Further Reflections on My Lost Child

No post has come close to the wide spread nature of my one about the experience of losing a child early in our pregnancy. It should be no surprise considering how sadly common an experience it is for so many people. The club you never want to be in has a lot more members than the rest of the world realizes. I still wonder at those who have gone through it two, three, even four or more times. That is strength that the rest of the world does not know, that is suffering that the rest of the world does not know.

I thought I would share, it now being 17 months later some of what I've experienced since that post. As you can imagine the raw grief is gone. I'm not crying every day still, but I have had some really painful moments. Like any grief, it just takes reminders. Here are some moments that have been particularly hard for me:

• When people ask me do I have any kids. They mean well, they are just making conversation, but it hurts something terrible. What is more is every time I hear that question I have to think about how to answer it. If it is with someone I anticipate seeing and talking with in the future I will tell them how we lost our child in pregnancy. Which is admittedly awkward for people (I mean what do you say besides maybe 'I'm so sorry'?) but I don't care. Part of the grief of losing a baby before he was ever born is he died before the world got to know him, he died in a world where many don't even count him as alive. So I say something because I want people to know him. Now if the conversation is with someone I don't really anticipate talking to again, in which they don't necessarily need that information I simply respond to the question of having kids by saying, "No, none living" and leave it at that.
• When people tell me really stupid well intended thoughts. And no one is worse than this than a lot of conservative Christians who I swear must have invented the "you can always have more" response like that makes it all okay. When someone tells me "There's still time" or "God will bless you with children some day" I kinda wanna stick food in their mouth so they will stop talking. I'm reminded of a blog I once read from a woman who could not understand how her church that was so caught up in teaching that abortion was murder because a baby in the womb is still a child could fail so massively at treating lost pregnancies as actual losses. I had mentioned in my original blog how much whatever blessing a future child will be does not change the blessing my Isaac already was. I mean, who goes to someone who lost a parent, "Don't worry, God might give you a new mommy" or to someone who lost a spouse "There is still time to find someone else"? There is a reason the ending of Job unsettles a lot of people. The idea that all I'm grieving is not having a child is incredibly ignorant to the grief I'm suffering over this child. The other reason that looking ahead to future children is not a good response is it assumes that we are going to try again. Losing a baby during pregnancy was traumatic for us, I know other people who going through it have stopped trying. I know other people who tried again and lost another child. Some go through IVF and cannot afford to go through it again. All that is to say, we can't always have another, or we won't always have another, and even if we did it should not be seen as replacing what we lost.
• When Christmas came. Not only did we receive the news of the loss of Isaac shortly after Christmas, but it was heartbreaking to realize this last year that it would have been our first Christmas with him. Both in the family gatherings with little kids running around because our generation is all procreating and in the quiet of our own home and my hiding of the German pickle ornament even though there is still no one to find it, Christmas had shoots of sadness in it. It was perhaps the most prominent time of feeling the "What if". It also became a time to realize again how lonely that grief is, because if it is hard to bring up how you miss someone everyone knew some time after they passed because you don't want to be that person who always mentions your grief it is doubly true with a child lost in pregnancy. I feel like people want me to be "over" losing Isaac. And when the grief is the worst I am left alone with my wife as my only comfort.
• When I see precious moments. Not the stupid knick knacks but the actual real life moments you sometimes witness that happen to be super precious. Several weeks after we lost the baby I recall seeing my nephew - who was about 18 months old at the time - with his grandpa and watching this precious bonding moment they had in a mall child play area. I almost burst into tears. And it was hard because it was hardly their fault, and I love that little guy to death. Usually I am able to hang with kids and love kids without any sense of seeing what I could have had in them but in some moments all I see is what I lost. When I see a kid who is crying cling hard to mom and rest his little head on her shoulders, when those precious picturesque moments pop up, so does my grief. And I hate those the most, because they feel selfish. It feels like I'm only grieving what I missed out on not who I missed it with. I hate those moments most.
• When I remember that month of joy we had. When I remember bonding with Isaac before you could bond, loving him before he could know he was loved, lying beside my wife just to be close to her tummy. When I remember that, I smile and then look off somewhere in the distance as if stuffing the memory at a distance before my eyes do go wet. That little peanut may not have been able to do anything but live but that was enough. I was able to love him for no other reason than that he was mine...which, by the way, puts a profound thought to the words of our catechism regarding the work of Jesus Christ for our redemption - "All this [coming into the flesh and dying] he does that I may be his own..." 

It's also worth noting something else, I'm extremely humbled by the response there was to my first blog on losing a child. The messages of others who lost a child coming forward, the massive sharing, the people who found it helpful in their own experiences of losing a child, sibling, etc. I couldn't have imagined just what an impact that post made for so many, or the impact publishing it here would make for me personally in the conversations and support it led to when I posted it. If there is one thing I hope it is that it will continue to be a resource for people going through similar grief. 

