John 1.29-39 The Testimony of John the Baptist

It's been a long time since I did some work with a text on here, but allow me to do one today on last Sunday's Gospel. As usual I'll first give you the text and then we'll talk about it:

29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, "Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of whom I said, "After me comes a man who ranks ahead of me because he was before me.' 31 I myself did not know him; but I came baptizing with water for this reason, that he might be revealed to Israel." 32 And John testified, "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, "He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' 34 And I myself have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God." 35 The next day John again was standing with two of his disciples, 36 and as he watched Jesus walk by, he exclaimed, "Look, here is the Lamb of God!" 37 The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. 38 When Jesus turned and saw them following, he said to them, "What are you looking for?" They said to him, "Rabbi" (which translated means Teacher), "where are you staying?" 39 He said to them, "Come and see." They came and saw where he was staying, and they remained with him that day. It was about four o'clock in the afternoon. 

Let me note also that Sunday's text actually continues beyond verse 39, but for this blog up to 39 will do.

This blog can be counted among the things you probably would never hear in a sermon (at least not one of mine) beyond a side note. I would not give this kind of attention to such musings in the pulpit however. Thus cometh the blog (which my loyal readers might remember, such side note musings on texts was one of my original purposes for beginning a blog, my newer readers can find the comment in my first textual musing here). What I'd like to discuss is something usually left towards scholarship on the Gospel especially among those in "historical Jesus" studies. The issue is around Jesus and John the Baptist, particularly in John's Gospel.

To sum it up quickly, the question people wonder is why this gospel does not tell of the baptism of Jesus, and lays on heavily a sort of submissive role of John the Baptist? To be sure the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke for those unfamiliar with the term) also to some degree explain John as having a role for Jesus' own ministry, and they highlight Jesus over John and some indicate John himself expressed this. But they don't go to the extent that the fourth gospel does in expressing this. There are several keys here: for one, while other gospels seem to indicate the Baptizer is an Elijah figure (fulfilling the words of Malachi 4.5-6, the last words of the Christian Old Testament canon) John the Baptist denies even that title for himself in John 1.21. John's prologue makes clear John the Baptist came only to testify to the light (John 1.7-8). Later in the Gospel when disciples of John come and tell on Jesus the Baptizer responds by saying "He must increase, but I must decrease." (read the full story in John 3.22-36).

But perhaps where this is most noticeable in John's Gospel is the fact that it does not tell of the baptism of Jesus. This major event which jump starts Jesus ministry in the other three gospels does not appear. Instead we have only reference of the event by John the Baptist, we have his account of the event (although it should be noted that independent of the synoptics one would not be aware of the fact that John is recounting Jesus' baptism as the act of baptism itself is not mentioned, however the information provided does match the synoptics' account of events when Jesus came up out of the water of baptism). There are two typical claims I have heard here for this reason, one that typically accompanies a more narrative critical approach and one that accompanies a more historical critical approach. The narrative critical approach will note that this is consistent with a theme in the Gospel of John where Jesus is always in control. Even in his crucifixion he is not a passive figure but plays a very active role. Hence in John's Gospel there is no Simon of Cyrene carrying his cross for him. Jesus takes up his own cross. Likewise Pilot appears befuddled and confused as to how to handle Jesus, and it is Jesus who speaks a power for him to sentence him (John 19.11). Consistent with this, instead of seeing Jesus being baptized, in this Gospel we actually see him baptizing people (see again John 3.22-36).

The other comes from historical critical method, which attempts to ask what is behind leaving out the baptism, and in general this emphasis on John being lesser than Jesus. One common claim is that it is an act of overcompensation on the part of the Gospel writer. This method claims that Jesus was likely a disciple of John's who either took his place as a leader for many of his disciples after John was arrested or who became a dynamic leader from within and eventually led to a split. Proponents of this view point to several things in the gospels which they believe hint this: along with this constant abuse to John's character they contrast that with John's notoriety (especially from Josephus). The downplaying doesn't appear consistent with John's individual popularity apart from the story of Jesus. Additionally, they'll note that it would seem odd that if John meant to point to Jesus as plainly as he does in say our Gospel reading, that it seems odd he would still have disciples (both that he would permit it and that they would remain with him). They also look to how the gospels record tensions between Jesus' and John's disciples, comparisons between Jesus and John, and even rumors that Jesus was John the Baptist! Some may also note how in Matthew for example in the beginning of Jesus ministry his message seems to be based off of John's message (see Matthew 3.1-2, 4.17). All these indicate a relationship that would appear more equal than the gospels and John the Baptist in the gospels tell. Therefore the absence of the baptism was part of this attempt to show John was not equal and certainly never had a superior role to Jesus, as a baptism may indicate. Instead we get an introductory message from John prior to the baptism like in the other gospels including especially John's words of not being worthy to untie Jesus' sandals (1.26-27). But then when our reading transitions to Jesus' approach we have an accounting by John rather than the event itself (and as already noted, the account conveniently leaves out John baptizing Jesus). The assumption by such scholars is that in order for the Gospel to show Jesus as the clear superior (contrary to what they believe really happened), John the Baptist could not do anything to Jesus, but only talk about Jesus.

