Short Random Thoughts of a Young Man

1. The second greatest crisis facing the church is the absence of men. The first must always be the failure to be faithful to the preaching of the gospel. I really agree the church is where the gospel is faithfully preached and administered (sacramentally). Therefore unfaithful preaching, twisting of the words, absence of the message of grace, false hope, and all our contrived forms of self-justification is the greatest crisis, since it is far harder to expect Christ to work where he isn't even speaking. But beyond that I feel the greatest crisis, going by and large unsolved is the absence of men - particularly in mainline churches. Statistically, there is no greater correlation towards the abandonment of so many of our young people from the church than the already abandonment practiced by their father. Or to put it the other way around (the way the studies have typically put it), there is no single correlation to a young person's likelihood of remaining in church that remotely approaches if the parents were faithful church goers (and practitioners of the faith), especially the father. I think something can be said that the modern inclusion of women in all the life of the church has played a part, that is, this would have happened sooner had the church not needed the men to operate. I don't see that as a reason to remove women from those roles or an excuse, I see it though as a problem. We ought be concerned as to what about our church men are turned off to and why? Some of it I think is an internal problem, of presenting the faith in a manner that simply does not resonate with most men the way it does with women. Some of it also I think stems from a concerning culture that defines masculinity as going it alone, looking down on trust and reliance, and free from moral expectation or obligation. And it has led to a damning male culture of chasing after sex as long as possible, a seriously great number of fathers abandoning that responsibility, and abuse and strength valued over compassion and love. In short, being a man has become some testosterone driven life-sport that lacks the ability to humble oneself before God. My father-in-law was at my church this weekend, and immediately noted the absence of men (in relation to the number of women that is).

2. The DH needs to stay the hell out of the National League. I like the designated hitter and all, but I also like pitchers hitting. I like the greater need to use the bench and bullpen wisely. In short, I like that with the National and American leagues being different, we get both of these worlds. But each year it sounds like we are moving closer to the DH in the NL too. Well I say boo on that! What I propose we should do instead is that since the move of the Astros to the American League has shifted the way we do interleague play, we should expand interleague play greatly so that all teams are spending even more time with and without the DH. Additionally then they should expand the 25-man roster to 27. This would allow NL teams to carry a DH type on their bench without worrying as much about "wasting a roster spot" so they could more competitively face AL rosters. To show the need for this, consider that spanning 2013-2015 only 4 NL teams have had a winning record on the road in interleague play (conversely, during that span only 4 AL teams have had a losing record on the road in interleague play). The American League has overall dominated interleague play for about 10 years. Expanded rosters and more interleague play could even out the statistics some by both the law of averages and by letting NL teams sign some more DH type players. Expanded rosters would also allow greater use of platoons or specialist relievers. In all, it would benefit baseball and all its angles of strategy than just the adoption of the DH in the National League.

3. If you can't tell the difference between the stances of your church body and your political party there is a problem. The more I read the Bible, the more I cannot simply categorically fall into one political party's idealogy. Now that doesn't mean I can't fall more into one, or I might think the places that I fall into one are more important than times I fall into the other. That is all true. But I am so tired of watching church bodies seemingly confuse our allegiance. When I see churches or its leaders (my own included) seem to uncritically praise one side while constantly bombarding the other, I have become greatly concerned, and the more that reading and wrestling with scripture has changed me the more I realize that so much of what I believed was influenced more by the world around me than my faith. I likewise notice pastorally that what politics tells us matters is what people seem most caught up on in the church. People who never speak up in a Bible study all of the sudden passionately speak about homosexuality (one way or another). I'm not upset that people are speaking out, I'm simply wondering how it is we have let the world convince us these are the only things we should be speaking up and out about? Those things that are truly unique to our faith, and offensive or in the least inappropriate to the political sphere, and far more central we are too often silent on. And way too often the political arguments get synthesized with a semi-scriptural one. Whether your church is "liberal" or "conservative" that should not be a total buy in to parties of the same name. Since both are foremost churches that should be distinctive. And while we will find common ground or even the church may have influenced a movement politically in some way shape or form, ultimately we should be mindful of the non-Christian influence that also comes to the parties, and the call to not conform but be transformed to the image of the Son. And I ain't seen no political party that looks that much like Jesus. And if we are too close a bedfellows with such we will be change into a likeness more likened unto the whore of Babylon I fear.

