon of humility for our spiritual health.
No matter how hard I try, my understanding of science will likely never rise above the popular level. I have also come to understand that, as a professional in the field of religion, my faith needs to be the kind that keeps its feet solidly on the ground where real life happens and where real people live. I also have to understand the privilege I have of studying what I study and the obligation I have to share the best of what I know with all of God’s people who are willing to learn with me. After all, we’re all in this together and there is so much that we can learn from one another.
Dawkins also knows a good bit about religion although frankly he may know just enough to be dangerous. That he has such knowledge is not surprising. Everybody knows a lot about religion—or so they think. Indeed, religion is ubiquitous in human culture, so every human being is exposed to religion in one form or another.
Those of us who are adherents of a particular religion usually think that we know all about it. We also figure that we have a pretty decent understanding of all of the other religions about which we have heard. The truth is, though, that everyone’s understanding is incomplete. We Christians are mainly familiar with the particular brand of Christianity that we practice but the practice of Christianity varies from region to region, culture to culture, and tradition to tradition. There is great diversity of belief and practice in the Baptist faith that I practice, for example. It should go without saying that our understanding of other people’s religion is even more incomplete than is our understanding of our own. Too often we only “know” what we have heard or what we have read. We are all too prone to make sweeping generalizations when it comes to other people’s religions. As a Christian, I know better than to begin a sentence with “All Christians…” but I am not always as careful to avoid saying “All Muslims…” or “All Scientologists…” or “All atheists….”
As a professional religious person, the more I have come to know, the more I know how little I actually know. And I give most of my time to trying to understand.
As a professional religious person, I am always dealing with popular religion, by which I mean that kind of religion that is practiced by the person in the pew or that is talked about by the person on the street. I have been a Baptist for my entire life and a Christian for most of it. I have three degrees in Religion. I have been a pastor for twenty years and have taught Religion on the college level on either a full or part-time basis for much of that time. I read and write about the Bible and Christianity and Church and religious issues every day. Yet I am confronted every day by ordinary people who don’t have the training that I do and the experience that I do yet who think that they understand the Lord and the Bible and the Church and the world as well as or better than I do.
And of course, the truth is that often they do. The reasons for that are many. For one thing, when you get right down to it, what matters the most in religion is simple child-like faith, just like Jesus said. For another thing, when one sits down with one’s Bible with the intent to learn and with a spirit of submission and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, one can learn amazing things. For another thing, non-professionals are not encumbered with some of the layers of scholarly tradition and with some of the consciously or unconsciously felt obligations to the academy that professionals feel.
Still, even well-meaning adherents of popular religion can be and are wrong about some things. The same is true of the professionals. All of us need to take a regular large tablespoon of humility for our spiritual health.
No matter how hard I try, my understanding of science will likely never rise above the popular level. I have also come to understand that, as a professional in the field of religion, my faith needs to be the kind that keeps its feet solidly on the ground where real life happens and where real people live. I also have to understand the privilege I have of studying what I study and the obligation I have to share the best of what I know with all of God’s people who are willing to learn with me. After all, we’re all in this together and there is so much that we can learn from one another.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Thursdays with Luke #11
The Rejection of Jesus
Luke 4:14-30
After reporting Jesus’ successful struggle with the temptations offered by the devil, Luke tells us very briefly of Jesus having a successful stint in Galilee. There he was well received.
He eventually made his way to the town of Nazareth where he had grown up. There he went to the synagogue. The synagogue was a very important institution by Jesus’ time. It may have developed during the Babylonian Exile when the people were cut off from temple and sacrifice. A synagogue could be formed anywhere that ten Jewish men lived. The worship style in a synagogue was informal: Scripture readings, prayers, songs, comments, and offerings. Synagogue worship focused on the worship of God as guided by Scripture rather than the worship of God focused on animal sacrifices. Jesus participated in synagogue worship. In effect, Jesus went to church. He actively participated in worship, even reading and commenting on the Scripture reading, as any adult male was allowed to do.
In showing us this episode Luke is still trying to show us what kind of Messiah Jesus was. Jesus reads a passage that he then uses to interpret the nature of his ministry. The passage, found in Isaiah 61, originally dealt with the ministry of a prophetic figure. Jesus saw his own life and ministry as being the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy. The scripture points to the fact that Jesus’ ministry was directed toward the liberation of the poor, the oppressed, and the marginalized. It was truly good news that Jesus was proclaiming. Note that Jesus told the worshippers that the scripture had been fulfilled “today” (v. 21). As Fred Craddock has noted, this “today” continues (Luke, p. 62). We are still in the “today” of the fulfillment of this scripture. The church is to be about this same ministry because we are continuing the ministry of Jesus.