Now let me offer my response or thoughts on this. If we are dealing with overcompensation to make clear that John is the lesser, it would seem Matthew's account of the baptism would be sufficient for such a cause. Matthew explains the baptism of Jesus as for a purpose that must be fulfilled (thus not making Jesus subservient to John) and also indicates that John felt the reverse (Jesus baptizing him) would be more proper than John baptizing Jesus (see Matthew 3.14-15). The Gospel of John does not by omitting the baptism itself remove question of the relationship of Jesus to John, especially since John while baptizing tells the people that the "one" is among them currently (v.26-28). The Gospel then places Jesus among the crowd that is being baptized. Additionally, the content of John's message today to any familiar with the other gospels (which most scholars believe were already in circulation by this point) obviously is the baptism of Jesus, thus if the Evangelist was troubled by the other evangelists' telling of Jesus being baptized, to include details of the event in John's testimony in no way dispels the issue or adequately suggests Jesus was not baptized. The narrative critical note of the theme of Jesus in control in John is itself a much more plausible reason to omit the event than the historical claim that the author was trying to cover up or overcompensate against Jesus' relationship to John.

I don't say this to mean it is not at all plausible that Jesus may have been among John's disciples, the gospels themselves don't preclude Jesus from having spent time among John's disciples (Craig Keener notes that some suggest the language in verse 30 of "one who comes after me" could be taken as disciple language, indicating John is even suggesting it is from among his disciples, furthering the possibility at least from v.26-28 that John is referring to one among the disciples. Though it does not guarantee to mean this, it certainly shows that as a possible reading the Gospel does not preclude such). They do provide hints of a closeness between them, Luke even declaring them to be relatives (although that does not guarantee that they knew each other growing up). The only thing the gospels indicate is that Jesus  is the greater of the two, and that John's purpose was ultimately to reveal Jesus and prepare the way for Jesus.

Returning to our reading, it is quite frankly not a good enough claim that this gospel does not include the baptism in order to cover up Jesus' subservience. After all, Christians after the resurrection did encounter disciples of John, some of whom converted. It seems that if the portrayal of John was disingenuous it would have been noticeable (see Acts 19.1-6, keeping in mind that tradition also places Ephesus as the location of John the Evangelist's ministry and where he was when he wrote the Gospel). While the omission may have the effect of emphasizing Jesus over John, or continuing themes of Jesus in control (although Matthew's accounting would just have easily maintained that theme) these seem to me to not be the main purpose for such an omission, precisely because it cannot solve that issue for disciples of John encountered, or those familiar with the wider gospel literature. Instead I think there are other reasons that tie as well to themes of the Gospel that would make the Evangelist emphasize John the Baptizer's account of the baptism (with no mention of the baptism) than tell the event itself.