4. When the New Revised Common Lectionary comes out it should be a 4 year lectionary. In case you are wondering, I made the the term NRCL. I'm not aware of any efforts to revise the current RCL, not by its producers at least. But the idea of a 3 year lectionary is a bad one. Not only does it not allow a year to truly go through the Gospel of John, but it then excludes another year of readings to cover more ground in scripture. This last summer I got the Whirl Lectionary Bible. If you use the RCL I would recommend it. It is nice because it is still a normal bible (unlike many lectionary bibles that only contain lectionary readings), but it highlights (in the colors of the appropriate season) the readings that the RCL covers. What is so nice about this from a critical standpoint is you can see precisely all that is left out. And there is a lot left out. Lectionary-based churches ought take this to consideration either in order to take time away from the lectionary or use other occasions (bible studies, midweek services, etc) to cover some of these lost texts. A 4 year lectionary would allow 52 more weeks of extra texts. These extra weeks would add a lot of totally excluded Old Testament material be included. And as for the Epistle readings, in addition to covering some of the gaps in the readings that are currently left untouched, it would also allow you to perhaps shorten some of the current readings by that extra year spreading out the time needed. Yes, some major events the Lectionary focuses on (such as baptism and transfiguration of Jesus) don't appear in John, but if we can currently insert John endlessly through the other three years it would make much more sense to insert one of the other Gospels' (I'd advocate whichever one on such an occasion includes the most variation/details) account into the John year. If we were really being fun I would actually think a 5 year lectionary would be fun. 4 years that focus on each individual Gospel and one that is kind of a hodgepodge of either the best of each, a harmonization (oh my!) of the stories, or a year to pick up whatever was left out of the previous years. Plus, another year means another 52 weeks of previously untapped biblical material. I like having a Lectionary. I like the Gospel-centeredness of the RCL. But it could use some improvements.

5. The Resurrection is way too under-emphasized in the church today. I've really been enjoying N.T. Wright's book Surprised By Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. I already thought this before, but especially do every time I read this think the resurrection is not the hope and comfort most Christians turn to, instead we care more about heaven. A lot of this has to do with our pseudo-gnostic and platonist thinking that has run rampant in the church unchecked for some time. Namely, the immortal soul goes somewhere when you die. The goal and real hope is to go to heaven where we golf and drink Corona forever with our loved ones. While you can see how this can so easily hijack Christianity (after all, we talk about heaven, hell, eternal life, paradise, etc) this is also far from the biblical picture. For one, our images of these things are way removed, but more than that I see the Bible focus more on resurrection than life in heaven. Even Revelation, where we probably get the greatest image of "life in heaven" (and let me tell you it's more like spending all day in church than at the golf course) that is seen as temporary until the final visions, the day of judgment, the day of the parousia (Christ's second coming), when a new heaven and a new earth are seen in union together. Yet it is not the "sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life" or the belief in "the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting" that most Christians look too, we look to family reunion in heaven. Along with Psalm 23 no passage is requested more at funerals than John 14. The worst part is that nothing is wrong about saying we go to heaven, what is usually wrong is our over-focus on heaven and our absence of resurrection hope. As a pastor I am starting to think I need to go to this more in funerals especially (although the immediate "where are they now" is an important thing to address still). Resurrection is much more prominent and rooted a belief in the Bible (Old and New Testament), and the resurrection of Jesus is perhaps most important here. That is the event that changed everything. Yet we see it more metaphorically (how many people don't even like to acknowledge a bodily resurrection and think more about spirit Jesus even when the Gospels include details to explicitly reject that notion). It's as if the resurrection is only a sign that death can't stop this life. But that only gets applied to the soul, and we don't speak enough of what it means as a created (and re-created) creature of God. What Wright's book does well, is not only take a long look at resurrection in early Judeo-Christian thought and the corruption of belief that has minimized its role today, but his work on it helps place how resurrection as the final hope has much more to say about life today than heaven as a final hope. The resurrection of Jesus totally shaped the New Testament thought and mindset, we need to recover that today.