It is good news, isn’t it? Who that is beaten down and beaten up and rejected and despised would not want to have their life turned around? Who among us would not want that good news to take hold in someone else’s life? Why then does the crowd turn on Jesus in such an ugly way?
One problem is their familiarity with Jesus. “Is not this Joseph’s son?” they ask. Jesus picks up on their question and responds in ways that make it clear that he does not expect to gain a hearing in Nazareth.
More troubling though not particularly surprising is the reason that his neighbors, the very people he grew up with and around, turned on him. It is found in v. 25:
There were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a severe famine over all the land; yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. There were also many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.
That was what set them off and filled them with rage. They were so angry that they tried to kill Jesus. They were angry because Jesus was able to use stories from their own scripture to explain that his ministry was for everybody, even Gentiles. The same stories implied that those who were closest to what God had done and who had the most exposure to what he had done could in fact miss what he was doing.
There are some things we should note from this passage. First, we should honestly and openly study our Scriptures. What convicts us should not be ignored. What runs against our personal and cultural biases should not be ignored. Indeed, therein are some of the greatest challenges to us.
Second, we should beware that we not be narrow-minded in our applications of the gospel. We are prone to be glad to apply good news to ourselves but not to others. The good news is for everybody.
Let us always pray for open eyes and for open hearts.
Luke 4:14-30
After reporting Jesus’ successful struggle with the temptations offered by the devil, Luke tells us very briefly of Jesus having a successful stint in Galilee. There he was well received.
He eventually made his way to the town of Nazareth where he had grown up. There he went to the synagogue. The synagogue was a very important institution by Jesus’ time. It may have developed during the Babylonian Exile when the people were cut off from temple and sacrifice. A synagogue could be formed anywhere that ten Jewish men lived. The worship style in a synagogue was informal: Scripture readings, prayers, songs, comments, and offerings. Synagogue worship focused on the worship of God as guided by Scripture rather than the worship of God focused on animal sacrifices. Jesus participated in synagogue worship. In effect, Jesus went to church. He actively participated in worship, even reading and commenting on the Scripture reading, as any adult male was allowed to do.
In showing us this episode Luke is still trying to show us what kind of Messiah Jesus was. Jesus reads a passage that he then uses to interpret the nature of his ministry. The passage, found in Isaiah 61, originally dealt with the ministry of a prophetic figure. Jesus saw his own life and ministry as being the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy. The scripture points to the fact that Jesus’ ministry was directed toward the liberation of the poor, the oppressed, and the marginalized. It was truly good news that Jesus was proclaiming. Note that Jesus told the worshippers that the scripture had been fulfilled “today” (v. 21). As Fred Craddock has noted, this “today” continues (Luke, p. 62). We are still in the “today” of the fulfillment of this scripture. The church is to be about this same ministry because we are continuing the ministry of Jesus.
It is good news, isn’t it? Who that is beaten down and beaten up and rejected and despised would not want to have their life turned around? Who among us would not want that good news to take hold in someone else’s life? Why then does the crowd turn on Jesus in such an ugly way?
One problem is their familiarity with Jesus. “Is not this Joseph’s son?” they ask. Jesus picks up on their question and responds in ways that make it clear that he does not expect to gain a hearing in Nazareth.
More troubling though not particularly surprising is the reason that his neighbors, the very people he grew up with and around, turned on him. It is found in v. 25:
There were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a severe famine over all the land; yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. There were also many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.
That was what set them off and filled them with rage. They were so angry that they tried to kill Jesus. They were angry because Jesus was able to use stories from their own scripture to explain that his ministry was for everybody, even Gentiles. The same stories implied that those who were closest to what God had done and who had the most exposure to what he had done could in fact miss what he was doing.
There are some things we should note from this passage. First, we should honestly and openly study our Scriptures. What convicts us should not be ignored. What runs against our personal and cultural biases should not be ignored. Indeed, therein are some of the greatest challenges to us.
Second, we should beware that we not be narrow-minded in our applications of the gospel. We are prone to be glad to apply good news to ourselves but not to others. The good news is for everybody.