Please also know that not all grief materials are created equal. For example, When You Baby Dies Through Miscarriage or Stillbirth by Louis A Gamino and Ann Taylor Cooney was in no way helpful for me and even angered me enough to throw it down at one point (although some of that anger may be grief more than their writing). Yet Kenneth C. Haugk's Journeying Through Grief series, especially book one A Time to Grieve was very helpful for me. The point is not to say read this one and not that one but that some material just said stuff that didn't help me. If others are going through grief I'd say if you encounter the same don't give up on reading just find something different to read. Some stuff just hits me hard and brings up the pain while others leads towards coping and healing. 

I also would like to share this, which was one of the most healing moments for me since all this happened (and came from an unexpected place). It reminds me why we have preachers and what it is to hear the Gospel truth articulated to specific situations.

It comes from the tv series Father Brown, which are mysteries solved by a brilliant and stubbornly inquisitive priest who also happens to be quite compassionate and pastoral. It happened in one episode in particular which unfortunately I could not find the clip on Youtube so I will have to suffice with posting this summary/vertabim from another blog:

Early in the first season, Father Brown was speaking with a mother who had lost a baby girl years ago to a birth defect. The unresolved grief had destroyed her marriage and now taken her nearly to the point of suicide. At the climax of the story, she cries out to Father Brown to give her a reason not to take the pills in her hand. I love the honesty of his response:

“I don’t know why your daughter died. And I don’t know why God allowed it to happen.”

“Then what do you know?” she cries out in anguish.

“I know that God knows what it is to lose a child,” he says, looking into her eyes. “And that He’s standing next to you…that He loves you. And that He loves your daughter. And if you let Him into your heart, you will see Olivia [her daughter] again.”

I don't know why...but I know that God knows what it is to lose a child. That is profound and powerful. And it takes the cross and places it into the grief. I once wrote very early in the history of my blog after the Sandyhook Elementary shooting (I believe) that God doesn't do nothing in the face of something as terrible as children dying, but what he does is he dies for them. The gospel is the response to a broken world, and we so often forget it when the brokenness has broken us. But preaching is precisely the act of placing that story and all it means into our own shattered lives. It means that whatever reasons led to the loss of Isaac, God still loves him, my wife, and even me (no matter how cursed I feel, and believe me when I say I felt at times cursed). And God didn't do nothing. He didn't do what I wanted him to do, though God hardly acts that way at all. But what he did has far greater reaching effects, and in its wide reach it also reaches into the grief, pain, and turmoil of loss.

What Father Brown hits at is the difference between the hidden God and the revealed God. God is hidden in this world. His will and purpose, just what part he plays is not always easy to comprehend or notice. But God is revealed in Jesus Christ! I may not know why God let Isaac miscarry. But I know that he loves me, and I know that he knows the grief of losing a child, and I know that in losing a child he has done something precisely for me and Isaac. I know that much amidst all that I don't know in regards to what happened. 

And for all the steps along the way, God is there too. Whether it is Christ saying "I am with you always" or Paul writing that the Spirit intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words, it is also a promise that reveals even in the hard moments of grief that follow God is standing next to you through it all.

Sermon by the Confirmation Class

Today our confirmands led worship, including preaching. I thought it would be nice to keep record and share the brief sermon that we developed (I say we as I did assist them in the preparing and crafting of the sermon, but the focus and content was ultimately up to them and a result of our study of the text together) for the service. The text was John 15:9-17 with verses 12-15 being key in the message they preached.

9 As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. 11 I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete. 12 "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command you. 15 I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father. 16 You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name. 17 I am giving you these commands so that you may love one another.

Jesus shows we have a new relationship with God. How does he show this? He calls us friends. The literal definition of a friend is "a bond of mutual affection." To us, this means friends care for, support, and are there for one another - they are in a way, equal. For God to call us friends is unbelievable...it's unfathomable...it's the Gospel!

Jesus dies for us the next day, actually forgiving us and making us equal in righteousness with God. But he also already starts treating his disciples as equals. "I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing," he says. Instead, he calls us friends "because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my father." Friends share. Masters don't necessarily share with servants, but friends do. Have you ever been to a bon fire at night? Think of all the stuff you share [with friends]. If you stay there late enough you'd probably tell them if you ever killed a guy once.

As friends with Jesus, it also means we are there for him. If we are more than servants we do his commands not because we have to but because we want to. Our confirmation class has to do a service project next week, but we're going to the nursing home because we want to serve there. We want to help them. Jesus trusts us as friends to care for one another. "This is my commandment: that you love one another as I have loved you." Friends are not just loved, they love.

The other Lindsey last night looked at a picture of the Last Supper on the wall downstairs (take a look when you go down to fellowship today). She said, 'That is what I think of when I think of Jesus talking about friendship.' Then pastor said, 'Exactly, because that's when he said this!' [It was] when he gave communion. When you go up to communion today it's us still eating with Jesus. It's between friends. It's him looking after us, it's us being tied to one another. It's "love one another as I have loved you." Amen.

The picture referred to was Da Vinci's Last Supper painting

Lost Sermon on 1 John 3:1-2

We were snowed out last week and I didn't get to preach a sermon I really liked. So I decided today to write it down. Best I can. My sermons are developed and delivered orally and whenever I write them they never quite come out the same. Even when I try to type like I speak. But as I wrote it I got to add a bit I didn't have before, and I got to tweak it some. But nevertheless, here is a written version of what I was going to preach last week.

