Gold Gloves are in!

The recipients of this year's Gold Glove Awards were released. I post my predictions here. It's time to compare and react. The names in italics are the ones I incorrectly guessed.

NL
P- Buehrle (Marlins)
C- Molina (Cardinals)
1B-LaRoche (Nationals)
2B-Barney (Cubs)
3B-Headley (Padres)
SS-Rollins (Phillies)
LF-Gonzalez (Rockies)
CF-McCutchen (Pirates)
RF-Heyward (Braves)

AL
P-Hellickson, Peavy (Rays, White Sox)
C-Wieters (Orioles)
1B-Teixiera (Yankees)
2B-Cano (Yankees)
3B-Beltre (Rangers)
SS-Hardy (Orioles)
LF-Gordon (Royals)
CF-Jones (Orioles)
RF-Reddick (A's)

10 for 18. If this were a final for a test I would fail. If it were a batting average against the Tigers it would make me World Series MVP. Since the prediction is about baseball, we'll go with it as a great HoF kinda performance. 

But seriously, here are some reactions. 
Barney really surprised me. I did not think he was known enough, and Philips not only was a great fielder, but has been a great hitting 2B and won 3 of the last 4 gold gloves. And Cincinnati won the division, which adds to his repute. So kudos to Barney. A bright spot for Cubs fans. Too bad there isn't much else for them to celebrate this year. But they are on the right path. 

And they can say more than the Brewers, who suffered another year in the Gold Glove drought. The Crew actually had two nominees this year: Braun (2nd straight year nominated) and Ramirez who led the league in Fielding Percentage for 3B. If Braun shoulda won it shoulda been last year when he committed the fewest errors, and while he is a solid and athletic defender, he ain't the best. Ramirez may have had a good year defensively, and offensively, but his reputation as a poor defender would never give him the chance to win a GG (despite cutting his errors from 2011 in half this year). So the Brewers continue to wait for a Gold Glove winner. They have not had a winner since Yount won it as an American League SS in 1982.

Perhaps the drought would have been over had they not traded away JJ Hardy, who finally gets one with Baltimore. He has been an excellent SS for some time, and finally got some recognition. Good for him.

In case you're wondering...yes there are two AL winners for the P spot. I think it's stupid, kinda like when Johnson and Schilling had to share the World Series MVP award in 2001. It also means either I should have been 10-17 because it is unreasonable to predict 2 winners at one spot or 10-19 because I did not select either of them. Again I grant myself benefit of the doubt because I can, it's my blog.

I stunned that Jones outdid the Mike Trout hype. Not so stunned that Cano or Rollins won their respective positions. Same with McCutchen in CF for the NL. I was really torn between him and Bourne. But given how good Bourne's defensive rep is (I've heard him argued as the best defensive OF in MLB) I thought it would hold up against McCutchen's great year. 

I'm really glad Adrian Gonzalez did not win for BOS. He was nominated, but like when Raphael Palmero won for a handful of games at 1B while playing mostly DH, it likewise would have been crummy to see Gonzalez win it for a partial year in the AL. 

In the AL, the Yankees and Orioles made up for over half the winners. I am pleased to say in the National League every position came from a different team. I love it when that happens. It's good for the game. It may also reflect how defense is a growing commodity. 

So there are the awards. I didn't do so bad, in baseball numbers. The more fun baseball awards are still to come. 
Some quick predictions:
AL Manager of the Year: Showalter (Orioles)
NL Manager of the Year: Matheny (Cardinals)

AL MVP: Trout (although as I argued here it should be Cabrera)
NL MVP: Posey (although my vote would be for Braun)

AL Cy Young: Verlander (although my vote would be for Price)
NL Cy Young: Dickey (which would be awesome to see a knuckleballer win)

Thanks for reading. Don't forget to feed the fish.

MLB Gold Glove Predictions

The finalists for the Gold Glove awards has been released. Based on that list, I thought I'd just take a stab at guessing who will win at each position. When the awards are announced we'll see how I did:
NL
P- Kershaw (Dodgers)
C- Molina (Cardinals)
1B-LaRoche (Nationals)
2B-Philips (Reds)
3B-Headley (Padres)
SS-Desmond (Nationals)
LF-Gonzalez (Rockies)
CF-Bourn (Braves)
RF-Bruce (Reds)

AL
P-Wilson (Angels)
C-Wieters (Orioles)
1B-Teixiera (Yankees)
2B-Pedroia (Red Sox)
3B-Beltre (Rangers)
SS-Hardy (Orioles)
LF-Gordon (Royals)
CF-Trout (Angels)
RF-Reddick (A's)

I'm more confident on some than others, but we'll see how close I come. Stay tuned.

Braun gets snubbed

Not much needs to be said here, since Tom Haudricourt of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel summed it up real well here. But to give you the basic idea, we are already seeing proof that Ryan Braun is not getting the fair treatment he deserves in this year's voting.

If you watched the Tigers dig themselves into a 0-3 hole in the World Series, you may have seen the awards ceremony where the Hank Aaron Award was given to AL winner Miguel Cabrera and NL winner Buster Posey. The Hank Aaron award is supposed to be given to the best offensive player in each league.

As Haudricourt notes, Braun was clearly the best offensive performer in the National League this year. Posey only topped him in Average and On-base Percentage (where Braun was ranked 3rd), whereas Braun surpassed him in runs, hits, RBI, SB, Slugging, HR, OPS. In every one of these categories (except SB) Braun ranked one or two in the league and ahead of Posey in each of those instances, sometimes by a wide margin such as hitting 16 more HR, of which Braun ranks 1st and Posey 22nd in the league).

So how does Posey win? The only real argument is that Posey plays in a tougher hitter's park. But baseball is a game built with uneven home fields, so that argument should not be an excuse for such a wide disparity in numbers. Additionally, while Posey's power clearly increases away from home, his average/obp (the only two numbers he surpassed Braun in) were quite better at his home park than on the road. So the only areas where Posey showed to be a better hitter, may have benefited from his home park as well. AT&T has after all some interesting dimensions and forced OF to cover a lot of ground.

But lets be honest. The real reason seems to be that Braun is again getting treated as a cheat, because of a positive drug test that was overturned a year ago. In the name of fairness, voters have been most unfair to Braun. Whatever you think of Braun's offseason, bottom line is the failure of the process to maintain confidentiality has made people privy to info they should not have had. And any one of us in a legal or work situation would expect that we not get blamed when the system of judgment swings in our way, since it is supposed to be done to remove doubt. But more than that, even if you think Braun cheated in 2011, does that mean he is not deserving in 2012 to be awarded the way he should? Isn't that cheating him - and the game - just as much?

Anyone upset about Braun's 2011 being without consequences should be upset at MLB then, who failed to give him the punishment you think he deserved (instead of being upset about Braun using the appeal he did, perhaps people should be upset that the system in place allowed for that appeal). But if you think Kemp should have been MVP, or Braun should have been suspended, giving Posey the Hank Aaron award is not only a poor, but an illogical form of justice. The same goes for this year's MVP award. The only thing that would make sense would be giving Kemp last year's award (which BWAA said they would not do) since he is the only one who really has any grounds to demand an MVP to have been stolen away. Instead, this is an act of vengeance on Braun. People without all of the facts of the case are passing judgment, and more than that, are not concerned with making things right, they are concerned with snubbing Braun.