• One proposed by Craig Keener is an anti-Judaic ritualism. That is, John's baptism, like baptisms and other washing rituals of the time among Jewish people reflected the Jewish purification laws. But John's Gospel comes to show Jesus as the purifier. The omission of the baptism but the inclusion of John's own words "I baptize with water" (v.26) undermine the importance of John's baptism. By the events being told in retrospect, the revelations about Jesus from the event are given independent of the event itself. This construction then is not interested in covering up that Jesus was baptized, but rather showing what mattered in Jesus' baptism according to the author. Thus the information about the baptism itself is left out. Additionally, John's own role as a baptizer is minimized. The Gospel only mentions in passing his baptizing (v.28), it is his testimony and his role as giving testimony (see v.7, 23, 33) that matters (see how v.33 in fact emphasizes his testimony as even his reason for baptizing). What all this does is show his baptism to be of little significance to the event of the baptism of Jesus itself. Keener suggests it undermines Jewish ritualistic washing for purification. Bo Giertz takes a similar approach at the wedding in Cana, seeing the turning of the purification bowls into wine jugs as a sign of a new purification needed, and the mark of the new messianic victory feast. This would speak to Jewish converts and especially those who may have been disciples of John. The Gospel after all does not dismiss baptism altogether but rather only lifts up the use of water that is found in Jesus and that is accompanied with the Spirit (see John 3.1-4.26, 7.37-39), which is even reflected in John's testimony in this reading (v.33). Another example of the Gospel replacing ritualistic cleansings with Jesus can be found by the man healing by the pool in John 5 (note it is important when reading it to notice verse 4, which is omitted from most Bibles and found only in the footnotes). 
• This version emphasizes the role of testimony to seeing. The Gospel of John is the only Gospel that claims to be written by an eyewitness (John 21.24), and much like John the Baptist, what the author sees is shared that you may believe (John 20.30-31). And there is that odd message in John 21.24 "we know his testimony is true". This Gospel constantly turns what one sees and experiences into a testimony for others to see and experience. The same thing happens in John 4 with the Samaritan woman who meets Jesus at the well. The woman after meeting Jesus returns to her town to tell others. And it is said that others believed in Jesus because of her testimony (John 4.39). But this entire process begins with John. Thus the role John is assigned, is one sent to witness to the light (v.6-7). John was the first to see, believe, and testify. This is a major theme of Sunday's reading. Go back and notice how many times John either mentions what he saw or the text mentions he was looking at Jesus. John sees, and testifies. Which if you do read the rest of Sunday's Gospel (v.40-42) and then the next story (v.40-45) you will see the same pattern. Jesus is revealed to someone, and they go and testify about him to another. Thus the omission of the baptism is rather to frame John the Baptist's place in the start of Jesus' ministry according to testimony, which is significant in how the author tells us this is the same purpose of the Gospel itself (and such testimony is known to be true). Within the theme of testifying, Keener also notes how this form shows the testimony originating from God. He points out v.32-34 indicate that John only gave his testimony because in the act of the Spirit's descent the Spirit testified to him that Jesus is the one. This along with the prologue statement that John was sent from God and the Word's presence with God from the beginning all show that God is the one who reveals who Jesus is. It also sets up the themes in the Gospel that the Father (John 5.36-40) and the Spirit (John 14.26) testify about Jesus. 
• Not an important theme, but a worthwhile note, is that some have contended that the synoptics indicate that the events of the baptism were seen only by Jesus (thus like a personal vision or spiritual ecstasy). They note details like heaven being opened "to him" and "he saw" the dove (Matthew 3.16, similarly Mark 1.10). Luke while not using quite exclusionary language recounts it after the baptism while Jesus was praying (3.21-22) making it also plausible to be read in a personal, private sense. Although such readings also ignore things like Matthew's account the voice declares "This is my Beloved Son" instead of Luke and Mark's "You are my Son, whom I love" thus indicating a wider audience with Jesus addressed in the third person rather than second. But nevertheless, the account being retold by the baptist in John would in fact say definitively that this was to be seen as more than a personal vision or message just for Jesus. It may have been that the author was aware of interpretations or questions from the synoptic accounts (he himself was at least very aware it would seem of the Gospel of Luke, as John and Luke share certain similarities and stories unique from the other gospels. It has long been my hope to one day do a significant study on those two gospel's. Of course it is possible that John preceded Luke or the author was one of Luke's sources - see Luke 1.1-3, but I generally agree with the tradition and scholarship that suggests John was the last of the four gospels to be composed), if the author of John had an awareness to such issues this would be one way to settle the dispute, to make it clear this was revealed at the least to John as well as Jesus. Also this makes it clear the message is not just for Jesus, as John's testimony emphasizes it rather for others. And while mentioned above this Gospel places the Spirit as the first to testify, the Gospel quickly takes the testimony of God and gives it to a man to share (again emphasizing for readers of the Gospel a divine revelation and testimony being shared by humans, including the author). Along with the absence of mentioning the baptism, in this Gospel then, the words declaring Jesus God's Son instead of booming from heaven are spoken by John himself in v.34. This whole interpretation again does not seek to hide or cover up the baptism but intentionally builds off of the tradition of the baptism. It places the revelations of the baptism as something seen and interprets even its meaning. The Spirit's descent becomes not an unexpected thing but just what John was told to expect. It confirms the heavenly voice, it confirms for John that this is God's Son which he then makes his own confession. Thus it makes the baptism experience of Jesus one to be shared for others.
• As a final note, let me suggest that this is because of the role of John the Baptist. While many scholars see it as a debasing, a form of minimizing John to where he doesn't even actually baptize Jesus, perhaps there is in fact a reverse here. This Gospel does agree with the other gospels on the role of John being in accordance with the words of the prophet Isaiah (40.3) of a herald preparing the way of the Lord. Rather than assuming that the absence of John baptizing Jesus is because the Author was afraid he would overshadow Jesus, perhaps the omission is for the opposite reason - that John pointing to Jesus by baptizing him (especially when he baptized many) simply was not adequate enough. In the synoptic accounts, it is the dove and the voice of heaven that really reveals Jesus. In John, it is the baptist who reveals Jesus. Notice how John still recalls the Spirit falling in the form of a dove (1.32), still declares Jesus to be God's Son (1.34) like the synoptic accounts, notice how John is referenced as one who prepares the way just as in the synoptics (1.23), and notice how other sayings of John that appear in the synoptics appear here as well, most notably that Jesus brings a different baptism than John (1.26, 1.33), that he is unworthy to untie his sandals (1.27). What is retained from the synoptic account is the testimony of John, and then this Gospel intensifies that testimony. It focuses on what is revealed in the baptism as it is recounted by John, it has him clarify his role (1.19-23), it has him say more about Jesus (1.29-30, 3.27-36). While many emphasize how self-debasing he appears here, few seem to emphasize that the baptist actually plays a larger role in pointing to Jesus in this Gospel than any other. As I have already shown there are places in the synoptics that certainly would allow John to baptize without being seen in any way as "greater" than Jesus, as I have shown testimony plays a major role in this Gospel as a whole, and as I've shown there may have been reason to think the other gospels were not clear in whether others besides Jesus witnessed the Father's voice and Spirit's descent in the baptismal account. I summarize these for a reason, if it is not necessarily debasement, perhaps it is not for a negative role but a positive one. For one it fuels a major theme of testimony, and I don't want us to forget that because John has a specific role tied within that. Also, because the baptism account in some gospels especially could be taken as private it adds to why the author would not see that as a satisfactory way to represent John's role in preparing the way for Jesus (especially when the author already has an emphasis on testimony). Thus the effort is to show John's testimony as his primary way of preparing the way for Jesus. Thus John speaks much of what he speaks in the synoptics, but then has more to say; more about who Jesus is and more in regards to the baptism of Jesus. Thus the Gospel of John creates a greater image of John the Baptist and his place in relation to the baptism of Jesus (since, as previously mentioned, anyone familiar with the baptism of Jesus account would know this Gospel is referring to it when John gives his testimony). To this we return to the prologue which declares John was sent by God to testify to the light. The prologue, especially in declaring this was a divine calling for John emphasizes his mission, and thus the first chapter will show John delivered on that calling. 