However different it appears, the fundamental point that [SPOILER ALERT] God makes us his children - both in a forensic and effectual sense - is still preserved.

1 John 3:1-2

¹ See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and that is what we are. The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. ² Beloved, we are God's children now; what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is. 

God’s grace makes us his children. God’s love makes us his children. God makes us his children! That’s the good news to hear today. If you miss everything else I say don’t miss this: you are God’s child. But don’t miss the rest, because the good news is not just that we are God’s children it is how we are God’s children. And in these two verses from first John we get a taste of how God makes us his children.

First, he declares we are his children. By the grace of his love, he declares it to be an indisputable fact. He says, “See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and that is what we are.” THAT IS WHAT WE ARE! Not how he will treat us as, not what we could become, but what we are. Against all the evidence to the contrary, “But I’m human not a god” “But I’m a sinner, not righteous” “But my friend who I hurt called me a hypocrite not a saint” “But that neighbor lady says I’m not in the right church or did not have a true conversion experience” against all these things that say “But I’m not even good at this Christian thing much less God’s child thing” – against all that God’s word speaks. And if there is one thing we can trust over our own life it is God’s word. If there is one judgement that matters more than any other on the matter it is God’s. And God says in the word we are his children!

Sometimes – no, all times – we need to hear that. We need to hear a word that can speak over the struggles, doubts, sins, and even good in our life. We need a word that says over all those background sounds of this reality “You are mine” a word that completely takes us into the arms of God. It makes me think of the movie Man of Steel (a Superman movie for those unfamiliar). In a flashback scene young Superman aka young Clark Kent is wondering why he’s so different and his father Jonathan Kent leads him into the barn where beneath the floor he reveals to him the space ship that brought Clark to earth. As he reveals this to him, explains why he’s special and how he’s literally the answer to whether we are alone in the universe, Clark under the weight of it all looks up at Jonathan and desperately asks, “Can’t I just keep pretending to be your son?” and in one of his finest acting moments Kevin Costner – who plays Jonathan Kent – grabs ahold of the boy and pulls him close into his embrace and says passionately “You are my son.” Discipleship makes us different too. It calls for a different way of life in this world. And it is precisely when the overwhelming nature of that calling becomes apparent that we need the word to speak over everything else and just make us into God’s children.

The word does that when it says, “See what love the Father has given us that we should be called children of God; and that is what we are.” This same Word took flesh in Jesus who spread out his arms in love on the cross and from there God embraces you as his child. The word says it, Christ did it, so it is. I said at the beginning if you get nothing else hear this: You are God’s child. And I stressed that in part because hearing what God makes us is precisely the way he makes us his children! We hear it, and by the Spirit’s grace we believe it. But I also stress it because not everyone has ever heard that truly applied to themselves.

This is one reason why when you come up for communion, sometimes I will address you as a child of God. “Child of God,” I’ll say, “the body of Christ given for you.” I love to do that especially when I see visitors because you wouldn’t believe the expression on people’s faces the first time they hear someone call them a child of God. They get this look on their face that says “Yous talkin to me? Well you ain’t handin that piece a bread to someone else so yous must be talkin to me.” The look is sometimes quite emotional or stunned. I don’t always say it there, since after all the key word when I’m giving you communion is “the body of Christ given for you” but sometimes it’s good to put them together. After all, it is the body and blood of Christ, it is the grace and love of God, it is the new covenant that declares us God’s child – even all the way back to our baptism.

But that’s not the only way God makes us his child. God’s love and grace also make it not only in what the cross declares but what the cross affects in us. See, if God’s word really makes you family, then being part of the family makes us into who we are. In this case, it makes us more and more like Christ our great brother. It is as Paul who says we are being transformed according to the image of his Son. When I was a boy at my home church there were these three brothers. The oldest was 16 or 17 – something like that – then the next was like 6, and then the last was like 2. I couldn’t tell at the time but now, years later, things like Facebook have allowed me to see these two younger brothers as they grew up and you know what? They look just like their oldest brother! I would not have guessed all those years ago just how much alike they would be.

The author of first John writes “Beloved, we are God's children now; what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is.” We can’t simply look at ourselves and always see Christ within us, but as God’s children we are made into Christ’s body. His righteousness fills and pours out of us. Thus, the word says, “We don’t know exactly what we will look like, but it will look like him.” That promise is as much for the renewal of our minds and hearts and life as it is for the renewal of our bodies in the resurrection. The author knows this when he speaks later of how we know love because Christ died for us (3:16) and we love because God first loved us (4:19). When Paul said we would be transformed it would come by the renewal of our minds (Romans 12:2). That is, we also become God’s children when by the grace that makes us children it makes our lives like his Son Jesus. “So” Paul says in Galatians (2:20), “it is no longer I but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

And the truth is, though this example is not perfect, we can see how people resemble their family in habits and life style just as much as we can see when siblings physically resemble one another. Families impact the way we live. It’s why stable homes make such a difference in a child’s life. It’s why many premarital counseling programs ask about your family history – because we become what we are! When I first met my in-laws I did not see much of a resemblance in my wife. But as time went on – especially after a two-week period where I stayed alone with my in-laws – I began to see all these little things about her in them: from her voice in a crowded room, to the way she says certain words, to the way she watches movies. Little things, one after another, began to become apparent that they came from her family.