6. There are 6 players the Brewers should trade this offseason. To be clear: the Brewers should trade Khris Davis, Jonathan Lucroy, Adam Lind, Ryan Braun, K-Rod, and Jean Segura. Some of these names, especially K-Rod and Lind, should be no surprise. But if I'm Stearn, I would not only listen but pursue trades of each of these players. Braun may be the hardest to trade with his injury concerns, PED history, and 100mm extension kicking in. But considering guys like Cespedes, Heyward, Gordan, and Upton are all likely looking at contracts that exceed that in the free agent market (and all but Cespedes will also require a draft pick) some teams may be more interested, especially after Braun started showing a semblance of his former self with a return to the All-Star game, an .854 OPS, and another 20/20 season. He also ranked 9th in the NL in slugging. So he still has value, just nothing near what he used to have. Segura probably has the least value, but plays a premium position. He'd particularly be of interest to a team not confident in its SS option to compete with, since he is probably more than a back up, but nowhere near an elite SS. He might be the best piece to hold onto for a midseason trade, but he is also the most replaceable in the long and short term with Sardinas and Arcia in the system. Some, like MLBtraderumors advocate keeping Lucroy until midseason so he can recover some lost value from a down year and late season concussion, but I disagree. It is a serious gamble waiting to see if he returns to form, and I'm not sure the risk outweighs how much more you would get, especially since he'll be that much closer to free agency. I think his overall defense (although that was down this year too) and contract make him still extremely valuable now, especially to smaller market teams that have prospects but not a lot of spending money for free agent upgrades. Oakland, Tampa, Baltimore, Chicago (Sox), Arizona, Anaheim, Colorado, Detroit, Atlanta, and Miami all strike me as places that would clearly see him as an upgrade and yet could really value the cost savings because of their abundance of expensive contracts already or their general budget constraints. The bigger deal suggested here is for Khris Davis. But he could I think net the Brewers a huge haul (although perhaps I suffer home-team over-valuation of players). Milwaukee is in the currently toughest division in baseball (it's actually been quite tough for a while), and the one other team not good is also rebuilding and aiming for sooner than later. Milwaukee should plan for a slower, more complete rebuild ala Cubs/Astros, even if they have some young MLB talent and some near MLB talent, they need to be set up even more long term. Davis, while he could likely be a part of a winning team might not be, but more importantly he represents the most expensive free agent commodity : power. And he provides it for low cost and many years (Davis is not even arb eligible yet). Even while missing some time he still was among the league leaders in homers (10th, 5th in ABs per HR), and while he led LF's in errors this year and has a notoriously weak arm, his range factor is rated highly. Or an AL team could utilize him primarily as a DH. Davis has shown that power is his calling card (.494 career slugging %), but also showed he can make adjustments as he was able to increase his BA, OBP, and walk rate this year, generating 10 more walks in over a 100 fewer PA. With other guys like Domingo Santana able to step in and take his place, even though he is good and established he is also therefore worth exploring trades for.

7. I think Kylo Ren and Rey are the children of Han and Leia. This is the theory I most buy into for Star Wars Episode VII. Han and Leia have two children who go separate ways in life. Rey has become a bit of a forager, perhaps looking for something/someone (Uncle Luke or his lightsaber?) while Kylo has caught on with the knights of Ren and begun to experiment/lead using the force. This theory explains a lot we've seen in the trailors. It explains how these characters tie into and continue the story of Episode VI, being a continuation of the struggle of light/dark in the Skywalker family. It would explain a bit about Kylo Ren, having a hodgepodge lightsaber (if you get a chance to examine a toy, you'll see this is much more a DIY lightsaber) and connection to the Dark Side, particularly with this love for Vader (and the burned up mask we see in the trailor). He is drawn to all this because of his interest in the force in his family (think of the Luke quote from the original teaser trailer, "the force is strong in my family"), and if Luke doesn't teach him, perhaps he becomes obsessed with his grandpa. Perhaps he is even convinced he is continuing his grandfather's mission (to rule the galaxy by the power of the force, to get Luke and family to come to the dark side?). It would also explain the controversial style of his lightsaber, since that makes sense if both your uncle and grandpa lost a hand in lightsaber duels. The also now internet famous "it's true, all of it" line of Han's could also not be about the force in the past (as many presume) but about what has happened to her brother Kylo, or if it is about the force it is about Vader and the Empire (and now First Order) being a result of her Grandpa. Additionally there is a famous foreign trailor that shows Ren come up behind Rey and put his lightsaber to her throat. This could explain how she (and perhaps a companion like Finn who engages Ren in a saber duel) escape alive, if Kylo cares about her as his sister and therefore she appeals to their bond. It would make his betrayal of his family or plunging into the dark side immediately be something you care about, since you care about his parents. It would immediately tie them to Luke, Leia, and Han while letting these new characters still be the focus of the new trilogy. It would also make his latching onto the first order a real problem for the resistance since he would perhaps know many of its people. His turning towards the first order, contrasted with Finn's abandonment also creates a simultaneous story-line (think Anakin's plunge to the Dark Side running alongside Luke's joining on with the Rebellion, the merging of the two previous trilogies).