Dispense all arguments that this is fixing MLB's problem. Not only is it not that, but it is not their task to do that. What it really means is they want Braun to not win, even though he should. It really shows that these awards are nothing more than popularity contests in the end. Sure you have to have good enough numbers to be in the conversation, but it also shows that numbers matter about as much as image in this game, but not more. The All Star game starting lineups is this way for the most part, however there are methods to at least put most of the deserving players still on the roster. But think of the saying that someone is a good enough hitter to win a gold glove, because too often players are clearly not the best fielder at their position but strangely are one of the better hitters and win the gold glove.

So why don't we say that? The Hank Aaron award is said to go to "the most outstanding offensive performer in each league", but it should insert the word 'popular' in between 'outstanding' and 'offensive'. MVP should include notes that past performance, and off field issues will go into determining the winner. The same is being said now of HoF. The BWAA (who also vote on MVP) have established a track record of believing character and image, scandal and misconduct (apparently even unproved and overturned misconduct) matters more than the performance the award supposedly honors.

If voters of all forms, for all these awards and honors, were willing to vote according to the criteria, not only would Braun be the Hank Aaron Award winner, but then future generations could simply complain about Braun and the 2011 award, instead now the 2011 MVP, 2012 Hank Aaron, and as Haudricourt suggests, soon the 2012 MVP will all be debated awards and what turned from a bad moment regarding one player and one award turns into a smeared tradition of awards and honors. Regardless of one's opinion of the overturning of the 2011 positive test, and the BWAA's decision to not take away the 2011 MVP, no one should be happy when this year's awards are meant to deliver a message rather than honor the rightful winners.

Until things change, let's call a thing what it is. It wasn't an award to Posey, it was a snub to Braun.

Reformation dilemma - What is Faith?

With this Sunday being a celebration of the Reformation across many protestant churches, I thought it might be worthwhile to write something about this, however, the thing I am going to write is not so much about what was great about the Reformation, but what has often become the greatest abuse by heirs of the Reformation heritage, which in itself renders the entire message mute in the church today.

The basic issue is this: if the Reformation had one main battle it was over the issue of justification. That is, what makes us righteous/right before God. The heart of justification is our connection to the life-giving God, particularly in response to a life-taking reality. This is the reality of sin, ours and others'. We kill and we die. We reject good (ultimately we reject the Good One) and we live as under a curse. But perhaps more importantly, it is tied to what happens when we not only live in the good or bad of this world but when we become aware of God, an awareness that wants to please him yet at the same time knows how displeasing we can be, for if our state before each other can be bad, it is dwarfed by the state before God. If justification is ultimately about this reality, about our relation with God and how we stand in not our own righteousness, but the righteousness with God, we can see how serious an issue this really is. How is one declared righteous, particularly when we speak of the righteousness of God?

This is ultimately what the Reformation became about (it was not explicit initially, but later was), and the cry of the Reformers by and large was this: it is faith in Christ alone. For nearly 500 years now has the proclamation of faith alone been a central creed of heirs of the protestant Reformation. However, what really stands to still be discussed, what must be meant by that is what the reformers, Luther especially, truly proclaimed: that faith alone means salvation is Christ's Alone!

Here is the problem: by and large what I see happening, what the temptation for every preacher, teacher, student and believer alike is this: we make faith into the last work. If everyone, perhaps even the Catholic church by and large share the proclamation that we are saved by faith alone, then the real issue is what we mean when we say that. What is faith?

Many will now use James to make faith into a work by quoting "faith without works is dead" thus saying faith looks like this...and then goes on to name everything you must do to be a true believer. Or we introduce phrases like "3rd Use of the Law" (the Law of God specifically to guide the Christian life, Calvin called this the principle use of the law) or "sanctification" so as to now find ways we will make one add something to justification. The first time I encountered this clearly was when I sat in an Evangelical Free Church and the pastor said, "You see, we are justified by faith alone, this means Christ does everything," and I was this close to yelling an "Amen" when he went on, "so now we have sanctification in which we now must follow God's commands or lose our justification." In essence faith is not enough (or faith is defined in a way that Christ is not enough). We must add to what God has done or it was done for naught, this is no different than the medieval notion of "do your best and God will do the rest!" it simply flips from us as the first actor and God the finisher to now Christ as the first actor in our salvation and we do the rest. As if justification is the second chance, faith the final inspiration we need. This must ultimately be done away with to really rescue the radical word of the gospel that we are saved by faith alone.

But what of sanctification? The Bible certainly speaks of it. But we must not make it what must be added to Christ but the fruit of Christ. Until sanctification is taught as passively as justification, and something that cannot be forced and is not the foundation of one's self-understanding of righteousness, until one does away with adding sanctification to justification rather than seeing it as a consequence of justification we will never be free from teaching that one must do something, and the law will be placed front and center with the cross moved to the side. The cross is merely the start of the Christian life instead of the hope and stay of the Christian life. We are now more interested in what we should do, than what Christ does. Ever hear when someone says a preacher is "too evangelistic", and keeps preaching about forgiveness and salvation? We don't need justification anymore...

But the more we wrestle with sin and try to lives pure lives as Christians, the more we can see through this. Saying we no longer need the cross central (we already "know" that) is as if returning to the original sin - we want to be past the true reliance upon God and his Cross, we want justification to simply be a one and done event so we can get on with living as Christians who "do things" whether it is based on how we will purify our outward lives or serve our neighbors or be the model Christian family, none of that is truly what Christianity is about. None of that is ultimately faith itself. No doubt, these things have a place in God's Word and the Christian life. But to be saved by faith alone means that the nature of faith is the center of the Christian life. Gerhard Forde put it best when speaking of sanctification and good works when he called it "getting used to justification". Only in the freedom of faith, only in the vine himself will true branches sprout fruit. Yet how often will we try to preach "how" to bear fruit instead of preaching being grafted into the vine?

Too often, we teach "faith" as something other than living in the branch. This has by and large done unspeakable damage in the church. Not only do our outward accomplishments and signs of salvation/Christian living become more important than the word of the Gospel itself, but the gospel often is silenced so we can hear ourselves and talk about ourselves or the wickedness of others. Faith becomes making your life look like something (usually better than that life - by piety, purity, or prosperity). I'm not a big Bonhoeffer fan, especially of his ethics, but perhaps he understood this better than most, that ethics is as dynamic as life itself and not static because ethics flow from the Christian freedom to be in the living and life-giving Christ. And yet often he is used the opposite, to define faith as a way of living in some form other than from Christ. The "works" language of his own works are used over his Christology (which is so present it's bothersome). We make the consequences of faith into the substance of faith itself. When this happens faith becomes no longer about Christ as Savior (maybe a little bit) but ultimately about Christ as example. This is however precisely what our Reformation heritage ought to reject. Christ must always be Savior before one could ever truly take him as example, and not just in chronology but in importance and place in the Christian faith/life.