When the word makes us God’s children, it makes us live as God’s children – because we become what we are. And yes, today you might not notice it. Perhaps nobody will today. Matthew 25 says that at the end you won’t even know all the ways this righteousness flowed through you. But “Beloved, we are God's children now; what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is.” As faith draws us closer to Christ, it will do this. For by faith we hold fast to what God does, and what he does is make us his children.

So believe it. Because God says it, Christ did it, and the promise is when it is all said and done it will be apparent in who we are revealed to be, because whatever that is, for people of faith it will ultimately be like Christ. How good it is to hear from the word not only that we are God’s children, but we will resemble our good brother Jesus. Amen.

2018 MLB Predictions

So Major League Baseball's 2018 season began during this Christian thing we call holy week and I never got to post this in advance of the coming year. I wanted to write it sooner but with the weird offseason we didn't have all the big free agents signed until really middle of the month (start of the season if you count Greg Holland). Last year I had some goof ups (thanks especially to my Brewers playing so well) and some spot on predictions (like predicting the downfall of Baltimore and San Francisco after years of success and predicting Arizona's rise) and I came within a game of rightly predicting the World Series victor (no thanks to Yu Darvish). Although I whiffed completely on the awards. So here now with a brief predictions for this year so I can brag or be shamed next year:

2018 WORLD SERIES WINNER

Houston Astros over Washington Nationals in 7: I went back and forth on this, so it shows how close I imagine it could be. But ultimately Houston's deeper rotation (even though I like Washington's top better), better DH line-up and younger core (which makes me think more durable by the end of a long season-postseason stretch) will make them the first back to back World Series Champs since the 1999-2000 Yankees. 

Here's how I think it will all play out...

NL East

1. Nationals: Even if they didn't already feel like this needs to be the year, even if Harper was not in a walk year, it's just not close.
2. Mets: I'm betting on a healthy rotation more than anything else here.
3. Braves: I think they take a big step forward this year.
4. Phillies: Possibly losing Neshek could hurt, and that's before considering how much Kapler might exhaust this bullpen. I'm also generally skeptical of moving first basemen to the outfield (#RhysHoskins)
5. Marlins: Oh it's gonna be bad. It's gonna be so bad...

NL Central

1. Cubs: They're still the best, but cracks are showing and the farm is thinning.
2. Cardinals: Osuna and a full season of Pham and Weaver makes me think they will be back in the postseason this year.
3. Brewers: Everyone expects them to be worse than last year even though they improved their ball club. I don't expect that much regression, but I don't expect much progression either.
4. Pirates: They seem like tough losers to me: beating them won't be easy, but it will happen more often than not.
5. Reds: They just signed Gallardo to a major league deal after the spring he had, that should tell you all you need to know.

NL West

1. Dodgers: Not a lot changing at the top of the divisions in the NL this year. Even with less MLB depth, the prospect depth is still quite good.
2. Rockies: A deep bullpen can't hurt in that ballpark, and Blackmon-Arenado is a beast combination perhaps more dangerous than the old Braun-Fielder duo Milwaukee used to feature.
3. Diamondbacks: They are still good, but have limited payroll/prospect capital for midseason acquisitions and Greinke showed real signs to worry in spring training.
4. Padres: They are gonna take another step forward this year, but not into a winning record.
5. Giants: With Madbum and Shark already on the DL, it's going to be a long year in San Francisco.

NL Wild Card Game

Cardinals over Brewers: I wouldn't be surprised to see another team getting a wild card, but I imagine between the Cards and the Crew they will net at least one and I'm predicting both. In the end, St. Louis is better positioned for a one game playoff.

NLDS

Cardinals over Dodgers in 5: I'm predicting an upset, but the Cards are built for post-season baseball...if they can get there. 

Nationals over Cubs in 4: I think the Nats know it's now or never. They should've beat Chicago last year, so this year I think they do it. 

NLCS

Nationals over Cardinals in 6: This is finally the year they get to the World Series. Just in time to watch Harper ride an NLCS MVP to an even bigger paycheck!

NL Cy Young

Noah Syndergaard: he's got the skill, just has to stay healthy. My back-up picks are Kershaw and Scherzer. My sleeper is Jonathan Gray.

NL MVP

Cody Bellinger: he had an MVP season as a rookie, and has the added benefit of national spotlight in Los Angeles. My back ups are Paul Goldschmidt and Bryce Harper. My sleeper is Christian Yelich.

NL Rookie of the Year

Lewis Brinson: He's a top prospect pedigree with all the playing opportunities in the world. And on that team he can struggle and not worry about losing his starting gig. Back up is Walker Buehler (because it's always wise to bet on a Dodger) and Ronald Acuna just because he's so dang good. My sleeper is JP Crawford.

NL Comeback Player of the Year

Adam Wainwright: he's been trending in the wrong direction, which means any kind of a decent season and he should be in the running for the award. My fall backs are Evan Longoria and Jonathan Villar. My dark horse is the dark knight Matt Harvey.