5 Deuteronomic Laws We Ought Be Talking About

I just finished reading Deuteronomy in my own personal devotion, and when I finished I said to myself, "Man, I love this book." It's not the first time I read it, but it's been a while since I read it in its entirety and I really think it is just so underrated among Christians, who today seem to as a whole have a bit too much contempt for lists of laws. While our culture has certainly shifted and we need not have congress enact these laws or follow the punishments for failing to follow them (after all, we are free from the Law's wrath when we are in Christ), we would do well to cultivate a greater love for these laws. The spirit of these laws are still very important for our world today.

So for a little enjoyment and engagement, I thought I would share 5 laws I particularly found relevant and how I see them as worth our talking about today (please note I'm not implying this is all we should care about from Deuteronomy, but more like a sampler platter to perk up your appetite):

1. Faith over Filial Loyalty: If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, 'Let us go and worship other gods' - which neither you nor your fathers have known, any of the gods of the peoples around you, near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other - you must not yield to him or listen to him. -Deut 13.6-8
   The passage understands the great temptation we face particularly when those closest to us are leading us into it. These are people we love, trust, and want to please and therefore are particularly susceptible to being led astray by them. Deuteronomy reminds us what it truly is to love God with your whole heart (the greatest commandment, according to Jesus, which by the way, is also from Deuteronomy). It means not choosing even those people who matter most to us over God.
   In a culture that is increasingly indifferent if not hostile towards faithful Christian worship (to say nothing of faithful Christian living), this law becomes extremely important. Just because our spouse, child, or parent is unconcerned with God does not mean we ought to be. Jesus himself said he will set father against son and son against father (Luke 12.53) and whoever does not hate father and mother cannot be his disciple (Luke 14.26). In short, your relationship with God can negatively impact your relationship with even family when they want to lead you away from it. This law tells us to not yield to the greatest pressure and temptation: to let your love for them impact your love for God. 
2. Against ungodly Grief: You are sons of the LORD your God; do not cut yourselves or make a bald spot on your head on behalf of the dead, for you are a holy people belonging to the LORD your God. The LORD has chosen you to be His own possession out of all the peoples on the face of the earth. -Deut 14.1-2Now for a little background, this law comes as a response to practices of religions of the region they were going to possess. So part of this goes to the practice of idolatry. But it has in it an important element for us; self-inflicted wounds is not how we grieve. Even if we aren't exposed to ritualistic wounding, such as they were with rituals that involved cutting or tearing out the hair, the prohibition makes clear that such actions just is not how God wants you to grieve.
   This is especially important for young people, but not exclusive to them. Those new to grief, deeply saddened and impacted by it can fall into the temptation of self-mutilation or even simply the intentional act of not taking care of oneself. How often does death lead to physical harm, even to the point of suicide, especially when some form of guilt is involved or we don't know how to tell the world we're hurting? How often do people seek to feel pain so they feel something? We need to teach clearly that this should not be part of our grieving process.
   Most interesting is that the demand is tied to the fact that we are not to see ourselves apart from our relationship as God's people. You are God's own possession, chosen to be holy. That means your body and what happens to it matters to God, and therefore he makes it clear that such unhealthy, damaging practices should not be a part of how we deal with death. In New Testament language: our body is a temple to the Lord (1 Cor 6.19-20) and therefore that impacts what we do with it. Your life is as precious as the life lost.
3. Look after your neighbor's stuff: If you see your brother's ox or sheep straying, you must not ignore it; make sure you return it to your brother. If your brother does not live near you or you do not know him, you are to bring the animal to your home to remain with you until your brother comes looking for it; then you can return it to him. Do the same for his donkey, his garment, or anything your brother has lost and you have found. You must not ignore it. -Deut 22.1-3
   You are accountable for your neighbor's things. Contrary to our common understanding of "finders keepers" we having "finders returners". That is, you have a duty to return what you find to its owner and when you don't know who the owner is or can't yet, you should not consider it your own, but under your care until you do find that person. This command makes me think of Luther's catechism regarding the command to not steal, namely its last part that states we are to "help [our neighbor] to improve and protect their property and income."
   Think about stray animals. Think about lost coats. Think about lost money. One of the questions raised to me as a child when people start trying to teach you "moral dilemmas" is 'What should you do if you found a wallet (or if they were really grandiose a suitcase of money!)?' The answer, according to Deuteronomy is to see it safely back to its owner, and most importantly, not being able to do that immediately does not change the expectation.
   I think what is quite important about this law too is it teaches us sacrifice. To hold onto something of someone else's for an uncertain period of time actually expects something of you for more than a moment. To not lose someone's coat, hat, or something perhaps larger takes up space in our homes and efforts to make sure its owner finds it and it is preserved until then. To care for lost animals means feeding it, possibly cleaning it and taking it to the vet or at the very least supporting the shelters we rely on to do these things.