The point of these wonderings is to stop assuming that John's Gospel is merely trying to cover up something about the relationship between John and Jesus (after all, there are more hints in this gospel suggesting Jesus spent time with the baptist than any of the synoptics). Perhaps instead we should wonder what it reveals about John. 

Ultimately though, this is a gospel about Jesus. Whatever the reason the author left out the baptism account, what is clear is that John's role is to get you to behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World. And the Gospel will show you how he does it. One could even say to some extent, that the Gospel of John is about the Testimony of John the Baptist proving true. Jesus will pour out the Holy Spirit (20.22), show that while he came after John he was before him (8.58), die like a lamb for the sins of the world on the same day that passover lambs are slaughtered (19.31), he speaks of himself as the Son of God (10.36). The testimony of John, plays out throughout the Gospel and at the end you too are invited to believe it. 

Debasing John? No. It's making John's ministry essential to the structure of the entire Gospel.

My Hall of Fame Ballot

My lack of love for the BWAA is well documented among my regular readers. So I thought I would continue it by writing my own renegade Hall of Fame Ballot which includes names that did not garner enough votes by the BWAA justice league (one even didn't get enough votes for another shot).

1. Frank Thomas - Originally I had Edgar Martinez as the first guy on my ballot. I felt he should have been the one to open up the Hall of Fame to the career DH. But speaking of guys who defined the DH. How about one of the most feared hitters of the greatest era of hitting? Thomas rightly made the Hall in spite of his time at DH although it is a shame he got there before Edgar. They should be in it the hall together. I unfortunately had to remove him from my ballot because we have a backlog of greats now. But in future years I hope he gets the recognition he needs to join Thomas. There seemed little doubt about Thomas being a legit Hall of Famer. A five time all star, two time MVP (noticeably years he did not DH), and four time silver slugger, Thomas has the advantage of both the MVP trophy and that major 500 hr milestone on his side to go along with a .301/.419/.555 career batting line. He hit over 40 homers five different times, won one batting title, and was a major run producer driving in over 100 RBI's 11 times (tell me all you want about the relativity of the RBI, that stat counts on the score board and can easily be compared with stats around RISP to see how the player produced relative to their teammates. Thomas by the way with RISP was a career .312/.447/.569 hitter). There's a reason the White Sox for so long were a tough team to face. That reason was Frank Thomas. The BWAA couldn't keep him out.

2. Barry Bonds - now the controversy starts. But the Hall of Fame to me is not about perks-punishment. The election should be about the best in baseball. It should be apart from the question of morals or even if a player ever did something he shouldn't (also why Pete Rose should be in btw). If Bonds doesn't make it in along with Rose who was not allowed in, the leaders in some of the most important stats in baseball history will not be found in the Hall of Fame. Kind of ruins the point of the Hall doesn't it? And let's face it, even before Bonds hit 73 or passed Aaron all time, before the BALCO accusations, he was well on his way to the Hall. I never really liked bonds personally, but you can't deny his greatness. The all time homer (762), walks (2558), and intentional walks (688) leader. That intentional walks stat should say it all. In the history of the game, there was no player managers were more afraid of having their pitcher face when the game was on the line. A two time batting champ (including a whopping .370 in 2002), 14 time all star, 12 time silver slugger, and 7 time MVP! Steroids or no the talent is beyond question or compare. When discussing best players of all time Bonds is in the top three, period. Oh, and along with the bopping to the tune of a career 1.051 OPS he was also quite a base stealer; swiping 514 bags over his career. He's been in the rare 40/40 and 30/50 club. And if you're a fan of things like WAR, his career b-r WAR is 162.5, good for a whole season of victories! It's looking more and more like he'll never get in though.

3. Roger Clemens - Mark Newman from MLB.COM said this about his ballot for next year (anticipating guys like Bonds and Clemens to be denied entry again) "The Hall of Fame was created for the elite of the elite, not for those who require social campaigning. I will be tempted next December to vote for only Bonds and Clemens, on the basis that no others on this or the next ballot were remotely near their levels of greatness; both are among the top three all-time as a position player and pitcher, respectively." Point taken. Just as Bonds dominated the MVP award, Clemens did so with the Cy Young, winning 7 of those (along with one MVP and 11 all star appearances). 5 time leader in strike-outs, 4 time leader in wins, 7 time leader in ERA. Clemens was my one of my three favorite pitchers of baseball when I was young. He won 20 games 6 times (complain all you want about W-L record, with very few exceptions will 20 wins not reflect truly great pitching). Which helped him reach 354 wins. Greg Maddux, who we will get to later, who is a shoe-in for the Hall this year, has only one more win than Clemens. Indeed, it is only the PR nightmare that Clemens has battled around PEDs that will likely keep him out. While it's worth noting he has never actually been disciplined or tested positive (at least no positive test result of his has ever been revealed) like Bonds the suspicion and scandal in the legal system has doomed him even though his career also was clearly a Hall of Fame one long before any PED accusations. And as MLB.COM reporter Paul Hagen puts it, "A Hall of Fame vote is too important to use guesswork about whether a certain player did or didn't use PEDs.'' But once again, the hall will look empty lacking a pitcher with a career 4672 strikeouts. I was at the game in 2001 when he beat the White Sox to go 20-1 (he finished the season 20-3), which gave him for a time the best winning percentage in a season by a pitcher ever! So Clemens will always have a place in my Hall of Fame!