NL Manager of the Year
Craig Counsell. If he can get his team back to the playoffs when projection systems are predicting decline he'll be the man. My back ups are Dave Roberts and Bud Black. My sleeper is Mickey Callaway.

AL East

1. Red Sox: they were first last year and I expected their offense to be better before they added JD Martinez.
2. Yankees: Stanton-Judge probably won't be as prestigious as the M & M boys were for the 61 Yankees, but adding an MVP should help their chances.
3. Blue Jays: Sanchez-Stroman plus Donaldson equals good team. Just not good enough.
4. Rays: They could surprise. But probably won't. Losing Honeywell (my initial Rookie of the Year pick) hurt.
5. Orioles: They are better than the Rays, but are probably not good enough to avoid selling at the deadline (assuming owner Peter Angelos lets them), which will bottom them out as the year goes on.

AL Central

1. Twins: Being bold here and predicting a huge step forward for Minnesota. But they got talent and made the most of the value free agent deals. 
2. Indians: Hard not to make them first with that pitching and some elite bats, but my 2017 AL Pennant picks are gonna take a step back I think due to health and depth issues.
3. White Sox: I think they are looking at a .500 or so season with lots of big talent.
4. Kansas City: Moustakas probably will only be around til the all star break and probably will only be about 65% the home run hitter he was last year.
5. Detroit: I think Miggy will bounce back nice, but there's not much else there and probably will be even less at the deadline.

AL West

1. Astros: the defending World Series champs went and got more dangerous this offseason. Yikes!
2. Angels: they had a good offseason and the rest of the division does not look all that great.
3. Mariners: King Felix might not be king anymore, and the star power is fading.
4. A's: I had them penciled in for third until guys like Cotton and Puk were injured. 
5. Rangers: The pitching could be good but more likely will be terrible. A lot of players could be great or terrible in fact.

AL Wild Card Game

Indians over Yankees. I'm thinking Cleveland has a score to settle and with a one-game playoff will do it in Major League fashion (minus the catcher driving in the winning run from second on a bunt single and an outfielder sacrificing a bucket of KFC to Jobu).

ALDS

Astros over Twins in 3: This will be swift and painful. Just because they won't have to face New York does not mean their playoff hopes will be any better.

Indians over Red Sox in 5: the Indians will crush the AL East in the playoffs...

ALCS

Astros over Indians in 5: ...only to be crushed by powerhouse Houston.

AL Cy Young

Chris Sale: for most of last year it was his to lose...and then he lost it. Not this year. For a back up I'm thinking Aaron Sanchez and Cory Kluber. Dark horse option is Jose Barrios.

AL MVP

Mike Trout: He probably would have won it last year had he not gotten hurt. Now he's got the support of a better line up. Fall back is last year's winners: Giancarlo Stanton and Jose Altuve. My sleeper though is Carlos Correa.

AL Rookie of the Year

Shohei Ohtani: I initially put him second because I'm not certain he is not going to get demoted midseason. But I figure he has probably three months to figure enough out to stick at the MLB level and if he does he will garner a lot of votes simply because of the hype and the crazy-seeming-almost-impossible thing he is trying to do as a two way player. My back up is Gleyber Torres or Miguel Andujar as one of them should be getting a lot of PT in a really good line up and with a lot of national media attention. For a dark horse option, I'll go with Christian Arroyo. 

AL Comeback Player of the Year

Miguel Cabrera: this is the easiest of all my predictions. There were clear signals that last year was more fluke than steep drop off, and I trust the talent. At least for another year. He doesn't need to be the best in baseball to best his career worst season. Other possibilities include Chris Davis and Jonathan Lucroy. My sleeper is the ageless wonder Bartolo Colon.

AL Manager of the Year

Mike Scioscia: it's funny how when your team is good you are magically a good manager again. Take Brett Boone and Paul Molitor as back up guys. Round it out with a John Gibbons sleeper pick.

Gun Control - 5 Thoughts

To make it simple: as gun control discussions pop up again, here are 5 things I think we need:

1. We need better facts than the most common ones of gun deaths in US vs. heavily restricted countries, because for one gun deaths account for a wide range of deaths, some of which (accidents, self-defense, suicide) are not relevant towards discussions on gun violence especially in relation to mass murder. Therefore, we need statistics comparing mass murder (not mass shootings) in the US vs. regulated countries to even explore if gun control can curb body counts or simply moves them from one statistic to another.

2. We need to discuss more than just gun control. That is a technical solution to a far more adaptive problem. Only trying to stop one way of killing without addressing the systems that facilitate creating the desire for monstrous violence is a token solution meant more to make us feel safe than address the full problem we have in this country. That does not mean we don't have to address guns, but that the political preoccupation has manipulated too many into thinking that is all we can/should/must do. We should legitimately care about what in the current status quo are the shooters trying to upset and why they resort to power dynamics of fear, force, and terror (and conversely as others are down make them feel powerful) which guns certainly can help facilitate. The glorification of glory, power, and strength (especially for men) is an age old, sin old problem to be sure, yet we should look at how we can try to combat it.