The other way we kill our heritage of justification by Faith Alone is not by making faith into a specific practice or condition but by making it an intellectual idea. This is for example something Orthodox Lutheranism truly struggles with. Too often justification is a mere fact. Faith is the act of absorbing and giving ascent to that fact. It is not a living thing at all, it is an idea. When this happens, faith becomes defined not by actions but principles. Sometimes ethical, sometimes doctrinal, but that is all it becomes or it seeks to become something more by teaching faith as doctrine and ethics as practice. The living nature of the Christian to Christ is lost. Confirmation/Profession of Faith becomes merely agreement or proof of the proper knowledge. This is where we need theologians like Giertz who challenge when faith is defined so intellectually that it never is anything else (I don't believe orthodox Lutheranism often intends this, but it becomes the unintentional consequence), making faith to be empty words or ideas. "Grace is not simply a pious word. It is real, just as real as rain or thunder." This is the language often lost in "teaching" faith intellectually. "What was lacking was exactly this mysterious something, that makes faith - Christian faith - in other words, a living fellowship with Christ." The tradition talks a lot about faith alone in Christ alone (although even here the content is often about Christ rather than encountering/giving him, and Christ is rarely discussed in anything more than the past tense), it may even talk and focus on God a lot, but it does so with the assumption that justification happens in "getting it right". Faith is having the right answers. They come much closer, but ultimately still makes faith a work, just an intellectual work. Which will make it an easy work for some, and inaccessible to others.

No, the faith we must recover comes clearest in the words Faith alone in CHRIST alone. Faith must never be about looking like something or doing something, it by nature goes outside of oneself. There are no good words to truly describe it, the best might be relational, an acknowledgement, a trust. All of these however can equally be used to create a work. This is why one must receive the kingdom as a child, where it is beyond all of this, beyond understanding it or being able to do it. It happens to us. Faith must be passive in description if we ever wish to genuinely speak about faith active in love. Faith happens to us. This is also why a big issue is sometimes we preachers get caught up in trying to describe faith which inevitably makes it something we try to produce ourselves (or try to make our life look like we have it). Rather faith is the reality of Christ breaking into our lives as surely as when he was incarnate of the virgin Mary and broke into this old world. It always looks to him, happens by him, proceeds from him. That is to say, we need to be preaching and teaching ultimately what God does in Christ Jesus, because it is only by the work of God that faith comes. Yes there is sanctification and new life, yes there is a freedom which the world does not know, yes there is service and love. But all of these either will be the law by which we try to save ourselves and make ourselves true Christians or the inevitable life that happens the more we find ourselves bound up in Christ.

Then we must also be rid of faith as a choice for Christ. Giving your heart to Jesus...what a gift indeed! Here is the sinner's heart, given to Jesus. That has no value, yet we act as though that will earn the cross (Bo Giertz in Hammer of God puts it better when he states it the opposite, we don't give our hearts to Jesus, he comes and rescues our hearts from the dump). Even if Jesus did it all, I just gotta claim him, name him, make him my Lord. The teaching of Christ doing it all can be added to by making faith into a choice. Luther's Catechism put it so wonderfully "I believe by my own power or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ, or come to him. But it is the Holy Spirit who has called me through the Gospel..."

Therefore heirs of the faith alone heritage ought to focus on calling through the Gospel. That means the Gospel preached, not abstractly, but to you. Good Reformation preaching will not try to define faith, for that will often become the means by which we make it into the last work, the final thing we must do to be saved. Instead God's election of you through Christ, the work of Christ, the continued work of Reformation preaching ought to be keeping people in Christ by speaking his words and declaring his works and promises upon our lives. This is the place of the church, it is not merely a place to organize our service or express our faith/praise, it is the place we meet Christ again and again. Preaching justification by faith is neither outdated or only for conversion. Nor is it about making faith look like something, when people call faith right relationship with God what is true there is it speaks that it is about a living experience that comes from encountering the means of grace, the word of God - the places we encounter Christ as a Savior. Every definition of faith then, should really be a confession of faith. That is, every definition is not describing itself but Christ.

If we are saved by faith in Christ, if faith proceeds from Christ and has its very nature tied up in him, then Christ must be the content of preaching. The more that happens the more the question goes from what must I do to what has Christ done. The more this happens the more they are led by the Spirit that would so bind them to Christ. The more this happens the more the life of the Church is not only necessary, for we will know there is where our Lord's word is found, but the life of the church will then grow into discernment on our very lives, as much as a teenager thinks of her high school crush at night or looks for him in the hallways in school. Justification by faith was not a doctrine meant to make preaching and the church about "faith" as a thing but to make Christ truly the Lord and Savior of the church, sovereign, electing and working for our sake constantly. It was about not taking away from his cross or adding to it by making the whole of salvation about anything but him. This includes sanctification, which in his prayer Jesus is clear this is his own work as well (John 17.17, 19), not something we make happen, it too happens from the dynamic truth of Christ coming to our own hearts, and has been promised to us by him. The Formula of Concord on the Third Use of the Law is quite interesting here. It states that this term can only be rightly used when it speaks of the Christian life as Spirit-led and without the compulsion of the law's threats:
But when man is born anew by the Spirit of God, and liberated from the Law, that is, freed from this driver, and is led by the Spirit of Christ, he lives according to the immutable will of God comprised in the Law, and so far as he is born anew, does everything from a free, cheerful spirit; and these are called not properly works of the Law, but works and fruits of the Spirit, or as St. Paul names it, the law of the mind and the Law of Christ. For such men are no more under the Law, but under grace, as St. Paul says, Rom. 8:2 [Rom. 7:23; 1 Cor. 9:21 ].
Perhaps here we can see why St. Paul so regularly tied the imperatives of Christian living to the works of Christ. Christian living, Christian faith, proceeds from one place and that is Christ. Thus the life of the church (and the individual Christian within it) must be found there. Luther understood that when we speak of righteous before God, or more specifically the righteousness of God, that was never something to attain to or claim for oneself - Christian or otherwise, it was something to be given. And the reality of the cross is that is where Christ takes sin and the curse and gives us life and His Righteousness, which is the righteousness of God. The reformation principle of justification, especially by Luther, is grounded in the confession: I the sinner, Christ the justifier. This Reformation Sunday we ought claim it not by teaching faith alone in any manner than preaching Christ, and turning people again and again to him, his work, his cross, his word for us. For the only way we carry the heritage of Justification by Faith alone, is when we truly make that mean in Christ alone.

Offseason Baseball - Brewers (1st crack)

With the World Series starting (thankfully without the Cardinals), we are at most 7 games away from baseball's offseason. The truth is I sometimes like the offseason more than the season, because there is no room for actual performance here, only past success or future potential, all the while balancing the team checkbook.

I thought I would get a head start on my lay-GM thoughts for Milwaukee's offseason plan. You will notice I call it a '1st Crack' as I will almost certainly have another one if not more as the offseason develops and we know more about the market, the Brewer's available money, players on the trading block, etc. 