Let us always pray for open eyes and for open hearts.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Reactions and Responses to The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, Part 11
Dawkins spends a good many words on the anthropic principle. Dan Berger, who teaches chemistry at Bluffton University, offers this simple version of the anthropic principle: "We're here because we are, so there!" Dawkins offers a somewhat wordier version in his “planetary version” of the principle: “We exist here on Earth. Therefore Earth must be the kind of planet that is capable of generating and supporting us, however unusual, even unique, that kind of planet might be” (p. 135).
Dawkins says that the anthropic principle offers an alternative to the theory of design. Unfortunately for him and for the strength of his case, his discussion at this point becomes filled to the brim with “ifs” and “supposes.” He says that a good conservative estimate of the number of planets in the universe is a billion billion (that’s a lot). And here come the speculative assumptions. “Suppose the origin of life…really was a quite staggeringly improbable event” (pp. 137-138). “If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against, nevertheless that stupefyingly improbable event would still happen on a billion planets” (p. 138). While Dawkins admits our ignorance about what circumstances are like on other planets, that doesn’t stop him from saying “If we now import some new assumptions into our estimate, things change” (p. 138). Indeed. And if we important the assumption of God into it, things change, too.
Dawkins’ point, though, is that it only has to be the case that conscious life could be shown statistically to arise on one planet out of a billion billion for us to have a reasonable explanation of life on earth. So Dawkins’ argument goes something like this: (1) We are here and we are conscious and intelligent; (2) therefore there is at least one planet where life can develop (because it has); (3) therefore, while the odds may be minute that such life can originate, it did; (4) therefore, there is no need to posit a creator, because, after it all, life could have developed because it did develop and we can imagine circumstances in which that would have happened without a creator.
Besides, Dawkins maintains, the odds that there is a divine creator are really insurmountably large—greater, I guess, than one in a billion billion. And so Dawkins chalks the origin of life up to—get ready now—luck (p. 141), which is to him a more satisfying answer than God. I am left wondering just how insurmountable are the odds that we could be that lucky. I think that we are back to the point that I raised in my last post. If we go back far enough along the evolutionary timeline, we finally reach a point where we simply cannot know what lies behind it; we are confronted with mystery. I suppose that were we to get to that point we could posit “luck” or we could posit “God.”
In this chapter Dawkins also says that he thinks it won’t be long until some scientist working in a laboratory originates new life. If one does, though, it will be done out of existing material. I know that it will sound like a simple question to a superior intellect like that possessed by Professor Dawkins, but I’ll ask it anyway: from where did that already existing stuff come? When someone makes something out of nothing, then I’ll be impressed!
Dawkins says that the anthropic principle offers an alternative to the theory of design. Unfortunately for him and for the strength of his case, his discussion at this point becomes filled to the brim with “ifs” and “supposes.” He says that a good conservative estimate of the number of planets in the universe is a billion billion (that’s a lot). And here come the speculative assumptions. “Suppose the origin of life…really was a quite staggeringly improbable event” (pp. 137-138). “If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against, nevertheless that stupefyingly improbable event would still happen on a billion planets” (p. 138). While Dawkins admits our ignorance about what circumstances are like on other planets, that doesn’t stop him from saying “If we now import some new assumptions into our estimate, things change” (p. 138). Indeed. And if we important the assumption of God into it, things change, too.
Dawkins’ point, though, is that it only has to be the case that conscious life could be shown statistically to arise on one planet out of a billion billion for us to have a reasonable explanation of life on earth. So Dawkins’ argument goes something like this: (1) We are here and we are conscious and intelligent; (2) therefore there is at least one planet where life can develop (because it has); (3) therefore, while the odds may be minute that such life can originate, it did; (4) therefore, there is no need to posit a creator, because, after it all, life could have developed because it did develop and we can imagine circumstances in which that would have happened without a creator.
Besides, Dawkins maintains, the odds that there is a divine creator are really insurmountably large—greater, I guess, than one in a billion billion. And so Dawkins chalks the origin of life up to—get ready now—luck (p. 141), which is to him a more satisfying answer than God. I am left wondering just how insurmountable are the odds that we could be that lucky. I think that we are back to the point that I raised in my last post. If we go back far enough along the evolutionary timeline, we finally reach a point where we simply cannot know what lies behind it; we are confronted with mystery. I suppose that were we to get to that point we could posit “luck” or we could posit “God.”
In this chapter Dawkins also says that he thinks it won’t be long until some scientist working in a laboratory originates new life. If one does, though, it will be done out of existing material. I know that it will sound like a simple question to a superior intellect like that possessed by Professor Dawkins, but I’ll ask it anyway: from where did that already existing stuff come? When someone makes something out of nothing, then I’ll be impressed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)