3. We need gun minded people to not simply fight against gun reform but actually enter into it so it is not left up to the general public or social advocates who understand little about the weapons themselves and care little about any impact upon the second amendment. Instead, those who want their rights preserved and have better grasp of the weapons should be at the front of saying what is the most logical legislation that would help make these weapons less effective mass killers while preventing unnecessary restrictions. Instead of simply telling us what won't help, tell us what will, and be the ones advocating for it so legislators cannot hide behind you.

4. We need to discuss rights and implications. While 2nd amendment is the chief right talked about, it seems to me also that since we live in a nation that determines one is innocent until proven guilty that too makes preemptive action difficult. Not only that, but how much we are willing to sacrifice a right simply because we have had no need to exercise it is a dangerous position to take, because there are other rights (like for me my right to free exercise of religion) that I don't want that principle extended to by those who do not exercise that right. The clash of rights is a delicate matter, which is why mass shooting - a massive loss of life - is about the only matter that can get us talking with great disregard for the 2nd amendment.

5. We need to address the state of affairs that preserves the status quo. There is a reason lobby groups direct politicians, and we lament it but too often do not discuss unseating it. Both sides have championed partisanship to the point that politicians do themselves damage by being bipartison and lose votes and financial support from their party. Just as much as our culture is corrupt enough to produce mass killers (which is why we need more than gun control) it is corrupt enough it seems to be more about talk than action - especially in how it has allowed talking at each other instead of legitimately talking with each other towards a stated goal. And the fact that we let tragedy get politicized immediately to where you are attacked for praying for someone, immediately have to blame mental illness, or religion, or radicalism to protect your political interests, to where national grief is always turned into righteous anger (and always at our political opponents), the point being we are sucked into a system that lets the same narrative play out and we feel like we did something when we simply followed suit. In fact, that's probably what I'm doing with this post sadly; trying to get out, but getting drawn right back in (insert Godfather III quote).

My 2 cents. For what it's worth.

Why Otani should play for Milwaukee

With the news coming out that two-way Japanese star Shohei Otani's team intends to post him so that he may pursue a career in the MLB, it's time for fans to start dreaming big. Because Otani desires to come and play at a time when his earning power is so limited, it means every team really has a chance at face value. Otani is not coming simply for the money, and the difference in what teams can pay under the current international signing restrictions is so small that signing bonus will likely not be a factor. Which means small market teams have an equal chance at signing him.

The bigger question, of course, then is what does Otani care about when picking a team? Some things are out of a team's control such as if he wants to go to teams that have repeatedly added and integrated Japanese talent - New York, Seattle, and Los Angeles all come to mind as examples. If Otani is very metropolitan and wants to be in a city like New York or Chicago there is little other teams can do. He might care about conditioning training, use of analytics, or pitching coaches - the kind of thing that teams can control and may be using as they pitch their team to him but as fans we typically know less about.

The main topic of discussion then are usually two-fold: will teams let him be a two-way player and will they work out an unofficial, good-faith extension agreement that Otani could potentially sign within a year of joining the team?

It is for these reasons that Milwaukee could be a good destination for him.

Before going forward, it is worth linking for you if you have not read it Chuck Wasserstrom's assembled scouting report of Otani in which he sums up his conversations with scouts in this way:

And the overall consensus: They haven’t seen a guy like Otani in all of their combined years of scouting.

This is why his potential availability to a team like the Brewers is so monumental. He could be a franchise icon when it is all said and done.

The Brewers have an enormous amount of financial flexability, with their only commitments beyond 2018 being to Braun, Anderson, and Thames - the latter two being at very affordable rates. This is why MLBtraderumors keeps tossing around the idea that Milwaukee should make a big free agent splash when some big market teams are taking a back seat in free agency this year. But why give 25mm a year to an over 30 pitcher with some red flags like Jake Arrieta instead of giving it to a still entering his prime - two way player Otani? An ace quality starter could put the Brewers in a good place to contend. And while I've already posited that they may already have that in Josh Hader and might be better served focusing on replacing him in the bullpen at a more affordable price in my offseason plan for the Brew Crew, Otani is of the pedigree that even if you do something like move Hader to the rotation, you want to add him nonetheless.

So how does Milwaukee use its financial flexability? By promising one of two contracts. See, Otani will obviously be gambling on himself if he takes a gentlemen's agreement for a future extension. And since he technically has not competed yet, there is always the possibility of a flop (in which case the team might thank the stars they dodged a bullet and not extend him to the big contract he would get if he were an unrestricted free agent). Milwaukee should say that 'no matter what we will pay you'. Offer the financial security. Just say there will be two tiers based on that first year: tier one is a "late signing bonus" if you will. Say 40-60mm, even if he stinks or gets injured, they promise to pay him that much. The second is then the "merit pay", so if he performs anywhere near expectation you give him 20-30mm AAV over 8 years. This promise assures Otani that he will become a rich man no matter what. Other options include contracts of low base but tons of incentives (like Meada signed with LA), or contracts with opt-outs either into free agency or arbitration (since a good two-way player could shatter arbitration records), no-trade clauses, etc. The bottom line is this team has the room to make some more financial promises than a lot of small market clubs and they should take the risk with them and get creative with contract offers.