According to Cots, Milwaukee has $52.433 million committed to Ryan Braun, Aramis Ramirez, Rickie Weeks, Yovani Gallardo, Jonathan Lucroy, Corey Hart, and Norichika Aoki in 2013. That also includes 1.5 million dollar buyout owed to Randy Wolf. That's a little more than half of the total 2012 payroll (about $98mil). However, all expectations are that the payroll for 2013 will decrease. We don't know by how much but based on past years I will guess there should be room of about $30 mil for the other 18 players. 

I expect the following arbitration eligible players will be tendered contracts: Manny Parra, John Axford, Marco Estrada, and Carlos Gomez. MLBtraderumors predicts 11.7 mil for those players. However I disagree with them that Axford will manage 5.1 mil in arbitration. They make the case that he has collected stats that arbitration favors, perhaps true. But he also suffered a lot of blown saves, lost his closer job for a while, and in general regressed this season, and his ERA which arby also favors is aweful. But it will likely be a lot, so let's say he costs $4.1 mil. That will be $10.7 mil for these guys. Putting payroll at about $63 mil, with about $19 mil remaining for 14 players.

A few other players that earned spots on this team include Michael Fiers, Jim Henderson, Martin Maldonado, Mark Rogers, Jean Segura, and Wily Peralta. In addition to those who ought to be on, I think the team should also have Gamel, Kintzler, and Schafer on the roster. If we put all these at about 500k salaries that adds 4.5 mil giving a payroll of approx $67.5 mil which leaves $14.5 mil for 5 players. 

The offseason plan will then require 2 bats for the bench (at least one being able to play the infield) 2 arms for the bullpen (at least one with late inning experience/success), and a solid veteran addition to the rotation. Because we do not know who is available via trade and Milwaukee is in the process of restocking their system, I don't think we should plan on those being filled via trade. It also means I'm not putting much stock in the rumors that Milwaukee will be a suitor for Josh Hamilton. 

Milwaukee will also not be targeting the top Free Agents Starters. 14.5 mil will not be enough for Greinke, and likely would be maxed out on players like Anibal Sanchez, Kyle Lohse, or Edwin Jackson not leaving money for the other four spots. Also, all of those pitchers will require multi-year contracts. Milwaukee's other pitchers are all controllable and cheaper. Additionally, the team has a small handful of other arms with real potential in the upper minors who should be MLB ready soon. At the same time the team should leave money coming off of the books next year to allow for all the payroll increases. On top of all of that the last two long term FA pitchers (Suppan and Wolf) had to be released in their final year due to under-performance. Therefore I think the team should be targeting either bounce-back candidates or older players who are on a year-to-year basis at this point in their career. Such players the team will have less competition for (hopefully), and therefore a better chance at signing them.

Keep in mind then that the players we look for are not the most elite, but rather are more risky, and a little outside the box. They still have some ability to get the job done well however. Assuming that the Angels will decline their expensive option to Ervin Santana, a one year deal to him would be wise. He is young enough he could still net a multi-year deal, but given his 2012 I doubt he will get one. He seems a prime candidate for a one year deal to try to reestablish his value before getting too old. 7 mil should do it. But if that won't do it, or he has other pursuers, plan B (to keep it simple we'll say at the same cost) will be Bartolo Colon. Plan C as Jeremy Guthrie. This will leave 7.5 mil for 4 players. Any of these would be a solid addition. They all have a lot of major league experience and have put up some solid numbers. Colon has really had a resurgence. The concern might be he tested positive for testosterone and was suspended at the end of this year (he missed 40 regular season games and 5 postseason games so he will still have to miss the first 5 regular season games of 2013), but I still expect him to be a solid addition, especially since he has been in the AL the last two years. Guthrie had the great challenge of being the ace of the Orioles for years, when he is not an ace and Baltimore was not a good team. That said, even in that role, in that division, he put up some solid ERA's and limited walks, and provided innings. He was just awful for the Rockies in 2012, but put up his best numbers in the second half when he joined the Royals (who will likely be the primary competition for him). A move to the NL that does not include half your games at Coors Field should be good for him.

I should say that I would not be all too upset if Milwaukee chose to retain Marcum as he has shown his ability to succeed here, and with our system brewing so many young pitchers I am not altogether worried about his late season durability. The bigger issue will be cost and years. I would not really want him for more than two, and the thin market may price him too high (we'll see). Another name I would love as an addition but I think Milwaukee will have too much competition for is Brandon McCarthy. 7 mil may be a good enough amount of money, but he may be seeking multiple years and will surely have suitors from larger markets that will by nature be more attractive. So while he is financially realistic, I think Milwaukee will not be able to land him.

For the pen, I think Juan Cruz would be a great pickup. He has shown a history of success in the pen (especially in the NL), and the ability to get strikeouts. Basically he will replace Jose Veras, but I expect him to be cheaper and have fewer walks. The real question is how many appearances he can/will make. Having not reached 50 innings for a couple seasons, added to getting older, that would be the main concern with him. But because of that and the way non-elite free agent relievers can usually be had cheap, I imagine Doug Melvin could sign him for $1 mil. In addition I would target Koji Uehara with a two year deal, maybe $2.5 mil a year. I'm not sure that will be enough, but it might given his age and the multi-year offer. You don't want to overpay for your pen or over commit, Luis Ayala would be another good option that would be cheap enough to have for $2.5 mil. Either way the combination of two of Uehara/Cruz/Ayala I imagine could be had for $3.5 mil. That leaves $4 million for 2 players.

Those last two spots should go to Ryan Theriot and Jonny Gomes. Here are two veterans who bring strong back up bats. They also have not commanded large contracts. Last season they combined for $2.25 mil, so it is also reasonable to believe they could be had for $4 mil. They both are not good enough defensively to generally be considered favorites/starters, but both have the bats which Milwaukee's bench could use. Schafer and Maldonado already provide the team with some defensive minded players on the bench. Along with being solid backups/bats off the bench, we should also remember that the Astro's move to the AL will change the dynamic of interleague play, meaning the DH will not simply be a few weeks in the end of the first half of the season thing anymore. Gamel/Gomes will provide a good DH platoon for whenever the Crew is playing at an American League park. Word is Oakland will try to resign Gomes however, so if Melvin could not get him, Andrew Jones would be a good alternative as he similarly brings power (especially against left handers).

The good news is Milwaukee will return with the same line-up that had one of if not the best offense in the National League last season (depending how you rank offenses). They will also let some of the young arms that stepped in mid-season show what they can do with a full season of work. Most interesting will be to see if Fiers had a lucky start or just wore out at the end. The team will be taking a bit of a risk with the new starter addition, however, it could either work out really well, or the team turns to some other young arms, such as Rogers, who will be the swing man - which would probably be good given his fragile arm rather than rely on him to give us 150-200 innings - instead limit him to long relief and spot starting. The bullpen could not be worse than last year. And the additions should provide a solid improvement to go along with hopefully some pitchers getting back on track - especially Axford. Also, the bench will have a good offensive/defensive, veteran/young balance to it. And at $82.5 million, if the team were in contention they would have payroll flexibility for more midseason help.