   Also really big here is the explicit statement "Do not ignore it." Because not only can we sometimes do finders keepers, or take little effort to find the owner, sometimes we take none. Much more often we pay little attention to the protection of that which is not ours, especially if we judge it as insignificant ("it's only a glove") with no care of what value it may have to that person.
4. Don't Take Dirty Money as an Offering: No Israelite woman is to be a cult prostitute, and no Israelite man is to be a cult prostitute. Do not bring a female prostitute's wages or a male prostitute's earnings into the house of the LORD your God to fulfill any vow, because both are detestable to the LORD your God. -Deut 23.17-18
   Again we have a law that is rooted in a practice in the surrounding culture we don't necessarily have, namely cult prostitution (often a religious practice done to appeal to a god, especially associated with asking the Canaanite god Baal to bring rain upon the fields). But part of the spirit of the law is not just forbidding a practice done by another religion, but in using money earned in such ways to practice worship of YHWH. In short, if you aren't earning the wage in a godly manner, don't try to use it to absolve yourself or practice godly worship.
   This is especially important for churches to hear. As many churches are shrinking, they become increasingly pressured to raise enough money to stay open. But this law ought teach us that faithfulness is more important than offerings. That is, just because someone is ritualistically faithful, such as making contributions is not all we ought care about with stewardship. Not even how they use the rest of their earnings is enough when we talk about stewardship. Part of our stewardship needs to be about caring about how those wages are earned in the first place, and being willing to back that belief up enough to not accept that which is earned by dishonest or unfaithful means.
   I think of a scene in the Sopranos when Carmela goes to see a shrink. Once she admits that her husband is a mobster, the psychiatrist, who happened to be a Jewish man, told her he would not charge her that session because he would not accept blood money and encouraged her to do the same and to leave Tony rather than accept his evil way of life simply because she and her children benefit financially from it.
5. Fair Wages For All: Do not oppress a hired hand who is poor and needy, whether one of your brothers or one of the foreigners residing within a town in your land. You are to pay him his wages each day before the sun sets, because he is poor and depends on them. Otherwise he will cry out to the LORD against you, and you will be held guilty. -Deut 24.14-15
   There are several interesting elements of this passage. The first is to make sure we are paying the poor enough to get by. How topical is this in our country where minimum wage is a major topic of discussion right now? Whatever our political leanings, or the concerns we have of the greater economic impact, we need to be especially mindful of the poorest among us and what they can earn. A full read of Deuteronomy will show just how much this book is concerned with laws to protect the most vulnerable and to make sure the community makes efforts and sacrifices to support them.
   The next hot button piece here, is it especially notes the foreigner. This again is very relevant in America, where we currently what to show greater care for Americans. One thing my reading of scripture has done this last summer is thoroughly changed my stance regarding illegal immigrants in America. While I'm not sure I know all the answers, I find because of scripture my heart has been opened to them and their needs/concerns more than it was this time last year. If anyone is especially susceptible to abuse of unjust wages it is those who are getting paid under the table and therefore outside the realm of regulation. The "they took our jobs" argument in part is because they work for less money, but that is in part because they have little choice. Companies that can hire illegal immigrants often do so, and they do so because they know they don't have to pay as much. They exploit the foreigner to benefit their own business, and that in turn impacts the economy of those who don't do that because they then cannot charge as little for a job.
   Also interesting is the concern for daily wage. I think how big this law would be for those who run paycheck to paycheck. We can certainly sometimes be critical of those who are in such binds because of poor choices, but we are to be mindful of those who need their money sooner than every 2 weeks. What this law says is we ought be mindful of how we can help support people in those times between paychecks, and perhaps for companies to be more open to the idea of advances on checks (or at least paying up the hours they have already put in) when needed. No matter what the practice is, the spirit of the law is to put a priority on human need over personal profit at their expense.
   Lastly is a good reminder. A lot of the laws and lessons of Deuteronomy you find are rooted in the peoples' history and these words about the poor crying out against you are no different. The Israelites are reminded that in Egypt when they were exploited and oppressed they cried out to God against Pharaoh, and God heard them and came to their aid. Being the oppressor may lead to God raising up your own downfall (or your company's downfall or nation's downfall). I am reminded of Luther's large catechism on the Lord's Prayer petition "Give us this day our daily bread" when he says that much of the world's problems are on account of "those who wantonly oppress the poor and deprive them of their daily bread" and he warns all to "beware lest this petition in the Lord's prayer be against them".

So there are 5 laws to ruminate on as a Christian. What Deuteronomic law do you want people to talk about?