But the big reason I think Milwaukee is a good fit is in Ryan Braun, they are in a good spot to offer Otani several starts a week in LF. I often have read the speculation that AL teams may have an advantage with the DH for Otani, to protect his health as a hitter-pitcher. But if he really wants to field, Milwaukee is the place to do it. Braun needs regularly scheduled rest, therefore giving Otani several starts in the OF a week is totally doable, and in fact good for Braun. But the team has a good player for the days Otani needs to rest/pitch, which would be the challenge for other teams in attracting/spending on such a high-quality player. But the Brewers already have that high quality player on contract and virtually untradeable. In a five day rotation Braun would start three days and Otani two. He would also get to hit in games he pitches being an NL team. This allows him to rest the day prior and after a start, which to me would seem the most logical/important times to rest him. He and Braun would each get to play/hit in 3 out of every 5 games. It keeps them both rested and hopefully performing. And since Otani appears to want to prove himself in the majors, I think he wants to be a two-way player and actually field as well as hit and pitch. This allows that, solves a team need of giving Braun rest, and yet the team hardly suffers for days when Braun or Otani are not in the line-up by having two high quality hitters. On games Otani pitches, it will give an NL team an AL line-up advantage.

With Milwaukee's success last year and strong minor league system, they can also convince Otani that this team will be ready to compete both immediately and in the near future. Additionally, since they missed the playoffs narrowly, Otani gets the opportunity to be the hero. Players who become the essential piece for a franchise's success become icons. There is a pride and image element here he can claim by joining this team. If he wants to prove himself, what better way than by being the missing piece to their success?

To be clear, this entire post is kind of a dream post. I realize it is a long shot since the Brewers will literally be competing with every MLB team and every team will be spinning why they are a good fit. All I'm saying is the Brewers should not be counted out because they are small market or National League. They should instead be taken seriously as a real contender to add this guy to the ranks of Brewer greats.

My Brewer's offseason plan

So the Brew Crew came within 1 win of forcing a one game playoff for the second wild card, a win they should've had in game 161 when they blew a 6 run lead against the Cardinals. That means this team is well placed for a run at contention in 2018. That said, it is important for the Brewers to not over-invest in next year's roster at such an expense to their long term viability, especially since their playoff chances in part hinged on the Cubs' first half struggles - something they shook off in the second half and ran away with the division in the last two weeks of baseball and brought them on the cusp of a second straight World Series appearance. Additionally the Cardinals were in it for most of the second half and with a good offseason should certainly be competitive as well. Even the Pirates 2017 woes should not be counted on for 2018 as this is still very much the talented team that was in the top part of the division the last couple years. Therefore, I think the team - while it has financial flexability needs to be cautious in how much it flexes it. This means I don't think the team should make a big splash for a top free agent starting pitcher like mlbtraderumors has argued and predicted.

Let's begin by taking a look at who on the current roster will likely be back for 2018:

SP Chase Anderson
SP Jimmy Nelson (to begin season on DL)
SP Zach Davies
SP Brandon Woodruff
SP/RP Junior Guerra
SP/RP Josh Hader
SP/RP Brent Suter
RP Jacob Barnes
RP Jeremy Jeffress
RP Cory Knebel
RP Jered Hughs

C Manny Pina
1B Jesus Aguilar
1B Eric Thames
IF Jonathan Villar
UT Hernan Perez
2B/IF Eric Sogard
3B Travis Shaw
SS Orlando Arcia
LF Ryan Braun
CF/OF Brett Philips
CF/OF Lewis Brinson
RF Domingo Santana

Noticeably absent are Oliver Drake, Carlos Torres, Keon Broxton, Jett Bandy, Taylor Jungmann, Aaron Wilkerson, Jorge Lopez, Wei-Chung Wang, Andrew Susac, and Stephen Vogt. Of those I expect Jungmann, Wilkerson, Lopez, Wang, Susac, Drake, and Bandy to remain in the franchise as depth. Although I will note that I am unsure if they all have options remaining, and am particularly concerned about Susac, Wang, and Jungmann in that regard. If not, they may essentially have to make the team out of spring training. Torres has already been outrighted and I expect him to become a free agent any day. I also think Vogt should be traded or non-tendered. As good as his bat was, his dismal defense, particularly in throwing out base-stealers was just unacceptable for going forward.

Then we get to Keon, and this brings us to our first major move of my offseason plan. I think this team should trade Keon Broxton. The main reason is that Brinson has done all there is to prove in AAA and warrants a position on the team. Philips also proved he could be a solid CFer for this team. Because Braun is near untradeable and Santana was one of the best players on the team last year, CF needs to be opened up for these guys. I think you let whoever performs better between Brinson/Philips get the bulk of CF duty while the other one spells all three OF players (especially Braun who should not be counted on for more than 120 games). Add in that Perez will likely get ABs also in the OF and there likely is not space for Broxton. If he has any options left it is probably just one, and while his strikeout rate was beyond alarming, his ability to play CF with a solid defensive reputation (some advanced statistics aside) and 20/20 season should make him an appealing alternative to more expensive free agents. Whether Stearns trades him for a different MLB piece (like a catcher or reliever) or for some young low level risky minor leaguers (think Adam Lind trade) would be his prerogative. Nevertheless, I think ultimately now is the time to deal him while he is cheap and coming off of a 20/20 season. Teams that need affordable OFers (especially CFs) and who might not have deep talent pools to trade from will probably be the best matches. To name a few, SF, MIA, SEA, and BAL all strike me as realistic trade partners.