Could they be had on minor league deals, Travis Ishikawa, Chris Narveson, Kameron Loe, or Jose Veras would be worth retaining for depth purposes. Other players who might be available for minor league deals and good pickups for team depth would be: Ronny Cedeno, Rich Harden, Brian Fuentes, and Francisco Cordero. The market will likely depend on if any of the above players would be available for a minor league deal, but if they are around come January that often is what happens. And it would be a worthwhile thing to do, even if it required split contracts (contracts that guaranteed more money than league minimum if they make the MLB roster - usually in the 800k-2 mil range). They could join guys like Farris, Bianchi and Thornburg in the minors.

But not counting on those minor league deals, here is the proposed roster:

Lineup

1-Aoki (RF)

2-Gomez (CF)

3-Braun (LF)

4-Ramirez (3B)

5-Hart (1B)

6-Weeks (2B)
*7-Gamel/Gomes (DH - AL Games only)

7/8-Lucroy (C)

8/9-Segura (SS)

*9-Pitcher (NL Games only)

Bench

Gamel (1B/RF/DH)

Schafer (LF/CF/RF)

Theriot (2B, 3B, SS)

Maldonado (C)

Gomes/Jones (LF/RF/DH)

Rotation

1-Gallardo

2-Santana/Colon/Guthrie

3-Peralta

4-Fiers

5-Estrada

6/LR-Rogers

MR-Kintzler

MR-Cruz

LOOGY-Parra

7th-Henderson

8th-Uehara/Ayala

9th-Axford

I know some fantasy GM's out there will not like this, but I'm trying to be realistic too, considering that Milwaukee has had trouble attracting top free agents with out well over paying, and that is not what Milwaukee should be focused on doing right now. We'll have to wait and see for what Doug Melvin has in store.

The real concern is the pitching. This roster really is counting on Axford to be the closer, Uehara has closing experience which is why he would be the preferable addition to the team as a back-up. Henderson had a little experience last year and Kintzler was a closer in the minors (but really does not have the stuff for MLB closing). Also it is not just hoping the FA pitcher works out, I'm more worried about how guys like Fiers and Estrada will show themselves in a full season. Hopefully they will continue their success or Rogers will be able to step in.

But I'm ready for some offseason baseball. Hopefully it will be a good World Series, ending 2012 season with a bang (or a crack of the bat) so we can look to the 2013 season with great expectations...

Don't forget to feed the fish. Thanks for reading.

A Ridiculous What if...the Ninja Turtle grew up

So everyone grows up...I mean most people do. Peter Pan fans (Hook aside) know that not everyone grows up. Some of us though are still deeply connected to our childhood. From the generation before mine that loves to see shows like Leave it to Beaver to my brother and I who were talking about He-Man (movie and show) yesterday online, often things that were special to us then still are to some extent now, even if we can sit back and see how ridiculous they actually are. And some we find just as entertaining.

Well last night as I sought something to watch as I went to sleep I decided to put in the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon. And as I watched it I began to ponder (the same pondering that in fact inspired the movie Hook) what it would be like when these turtles grew up, since they are only teenagers now. So for a little bit of Armchair Fun (and do take it as that and nothing more), here is my prediction on where the Turtles ended up (I realize there are new TMNT shows, but that's alternate universe as far as I'm concerned):



Leonardo grows up to find that only his brothers considered him a charismatic leader. Everyone else finds him whiny. In search of that power, he lands himself a role as night manager at Burger King, where his attempts at being a great leader are similar to those of Chad Vader. In addition he volunteers at a Karate Dojo where he is the most disliked instructor and regularly makes children cry because of his own insecurities. He also demoted himself to blue belt, just because that is the color he always wears. He is the most lonely guy out there, and sends all his friends away. April still sends him a Christmas Card, but hasn't told him she moved to a place down the street from his apartment - which by the way has all blue furniture.



Michelangelo went off to college, where he got really into the party scene. Too much so in fact. His crazy fun attitude about life got him deep into drinking parties and eventually he flunked out. Now he has two creepy turtle-like children with women whose names he did not even know. He is still living with Splinter because all of his money from his part time job at Kinkos (which he barely holds down) goes to child support. He gets really uncomfortable around April owing to an awkward alcohol related experience that they both promised never to speak of again. His beer belly, though partly hidden, has begun to pour out of his shell. He is still a Pizza-fanatic, and still loves the weird toppings. His current favorite is Pizza topped with Rum Cake and Schnapps. His California surfer talk is now mixed with a Mike Tyson slur after a series of alcohol related nunchuck accidents in the frat house. He still skateboards everywhere, since the state of New York won't let him get a license for another 10 years after he crashed the Turtle Van last spring.

Raphael is in prison. He never got over his renegade attitude, and Youtube now features a rather popular security video of that attitude resulting him getting physical with a couple of New York Air Port Security Officers after giving one the 2nd finger (which is his middle finger) over their insistence that he needed to remove his mask for Airport Security. Don't get me wrong, he whooped those security guards, he's a ninja turtle after all. But instead of practicing the art of invisibility his ego caused him to stay and humiliate the officers. And if you start trouble in a New York Airport after 9/11, you better practice the art of invisibility. After two years in Guantanimo he was sentenced to fifteen more years in upstate New York. He shares a cell with Casey Jones, who was arrested after he beat up Brett Favre for trying to come out of retirement again with another comeback in New York. Jones is after all, an avid sports fan. He tried to shank Raph in order to join a prison gang, but found that plastic toothbrushes melted into stabbing weapons do little against a turtle shell. Raph beat him up for trying, naturally. Although he later apologized as part of his required in-prison anger management sessions. There he discovered a lot of his bent up rage was because he also felt Splinter loved Leo more than him, and his whole attitude was a "cry for attention". Or so the prison psychologist says.



Donatello hit it big as an inventor. He was a silent partner in the entire iPhone phenomenon. The Turtle Communicators being early models of the eventual product. Steve Jobs was the smile, Donnie was the inventor. After Jobs' death Donnie was forced into retirement, not having a pretty boy to market his ideas. He now is on the writing staff for Big Bang Theory, although he still occasionally writes apps for Apple, such as the "which Ninja Turtle are you?" app which if you never realized is rigged to always answer "Donatello". He also wrote the Angry Turtles game, which features Raph getting launched at the Technodrome. He is on to his second gold-digger wife, who Splinter hates. So he doesn't come home often, especially now that Mikey is always asking him to loan him money. Although very successful, he still is stuck in nostalgia, missing the exciting action of his Teenage Years. Occasionally he pays people to reenact his old battles with Shredder, although as is common with nostalgia, the history has changed some and it really looks nothing like the old episodes. It usually ends with the other three praising him for saving the day, and April lamenting that their love would never be accepted. In 2011, he bought out Krang and now controls the foot soldiers and works out of the Technodrome. He has become his own enemy and April "Doesn't even know who he is anymore!"