4. Tom Glavine - He was a lock to get in, had it not been this year then definitely before the 15 year limit is up. A five time 20-game winner (led the league in wins each of those years), 2 time Cy Young award winner, 10 time all star, four time silver slugger, with 305 wins, pitched over 200 innings 14 times, and was part of the big three of the Braves dynasty that literally dominated the NL East through the 90's and early 2000s. A lefty, because when it comes to Hall of Fame, which hand you throw with matters. He's pitched in the postseason so many times he is one of the winningest pitchers in postseason history by sheer volume with 14 wins and a whopping 218.1 innings of postseason pitching (35 starts). While a guy like Mussina (one of my favorite pitchers) offers some comparables in career numbers, he wasn't ever showered with these kinds of accolades that go to the elite. This is why one (Mussina) is a border-line case and one (Glavine) is undisputed. Glavine was an ace of his generation, and is going to more than the armchair Hall.

5. Greg Maddux - the only undisputed guy on the ballot (although somehow still unable to get a unanimous vote from the ridiculous BWAA). Playing from '86 to '08, he put together a phenomenal career. 355 wins, 3.16 ERA, over 5000IP, and a career 1.14 WHIP (so great in part by an unbelievable 1.8 career bb/9 rate)! What amazed me most was how Maddux was great even when his fastball had no juice to it, and yet he did it while regularly avoiding high pitch counts. It was commonplace to hear about a 76 pitch complete game by Maddux. Here are some other accolades about this amazing ace: 8 all star appearances, 4 consecutive Cy Young awards (along with three other top 3 finishes), 18 gold glove awards (13 consecutive), 4 time ERA leader (two times with an ERA below 2), 3 time wins leader (not to mention 19 straight years of 13 or more wins), 5 times he led the league in innings, 4 times in WHIP, 9 times in bb/9, and to go with those 355 wins were 109 complete games (35 shutouts). Not much more needs to be said. Of the 10 comparable players listed on baseball-reference.com, only one isn't in the Hall of Fame. "Who is that" you might ask? Roger Clemens. Whose case to be in the hall has already been made.

6. Craig Biggio - Among his accolades, one of the things Biggio did that was a real accomplishment (which no one else on this ballot achieved) was play his entire career with a single team. That is unheard of these days. He was a franchise player who managed to constantly be valuable to his team. He played good defense at multiple positions (winning 4 gold gloves at 2B), knew how to take one for the team (leading the league in hbp 5 times and amassed 285 plunkings for his career), he was a 7-time all-star and a 5-time silver slugger. Did I happen to mention he has 3060 career hits? That is the statistic that to me puts Biggio in the hall. That requires a career of consistency. While his career .281/.363/.433 line is not overwhelming, he provided value throughout his career. He also swiped over 400 bags for his career too and socked almost 300 homeruns. It was a sad thing to see him fall two votes shy. But he obviously is destined for the hall at some point, most likely next year.

7. Jeff Kent - Kent and Piazza (number 9 on my ballot) both should have been elected and I am totally confused as to why they weren't. To my knowledge neither ever really was attached to PEDs, and Kent was a great performer even without Bonds batting behind him. A few of Kent's accolades includes being the all time leader for second basemen with homeruns (his career total is 377 but I'm not sure if those all came at 2B). That alone sets him up above other second basemen. But add to that a career .290/.356/.500 batting line, an MVP, 5 all star appearance, and 4 silver sluggers (all of which appeared in the latter half of his career) and you have a very strong resume. While his best years came playing with Bonds, he still played at an elite level years after leaving SF. From 1997 he was a genuine threat in every line up he was a part of. That kind of contribution should not go unnoticed.

8. Raphael Palmeiro - There may not be a sadder case in this year's vote than poor Palmeiro. He's quite an interesting case, because when you think about it, Palmeiro never seemed elite. He always seemed like the poor man's slugger to me. But this poor man's slugger was incredibly consistent. And what really stands out is he cleared TWO of the one time guaranteed statistics to get into the Hall of Fame. Palmeiro is a member of both the 3000 hits club AND the 500 home run club! He has a career .288/.371/.515 batting line. He'd slugged over 40 homers 4 times, over 30 homers 10 times, and for 14 consecutive seasons hit 22 or more homers! Yet he never led the league in home runs. He never won an MVP. He was a 4 time all star and two time silver slugger. He somehow won a gold glove in 1999 even though he only played 28 games at 1B that year. Without being one of the superstars of that era, he is proof of how good the era was in producing hitters in that he quietly put together a clear hall of fame career. But Palmeiro was the first to fall from grace. After a failed drug test at the end of his career, he was an easy choice for BWAA justice. While he got both 3000 hits and 500 homers, it was easier I think denying him than if Bonds were the first to be denied. Once it became clear the BWAA would get away with it, have enough public support, it became easier I think to blackball other sluggers. This year, Palmeiro only received 4.4% votes for the hall, not enough to stay on the ballot. The BWAA has effectively removed him from Hall of Fame consideration. As such, I'll put Mr. Viagra in my Hall of Fame. Although I will say this, of all the players scandalously left off of ballots, Palmeiro is the only one who has actually tested positive (although McGwire did confess to using). The rest have been excluded by suspicion or accusation. Many of them probably did use, but the Hall is not about the ethics of using, it's about the greats. And they were all still greats.

