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).
No comments:
Post a Comment