Splinter enjoyed 2 years of peace after the Turtles moved out. He had a brief thing with Mini-Mouse but that was quickly over after Michelangelo moved back in. He also decided to take up Yoga, which he found much more preferable to ninjitsu in his old age. He became an Episcopalian, but was too ashamed to let them know when Mikey came home so he became a lapsed Catholic, where he figured alcoholic family and children named Leonardo, Donatello, Michelangelo, and Raphael was more normal. This new found faith has aloud him to add guilt to wisdom as he speaks to his children. April comes by a lot, and he suspects she's going to put him in a home...or the zoo.

Shredder came out of the closet and has been living la vita loca ever since. His obsession with catching Amotoyoshi (Splinter) which brought him all the way to New York he realized was his homosexual tendencies towards Amotoyoshi going back to their days together in Japan. He realized this when he could not shake the recurring dreams of Krang in the "body" suite. This was confirmed when it occurred to him he built that body suite for Krang, and decided to give it no clothes but underwear and suspenders. Once it was clear to him that Krang would never give him the steady relationship he wanted and was really quite abusive, he left him. Now he uses his marital arts techniques to own the dance floor in New York gay bars. He goes by 'Aroco' now (a nickname from his true name Arocosaki). Splinter, Krang, the turtles are all a thing in the past. Although Bebop and Rocksteady are still a part of his life, coming over on the holidays and playing monopoly with him once a month (which he always wins). He still wears the cape, but after a terrible accident that left three people dead no longer wears the blades to the club.

Krang was really bothered when he realized Shredder used that body suite for his own purposes. He always did find that suite drafty. The sense of betrayal led him to decide to return to Dimension X. He sold the foot clan and the Technodrone to Donatello for far less than he paid for it due to the housing crash and tight economy. Unfortunately in Dimension X he was not welcome, still exiled. And with no body to run away, he was easily killed. No one came to his funeral. It's unclear if that is because no one liked him or because Leonardo gave the Eulogy and as predicted spent the whole time talking about himself.


April lost her job as a reporter to a younger, more attractive girl. No longer doing the channel 6 happy hour news, she wrote for the newspaper for a while. But soon it was clear that she had gotten spoiled from the free scoops the turtles were giving her, and she lacked any real investigative reporting skills. And so in 4 months the paper let her go. That night Michelangelo invited her to a party to get her mind off of things. But we're not supposed to talk about that. Now she works at a pet store, but refuses to sell turtles or rats. She also does a weekly podcast which no one watches but Raph. Leo will watch if she tells him that she mentioned him in it. She visits Splinter a lot because she figures he too must miss the old days of 'Turtle Power', but she usually only visits early in the morning when Mikey is still passed out.


Bebop and Rocksteady are roommates in the Bronx. After Krang sold the Technodrome they were evicted. They lived on the street for a little bit, until they got steady jobs as telemarketers. Now they live comfortably. They visit Shredder...I mean "Aroco"...on a regular basis. Every once in a while they try to get Donnie to get them a chance to pitch Apple a new idea they have. But he has been weary of doing this since they proposed the iToilet. They're still idiots. But happy idiots.

Childhood never lasts forever. Adults always would say to me to enjoy my teenage years because they will blow by. And once gone, their gone. The Ninja Turtles would inevitably have to grow up into the realities of life. And the end of their adventures, would impact those whose lives were deeply connected to the adventures of these young, green, fighting teens. 

Since I could not create my own custom bible...

So a little while ago I shared a post about my search for a new Bible, and what I found I would want if I could have whatever I wanted in my Bible. The ultimate personal Bible. Well, since ya cannot do that (yet) and I'm not sure it is physically possible to have everything I wanted in the Bible fit and still get it the size I wanted, I had to settle. I finally got one and thought I would share here a bit about it, particularly in relation to my "custom Bible" (hereafter referred to as the "Armchair Bible") so we can see where I settled, and what priorities won out.

The Bible I finally bought was the "Minister's Bible" which I first encountered at Lifeway Christian Book store but eventually purchased elsewhere, I'll say more on that in a bit. But since I did not get it from Lifeway, I thought I would do them at least the courtesy of linking them from this blog and encouraging you to browse their website. Let's examine how this Bible met expectations, and then I'll say some more about it as well.







Here is a sample page to see what it looks like:


The Armchair Bible was supposed to have a good font size. This was very important to me, and was one of my main make or break issues in selecting a Bible. Most simply did not add up. But the Minister's Bible did. If most Bible's are probably in the 7-8 range, this is likely a 9-9.5 font size. It's not a genuine 'large print', but it is large enough I don't feel at all strained reading it. Since this Bible was designed for pulpit use, it was given a font that could be read while standing at a pulpit. Need met!

The Armchair Bible also wanted good font type. It particularly favored the CEB font. This Bible does not use that. But I don't have a particular complaint, and without getting a CEB version Bible I wasn't going to meet this one. And CEB is a bit too new to have enough versions to have one that met my needs. So the font could have been a better type, it was not a make or break thing. Preference not met.

Were there an Armchair Bible, it would have utilized some colors for a clean layout. Because this Bible did not have too much going on, it does not have that. It might have been nice to have the verses or lower notes a different color. However I will say this: they use bold text well to highlight pericopes, and in the NT direct quotes from OT texts are bolded some (it does not show up as well on the computer but the Isaiah passage is clearly bolded in the Bible). Also, the letters indicating a footnote are a larger size and different font and much clearer than many other Bible's I have regarding footnotes/references. This is good since the HCSB employs at times lots of footnotes. So it is not color organized, but still well organize. More or less, need met.

Perhaps the single most important thing for me along with font size was that it have margin space for notes, and that has been the single hardest combination to find in a Bible. Either the text it too small or the margins are too small. This Bible ultimately sold me because it was only the second one I could find that had both that was not a study bible (you may remember I did not want a study bible). This Bible has wide margins all along the outside of the Bible, making for plenty of room for taking notes. And I did not have to particularly go way outside my desire for a good size (more on that later). Thus I am happy to report this need absolutely met.

I really would have liked some devotional content. But the problem is that is hard to come by. Had the C.S. Lewis Bible had wide margins I would have bought that book in a heartbeat. I only saw one other Bible that truly offered that kind of content, and it was by a group who would have had devotions with theology I don't find up to snub. It had me thinking about talking to some Giertz scholars I know about starting work on a Bo Giertz devotional Bible. It would I imagine especially be awesome in Sweden since Giertz composed his own translation of the New Testament which could then be used there (I am currently working with his translation as it is part of his commentary on John which I am translating into English). But until I collaborate with such Giertz scholars there just wasn't much out there and really I didn't see any that met my margin needs. I will say though, that the Minister's Bible includes resources for ministers, some of it are of a reflective/personal nature for the minister (but all aimed towards ministry). Some of this extra content though, also will never be used because of its theological incongruence with my own theological heritage. It actually gave me pause as to whether to get the Bible. Ultimately since this material was in the back I decided to not let it stop me. And I was surprised that more of it than I thought I will be able to take something from or reflect on. It is not totally unusable like I assumed when I purchased it. All the same, I will call this preference not really met.