9. Mike Piazza - Piazza like Kent is an all time home run leader at a position (in his case catcher). In this case he hit 427 for his career (but not all of those are at catcher). There probably is no better example of a man aloud to take the field because his bat will make up for the rest. Piazza was a horrible catcher, especially when it came to throwing out runners. If they were fast a single might as well have been a double. But man could he hit (.308/.377/.545 career slash line). He basically carried the Mets to the 2000 Subway Series. But if you need proof that he was a hall of fame catcher here are the stats that showed how in the greatest era of hitting he owned the catching position: 12 All Star appearance and 10 silver slugger awards! He also was rookie of the year and twice finished second in MVP voting. B-R's "similar player" offerings: Yogi Berra, Johhny Bench, Carlton Fisk make up 3 of the first 4. Yeah, he's a Hall of Famer. This year he got over 60% of the vote, I think he'll be elected within four years. Until then, grab an armchair and take a seat in the Armchair Hall Mikey.

10. Sammy Sosa - It was tough to choose between Sosa an McGwire, but I chose Sosa. BWAA can wag their fingers all they want and righteous fans can pompously decry these two, but Sosa and McGwire saved baseball plain and simple. Everyone was entralled in the home run race of '98 and no one questioned where this unbelievable juice was coming from. But between PED suspicion and a corked bat Slapp'n Sammy most likely is doomed to the blacklist. But here are a few considerations when thinking about Sosa: he is the only player in baseball history to club over 60 homers 3 different times (although ironically never led the league in homers any of those years, he did lead the league in homers two other years however), from '95-'04 his lowest home run total was 35. Sosa was also a phenomenal run producer during that stretch only falling under 100 RBIs once (and he still drove in 80 that year in a shortened 126 game season). But to really talk about his run producing, twice he led the league in RBI's with video-game number totals of 158 and 160. Those seasons he played 159 and 160 games. That's a run a game average. Forget the RBI as a team statistic, you just don't do that well. There is a reason McGwire became the single season home run king and still could not win an MVP in 1998. For his career Sosa amassed 609 home runs joining the even more elusive 600 club. He was a 7 time all-star and 6 time silver slugger to go with that MVP award (and an additional 2nd place finish). While Sosa's corked bat story is kind of out there, he is clearly being punished for PEDs, only because he was amazing in the PED era. He never actually tested positive or had a genuine accusation put against him. Although I do recall once when he was told he was suspected of taking PEDs he said he'd take a test right now, the media said "ok do it" and then he didn't. Not helpful to the image. But images aside, his home run power is among the best in history and especially when looking at some of the traditional stats that BWAA always likes anyways, he had some of the best offensive seasons out there. That's why I'm a keeping him in my Hall. If Palmeiro is a sign of things to come my hall might be the only one Sosa enters as he barely scraped by with a 7% vote this year.

There are other names worthy of honorable mention. Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina, Jeff Bagwell, and Edgar Martinez all deserve some credit, recognition, and consideration. Mark McGwire should be on here, but I ran out of room. Maybe next year. The BWAA stalling and blackballing is backloading the ballot with tons of viable options. That only three guys got elected out of so many worthy candidates is a sham and insult to the game. I will continue to rain on their parade with my subversive lack of love. Welcome, to the 2014 True Armchair Hall of Fame.

10 problems with breaking into small group discussions

So my New Year's resolution to break is to blog more. Since starting my new call, I have been very scant on here, but I think I could muster at least two blogs a month. I should be able to manage that right?

So here is January's 1st installment (number two is in process and focusing on the Hall of Fame for all you baseball fans out there):

I was recently at a Boundaries Workshop, and it featured something I experienced way too much of in seminary and other continuing education events. I am speaking of course about the small group conversation time. What once was a nice little exercise to do a couple times a semester has become a hallmark in my education recently, which is a shame, because the problem with the small group model is it doesn't really teach a thing! I'm talking about too much class/seminar time spent in little groups discussing topics, experiences, case studies, etc. and too little time in actual lectures learning from experts or instructors, receiving actual information. The model of breaking into small groups turns instructors into facilitators of poor learning.

Think about it, the small group model is more about personal opinion than instructional education. While it has the ability to make you engage and think about the topic, the problem is when overused in any educational setting several scenarios will occur, all of which while interesting/entertaining are in no way educational/enlightening. Here are common symptoms I've experienced in over-use of the small group discussion model.