I really wanted well placed maps and charts. I do get a nice table of measurements and full color maps, but they are not well placed. That is, they are in the back of the Bible. My personal observation has been this: when it is in the back of the Bible it is far less likely to be used, and therefore far less helpful. That said, it is not altogether absent. I will call this preference partially met.

I was able to land a very nice imitation leather cover. The one I found in the store had real leather which was REALLY nice, but cost a lot more. Actually when I ordered this one, the online thing claimed it was the leather one, so I was a little irked when I saw that was not the case when it arrived. All the same, it is a better form of "simulated leather" as it is called than a lot of Bible's out there. I could not be more pleased. It is flexible, durable, and lightweight. And I love the simply black cover with a slight border. I did not mention it last time, but not only the material, but the cover color I do prefer more basic. I'm not into weird colors or too many. I find nothing more offputting for example than the Augsburg Lutheran Study Bible's cover. Worst design ever. It looks like a gift for a baby boy (although it would be a bad one since NRSV has a really high reading level. By the time it would be appropriate to age, the color no longer would). Call me vain, maybe I am, I know it is still God's Word, but if I got a choice, I want one I would be seen in public with. I will say though that the Augsburg Study Bible makes up at least with a nicer dark blue deluxe edition (costing a fair bit more though). Luckily that is no issue for me any more. I like what I got here. Preference met!

I was hoping that my Bible would be a medium size and not get too big. I cannot overall complain about this Bible's Size. It may be a pinch bigger than I hoped, but recognizing my need for Font size and Margin space I was more than willing to give a little here. I said I did not want bigger than my study bibles in size and this is about the same size paper as them. But I think it is a bit thinner (and not being hard cover a bit lighter for sure). The dimensions are listed as 9.25" x 6.25" x 1.5". It isn't thinline by any means, but only 1.5" thick to go with its decent size and my main needs met I cannot complain at all. In general I would say this need is met!

I was hoping for thicker paper. Unfortunately I could not have my cake and eat it too. For the Bible to be this size, the paper is thin. It is slightly although not very see-through in terms of text. I found my pen does not bleed through really which was a concern. Where I really had problems was a highlighter. I bought some highlighters said to be specifically good for Bibles and they simply showed up way too much. After experimenting last night with most of the highlighters in my house I had to go out and again look for a special highlighter. I found some really nice ones by sharpie, I got a purple one, light enough it really does not show up at all on the other side. But from now on I have to be particular about what highlighters I can use with this paper. This need was not met.

I was looking for a good translation. I named a few and ultimately landed on wanting to try a CEB (modified since it was a custom Armchair Bible) but the CEB is so new there just was not enough variety to have something to meet my need. I will say though that perhaps the Holman Christian Standard Bible is a more conservative counterpart. I had one HCSB previously, but had not used it much. And my wife and I had been intrigued enough to try it lately. Prior to getting the Bible I did some research on the Holman.

• It comes from the Baptists, and does have a flair of 'inerrancy' within it since that was a big principle of the translators. This mainly shows in how while it does bracket questionable verses and offer critical commentary in the footnotes, it does not exclude verses/additions that most Bibles today will only show in the footnotes. It instead errs on including too much. Here are three quick examples of what I mean: most Bibles today only include John 5.4 and Acts 8.37 in footnotes, excluding the text entirely from the main translation. HCSB will only bracket those texts. Another example is most translations of Matthew's Lord's Prayer end at "deliver us from the evil one" but HCSB includes in brackets "For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen". However, HCSB while including these should not be mistaken for another KJV, they did use the most recent critical manuscripts and use critical footnotes. 
• For the process of making this translation they coined a term called "optimal equivalence" which sought a balance between "word for word" translations and "thought for thought" translations. To some degree other translations do this, but they wanted to favor and try to do word for word while not feeling afraid to utilize thought for thought when necessary. Most of my research found it was somewhere between NIV and ESV in terms of the translation accuracy, I saw some debate as to where it is in comparison to NRSV for example, but I would guess it is a bit less literal than NRSV. 
• I will say that HCSB also is somewhat unique in its decision to at times utilize Yahweh as the divine name. For those unfamiliar, in places where your bible has LORD or GOD in all capitals that is a time when the divine name of God is used in the Old Testament. The reason it is done that way is that it was an ancient practice never to actually say the divine name out of reverence, therefore the practice was to say Elohim ("God") or more commonly Adonai ("Lord") in place of the divine name. We know this in part because the Masorite scribes who years later added vowels to the Hebrew text would put the vowels for these words over the consonants (YHWH) for the divine name. Christians for a long time mistakenly translated the divine name as Jehovah (the old European pronunciation of the Hebrew Y was a J and W was a V) thinking the vowels from Adonai belonged to the divine name. Modern scholars today however believe that the original pronunciation the the name YHWH is Yahweh. HCSB therefore looks to use this at certain moments when the name matters, that is, it is invoked, stands out, or matters to the translation. An example would be Psalm 68.4 "His name is Yahweh", which is an appropriate use. My one issue here, which is why I never use Yahweh in anything I say or write, is actually that I wish we would learn from our Jehovah error and not presume to know what God's name is. While scholars are very certain, the truth is we have no real way of knowing how YHWH was pronounced. I would have preferred it been printed then with the divine name letters but no guess at the translation, since we do not know. But I realize that printing YHWH does not work well for reading aloud. But I personally am not high on HCSB's decision to use the name. And it has been a bit of an art figuring out when to use it and when not to, as over the twelve or so years that HCSB has been released they have altered the number of times Yahweh or LORD is used. 
• That reminds me to note, that this is a still pretty recent translation, being first published in 2000. 
• I did note that this was done by the baptists, but I had found enough recommendations outside the baptists and even reviews that checked to see if there would be a specifically baptist take on the translation all to come out to good reviews. Aside from sites that hail the KJV as the one true Bible, I found little that ultimately had a bad overall review of this translation. And what little I have used of it I like. It is different like the CEB in some respects. New enough to not be replaced soon. And I like the overall principle of optimal equivalence that went into it. So it was not CEB, but it had some of what I wanted from CEB and should overall meet my need.

I wanted a thumb index for the Armchair Bible. Again, this is kind of a rare feature in Bibles, and I was really pushing it given my desire for wide margins. The Minister's Bible did not have one. But for $3.75, about two frustrating hours, and a few mistakes later, I was able to add Bible tabs for a side index. For those interested, I should note that one must be very present mentally when adding bible tabs so as to not make mistakes that can take some time to fix. Also I learned that I should have left a few inches somewhere on the Bible clear of any tabs so it would be easy to thumb through the whole book more fluidly without any attempt ultimately landing me at the start of a book. And tab indexes, though as helpful as thumb indexes are messier looking. So I will say that it did not come with the need met, but for a little clutter, two hours of trouble, and no space for thumbing through more fluidly and randomly, this preference was inconveniently met.

The Armchair Bible would be single column. Well so is the Minister's Bible. It is another one of its easy readability features. And I like it. And I think it will definitely be good for note taking purposes. Some longer paragraphs will be maybe a pinch harder to read in the middle because of this, but overall it was in my mind a good choice and the benefits outweigh the alternative. Need met.

I am pleased to report, that like the Armchair Bible, the Minister's Bible is not a Red-Letter Bible. No issues with long Jesus discourses being hard to read. Preference gleefully met.

I have no Bible case yet, and have not quite decided if I will pony up for one. I might to keep the special pen and highlighter that were purchased for the use of this Bible together with it. We will see. But Bible's never come with cases, and thankfully the cover does not necessitate one immediately. Maybe one day, but as of right now I'm in no hurry to meet this preference.

I hoped for blank pages. Didn't get any. Again, size and space is a premium. I gladly would have gone without some of the resources in the back which I will never use for a blank page or two. Unfortunately this need was not met.

I wanted a ribbon bookmark and got two! How cool is that? One is currently marking where I am in reading through the whole Bible, the other marked where I preached from this morning. The dual flexibility is really good. This need is more than met.

I wanted an affordable Bible. Which has really been tough. As I mentioned, I went to Lifeway after striking out everywhere else I went. Lifeway has tons of bible options and some really affordable ones. I was really hoping I'd find what I needed. I was drawn to the Minister's Bible, but it was still just too expensive. So I opted not to get it. I went home, frustrated and saddened I still could not find a Bible. After more fruitless searching I decided to look online, still found little that claimed to meet my needs, and the hardest part was then I would only have the word of the website/item description. And I felt this was something I needed to see and hold. Since I had with the Minister's Bible I gave it a second thought. This is when I researched the HCSB and just juggled around the idea. When I decided to get it, I decided to try to find one used but in good shape online since I could not afford it. I found a store that sells used books but also must have had overstock or something and therefore had one of these brand new for much less. That was enough for me to finally make the decision, since I was able to get it in a decent price range. Overall I paid $22 + tax & shipping. I should also note that most if not all HCSB's claim to have lifetime guarantees, which I assume will mean if the binding fails or there was some other issue I can replace it (but I honestly could not find anything about the guarantee with the Bible so I'm not 100% sure what they mean by "lifetime guarantee"). If it gives me some chance for replacement with age that would be great. All the better value. If not, no biggie, this Bible still came much more in my price range. Need met.

So overall you can see this Bible actually did pretty well. It was not perfect or met all my needs/preferences, but it really did come through perhaps where it needed to most. It just goes to show that in our diverse world of English Bibles you can probably find something for you. It's still early but my early report is quite positive. In addition to what is listed above, I'll give you a quick glance at the extra material in the back. Some of it I will never use, may even cross out inside the Bible, others I may turn to from time to time. This is the complete list of "additional material" from this Bible: Plan of Salvation, HCSB introduction, HCSB Bullet Notes, Table of Weights and Measures, Where to Turn (Pastoral Care), Eight Traits of Effective Church Leadership, 21 Essentials of Authentic Ministry, A Classical Wedding Ceremony, A Contemporary Wedding Ceremony, Funeral Preparation, Funeral Sermon, Funeral for a Child, Funeral for a Student, Funeral for a Suicide Victim, Four Kinds of Expositional Preaching, 30 Keys to Giving an Invitation, Commitment Counseling, Leading a Child to Christ, ABCs of Becoming a Christian, Reaching Students with the Gospel, Two Things We Really Must Do, The Christian Year and Church Calendar, The Apostles and Their History, A Concordance to the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

As you can see, some could be helpful, some have too much of a baptist bend to be used. But it does provide a lot and a lot of guides or things for a pastor to think about. Even if I have to think about it critically, there will be some good there. 

Suffice it to say, I'm satisfied. And I am pleased to say, this is my Bible.

More mark 10...with a little Luke thrown in

I already began touching on this Sunday's Gospel here when I worked some with Sunday's Psalm. But talking with my friend, another fine pastor, had me stirring a few thoughts. Let me throw it out there for ya. As always, let me give you the text:

35 James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him and said to him, "Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you." 36 And he said to them, "What is it you want me to do for you?" 37And they said to him, "Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory." 38 But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" 39 They replied, "We are able." Then Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized; 40 but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared." 41 When the ten heard this, they began to be angry with James and John. 42 So Jesus called them and said to them, "You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. 43 But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. 45 For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many."

If before I talked about our desire for glory, I'm going to continue that. Mainly because my friend noted that two people do in fact get placed on Jesus' left and Jesus' right. I'm speaking of course about the cross. Where does our quest for glory really lead? To nails in the hand and feet, to slowly dying. Who wants to sign up for that? But again it shows that our quest for glory is not Christ's.

But I am particularly taken by a simple thought, and that is the comparison then of those who end up on Jesus' right and left to the request of James and John. And the different response. Here we turn particularly to the Gospel of Luke. I know the anti-harmonizers out there hate it when someone crosses Gospels, as if they cannot be in dialogue together because they were written by different authors, but I don't care. Start your own blog with a no-cross Gospel theology rule. Here in this blog scriptures, even different gospels, do speak to each other.

In Luke's crucifixion account, the thief beside him on the cross has his own request: "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." The man, who is in the very place the disciples wanted to be (at Jesus side) is seeking not power but rescue. Jesus in turn gives him a promise that he will be at his side again - in paradise!

The comparison and dialogue then between the texts is that following Christ is not raising us to new heights, nor is it a reverse theology of glory that assumes we're supposed to put ourselves in new lows. It's about faithfully walking ahead, even when the road is to Jerusalem.

It is unclear if James and John believed they earned that place at Jesus' side (it certainly seems that is how the other disciples understood it), but what it clear is they wanted it at a specific moment - when he comes into glory. But what if the Gospel is not about getting a better lot in life - which is usually the problem with most Christian novels and films by the way - but instead is about discovering that in the hour of our death, the Savior is actually on the cross next to ours! The request to be remembered then is not the desire for the place of honor at the good part, but it is knowing where to put a desperate cry. It is instead to receive the one promise that can make one meet their cross with grace, and see in even the worst moments of this life that in fact life springs forth and God remembers and acts.

Baptism is this! It is facing our mortality and the death of the old creature that rebels, yet at the same time it is Christ beside us promising us the same passage into new life. Paul puts it this way when he says that we have been baptized into a death and resurrection like his. And here in Mark we see Jesus using the same term when he says you will be baptized with the same baptism. And like the disciples who want glory, we often don't want our baptism. We have it done (or it was done to us), but we rarely mark it unless we are honoring ourselves, and our decision to be baptized and give our life to God. Only when baptism is a step to glory it seems we want any claim to it. Yet what if that were the place we know that God was crucified beside us? What if there we received the words "you will be with me"? If discipleship is neither about attaining greater things or an escape from all the bad things in this world, but rather being able to continue on this walk of life, then baptism is a promise to use every day. So every day we not only face the death of sin, and live in the repentance and new life, but so that every day we see like the thief on the cross Christ beside us giving us a promise for the day events ahead just as he did to that thief. That is what he said to James and John, they would receive. A death. A day. And all the while. A promise.

Who needs the right and left seat in glory? We have Christ daily in baptism.