1. Circular conversations: when there are only a few people together, and no real leader, and no real knowledge to be shared, the small group runs out of insight in less than two minutes. This leads to the same thing said again and again since they have not received adequate education/new material to truly discuss. This also happens when the group differs on something. Both sides try to bring it back around to their points and conclusions, even when that issue is past. 
2. Social Conversations: along with the circular conversations that come as a result of not enough to say, then there are the group of folks smart enough to avoid the circular conversations, and they do that by not continuing the assigned topic to begin with. Usually within 60 seconds of the small group time they feel they have confidently spent every ounce of their in-expertise. They chat about weather, family, sports, basically anything not related to the topic at hand. The best part is they know there is no accountability against this anyways. In academic settings the teacher may swing by their group for about 30 seconds (at which point they default to circular conversations) and then the rest of the time there is no one to challenge them on such a practice. If each group is asked to report on the group topic a meager 12 second soliloquy (which may account for a third of their total conversation) will do. In continuing education settings, this epidemic is much worse as there is no grade to fear.
3. Extroverts become delusional: As an extrovert, I can nail down another clear problem and that is if you invite an extrovert to talk s/he is going to talk. And this is actually a problem. I need the social convention of the classic classroom to shut my trap and actually learn. While it is true we extroverts tend to prefer small group models, it is not for educational reasons. It's for personality reasons. I want small group time so I have time to talk and relate, not because I'm learning more. Extroverts tend to complain in reviews when they weren't able to participate enough, but people should not be so quick to mark that as a learning based complaint (although in some cases it may be, I'm well aware also of the whole science of learning styles if you will). Once I have a chance to talk, that is what I want to do, even if I don't necessarily have good stuff to say. The need of extroverts to share even when we have nothing that will actually educate and teach the group makes small group conversations littered with pointless dribble. 
4. Leadership conflicts: similar to number 3, this is what happens when natural leaders all are in a group together. In seminary - which trains leaders - this was especially obvious. Different people vying to run the group, different leadership personalities clashing, circular conversations (see number one again) by different people trying to take the conversation in their direction at all costs. What is more, is like extroverts, many leaders will tend to want to contribute and since they probably have a sense of expertise in some area they will try to lead the conversation according to where they can contribute the most. This has ironically been considered one of the strengths of the small group model, that is, the participants contribute their own expertise to the situation. But the problem is it assumes their expertise is the most relevant information the group needs. Also, such models will impair the learning of the leader because s/he will often tend to keep the discussion where s/he already knows something on the topic, which will limit the likelihood of his/her ability to learn in such a meeting. Now consider several leaders in a group, they are all trying to make the discussion in a way where they are teaching instead of learning. And as that becomes their goal, then their ability to learn from other leaders in the group even diminishes. 
5. The questions that have no answers: sometimes this happens almost immediately (especially if the group has already identified an inability to have some form of agreement or there has been very little lecture in relation to group time) but otherwise it happens after that initial fruitful first minute or two of conversation. Once you have no more information, if you want to stay on topic (avoiding symptom number 2) but keep the conversation from being trapped in the same circular information sharing that usually happens by this point (see symptom number 1) then you try to go deeper. That is, you ask questions. The problem is you never get an answer. The question leads to another question, or a clarifying question, or whatever. But before you know it you have twelve questions and no answers to any of them. It's quite ridiculous. What I hate about this, is you think you learned. You stayed on topic, you discussed the whole time, you went "deeper". But in the end you really didn't. If the professor/leader stood up front and just asked question after question giving no answer, you might find the first couple thought provoking, and quickly that would diminish to the person being a poor teacher. You'd wonder if they actually know anything. But have those same questions as the outcome of five people talking and you don't realize what you're doing.
6. Sharing with the rest of the group: This is like adding insult to injury. Now that we've wasted five minutes, let's spend another five minutes seeing how everyone else wasted their time too. But of course this period is rarely truly representative of what happened. As I mentioned during the social conversations symptom, a delegate from the group (which half the time is annoying enough to pick and half the time selects the greatest extrovert/leader of the group, guaranteeing a repeat of 3 and 4) can easily make thirty seconds of actual learning/discussion sound like it took the whole time in a 12 second soundbite. So those who strayed from topic look just as clean as those who diligently struggled through the other symptoms. The symptom that is most obvious here is the questions with no answers, because they will often share the first few questions that had no answer (usually something like this "We were discussing x, and then began to wonder y, which led us to also think about questions like z and z 2.0"). Ironically, they still rarely get an answer to the questions posed. But what I think is the worst is when whoever talks for your group, you realize they don't really represent the group, they represent themselves. Either because they do not value or did not really take in what others said, too often the report really focuses (surprise surprise) on whatever that person said in the group. The considerate ones might hybrid in some of what others said, but more often than not it seems like at least 50% of what is reported was what the reporter brought to the discussions (even if that only amounted to 5% of total conversation), and in some cases it is far worse - as if their opinion was the only one discussed. 
7. Sharing within the group: because a small group model relies on the students actually having some sense of experience/expertise to bring to the table, the expectation is also that you will participate. This bothers introverts to no end, who typically require much more time to process  before feeling comfortable talking. And in those few moments where an extrovert like myself actually realizes he has nothing of value to say at the moment, you still are supposed to think of something to say. This really stinks if you're whole group actually realizes they have nothing to say, if most of them have something you might be able to slip by, but overall your participation is evaluated by your ability to contribute. Of course by contribute I mean talk, not actually contribute - there really is no evaluation for that peer or otherwise. This expectation only adds to the crap contrived in small group time, or it shames those who are wise enough not to want to speak.
8. Circling Back: How many times do you realize that after minutes of discussing, you don't remember what you're discussing? Thus you have to do the circle back, usually someone finally goes, "Wait! What was the question again?" and hopefully someone wrote it down or it's projected on a wall or something. This usually happens because you've fallen into one of the other issues like social conversations or questions without answers and try to get back into the swing of things. You think returning to the question will get it going. Sometimes it does, but how often does that circle back get followed with the awkward silence? You know what that silence is? It is the slow revelation that you have nothing to actually contribute to the actual discussion, and everything you had been saying really didn't address that at all.
9. Frustration time: I was also very susceptible to this, when you don't agree with the speaker/teacher, small group time becomes revolution time. So to speak. I mean, we don't ever actually start a revolution overturning desks and such. But much the same way revolutions begin, by like minded curmudgeons complaining together, small group time is a perfect opportunity. I can be very critical of teaching/instruction, it's part of my personality type. Give me a chance to express that and I will. As an extrovert I will naturally and rashly bring frustrations out during that small group time. When this kind of frustration happens, it also leads to revolution. Again, not turning over desks, but yet a resistance to the exercise at hand. And since little true knowledge or work is required to appear fully involved by general evaluation methods, nothing stops one from using small group time subversively. In addition, such an outlet of frustration minimizes the likelihood that the teacher and student will ever truly engage their frustrations/differences with each other. Teachers by and large receive much more open challenges or questions in lecture based classes than discussion based ones. Maybe because they teach more (so there is actual content to challenge), but also because there is no other outlet for such frustrations given. I would wager that direct discussion with the teacher is healthier. It prevents stereotyping, invites response, and ultimately usually I think forces more respect from the student for the leader's expertise.
10. Postmodern Relativism: When you have challenges, frustrations, self-centered soliloquies by group leaders, circular discussions that are pulled in different directions, when you have too many opinions on the table what begins to happen is none of them matter or only the one you brought with you matters. In a classic educational setting, only one opinion/expertise matters - the instructor's. You may disagree with it, but you at least are drawn to pay heed and attention to it, and at every moment you are truly engaging it. And truth be told, in many of these settings where the small group model is used, they need the expertise of the instructor, and they need it far more than that of the students/participants. Too many opinions/directions will literally muddle any sense of conclusions (as number 5 reminds us, it can lead to having no conclusions). We develop this postmodern concept that it is all relative, and once we've done that we will often adopt that view then which is most amicable to us, which is normally our own view. It is a scientific fact that we tend towards facts/opinions that support our own view of things. When you open up the class and learning to multiple views, and in fact invite your own to be a part, it should be no surprise that when someone summarizes their group time to the whole class they will particularly highlight that which they said/engaged the most. In our information age we are being flooded with far more information than ever before, there is only so much your brain will process, and so we can either actually challenge and expand it by limiting what is being processed or allow you to self-limit by over-expanding what you process. Think about that, because it is the opposite of how things once were. It used to be (and makes more sense logically) that limiting people's exposure would make one narrow-minded. But in today's world, limiting it may just expand their boundaries, because it will prevent them from always having access to what they already/know believe. To truly "limit" someone in a way that they could never know any other way is quite difficult in 21st century America. Instead we limit by always having what we desire as an option and small groups allow us to limit ourselves this way.

Now I should say some may not always experience these things. Certain personality types I imagine might be more adept at avoiding some of these, but in general someone in the group is probably going to suffer from this and it will happen with more repetition. There is in truth a place for small group discussions. When there is truly a large amount of material actually given, having a space for people to theoretically put it in practice (I know that sounds like an oxymoron) can be a useful exorcise in seeing how they have processed it all. When used minimally, it doesn't overshadow the lecture portion and many of the issues above arise with much less regularity. But this tool has been overused far too much. Too many classes use it one or more times every class. Day long seminar events should not probably utilize this much more than once. 

Plain and simple, we are replacing teaching with discussing. And when that happens very little learning happens and people actually self-justify and dig in to whatever ways they came with. It's true, each person comes with experiences and expertise, maybe some material taught would seem repetitious for some, but to assume others will learn what needs to be learned by the experience and expertise of those who came to learn is troubling. Whatever expertise I bring does not mean that is what matters for that class/workshop/seminar. Expecting me to essentially be responsible for the teaching of others is irresponsible in that my expertise very well may not be what they need to learn and it is in truth hurtful to my purpose for being there, which should be primarily to learn not instruct. That role should not be confused by small group learning. And when that becomes a dominate portion of the education, that is exactly what happens. Notice how many of the above issues are a result of a) not having enough information given/taught to adequately prepare and focus the conversations and b) encouraging one to be the teacher and shape the solution one's own way. Unless an instructor has adequately guided and informed the people, and spent enough time to make their teaching the predominant source for engagement, small group discussion will divert from it and waste time and in fact take away from what was taught. It is my belief that too many instructors are not giving themselves adequate time to truly turn and focus the class according to the education presented. At that point they turn from educators to facilitators, which I sadly think is the goal for so many. I suspect the intent is good, like to help us figure it out ourselves, or come to a better understanding of our own methods. But that is an exceptionally disappointing expectation because it only cares about shaping what I already have rather than giving me something truly new. I'd rather listen to a horrid lecture than waste my time in pointless discussions. At least when the lecture is over I feel something was shared with me, even if I totally disagreed with it. And ironically I likely engaged it far more than if I spent most of that time talking with 4 or 6 individuals about the same thing.