I should note that another option would be to use one of Brinson/Philips in a bigger deal. For me, I think if that happens it needs to be for a top notch, controllable starting pitcher. The thing is, I don't see anyone likely available. Maybe Chris Archer from TB, but he will likely cost a lot from our system that I don't think the team should pay it. But if the right deal comes along and one of those two were moved, then you keep Keon as your 4th OF.

As the roster stands then, this team would need a catcher to pair with Pina, and 2 pitchers. Assuming nothing is addressed by trade here are the free agents I would target:

RHP Anthony Swarzak. Swarzak was a brilliant addition for this bullpen in the second half, striking out 39 in 29 IP while working a 2.48 ERA (and a 2.33 ERA overall for the season). As a reliever he was still worth 2.7 WAR. Additionally, Swarzak had a positive experience in Milwaukee and wants to come back, he just needs to also get his payday. MLBtraderumors is predicting a 2 year $14mm payday, and that seems fair.

LHP Mike Minor. Like Swarzak, who kinda came out of nowhere with his season, Minor was converted to a reliever and became a dominant force out of the pen as well for KC. He had a 2.55 ERA in 77 IP with 88 Ks (good for 2.8 WAR). MLBtraderumors are predicting a 4 year deal in the 28mm range for Minor. I imagine to bring him to Milwaukee may have to make it 30mm as he - being a lefty - is likely to force a bidding war and they do not have the history with him that they have with Swarzak. That said, he is still far cheaper than Jake Arrieta (MLBtrade's SP prediction for MIL at a cost of 4yrs/100mm), and by signing him they can move Hader to the rotation.

C Nick Hundley. Not as flashy as say Alex Avila, but Hundley will be much more affordable and in a back-up role in SF was worth 0.5 WAR with 32 extra-base hits. More importantly, he threw out 29% base stealers last year (as opposed to Vogt's dismal 13%). If I remember correctly he is not a particularly good pitch framer, however. All told, I expect a 1 year deal at less than 5mm to bring him on board.


Some minor league deal kind of targets would include (if they would take them): 2B/SS Danny Espinosa, IF Darwin Barney, OF Hyun Soo Kim, SP Ubaldo Jimenez, SP Jacob Turner, RHP Huston Street,
With these moves this would be the team for 2018:

SP Chase Anderson
SP Zach Davies
SP Josh Hader**
SP Brandon Woodruff
SP Guerra/Suter*

LR Guerra/Suter*
RP Jered Hughs
RP Jeremy Jeffress
RP Jacob Barnes
SU Mike Minor
SU Anthony Swarzak
CP Cory Knebel

C Manny Pina
1B Eric Thames
2B Jonathan Villar/Eric Sogard***
3B Travis Shaw
SS Orlando Arcia
LF Ryan Braun
CF Brett Philips/Lewis Brinson
RF Domingo Santana

BC Nick Hundley
1B Jesus Aguilar
IF Jonathan Villar/Eric Sogard***
OF Brett Philips/Lewis Brinson
UT Hernan Perez

notes:
*While a case could be made to bring in a better arm to round out the rotation, and I wouldn't fight you on at least bringing in more competition, I think the team has several solid options of (Jungmann, Wilkerson, Lopez) in house in addition to these two. I think Guerra really deserves one more chance to show which guy he was. He was really good last spring until the end of spring, then he got injured and never really rebounded. But this guy was our opening day starter last year. I think he gets a chance to prove he can pitch once more this spring. Suter was such a good swing man for this team I think he becomes that for a full year. If Suter beats out Guerra, Guerra might still make the team out of the pen, because a good fastall/splitter combo should be enough to be an effective reliever.
**I envision Hader as the guy to transition from rotation to pen upon Nelson's return, mainly to limit his innings since he spent most of '17 as a reliever. That said, if he is pitching like a #1-2 starter, they aren't going to remove him from that and instead the lowest guy on the totem poll will get bumped.
***MLBtrade expects Milwaukee to bring back Neil Walker. I don't like the move. Not because Walker was a bad player for this team, he was an upgrade at 2B. But Walker is clear he wants to get paid and I don't think Milwaukee should be the one to pay him. For one, they already brought back Sogard which means adding Walker means likely one of Sogard/Villar is the odd man out (and I'm not sure if Villar has any options remaining). To trade away Villar now would be to sell low on him. I think he would be better served also given another chance. His speed and versatility (even if his defense doesn't play well anywhere) alone make him a good bench piece. And if he could just improve his walk rate to his 2016 levels he'd be a quality player. Additionally, you have Hernan Perez who should get plenty of reps at 2B, and top 10 prospect Mauricio Dubon already made it to AAA last year and may be ready by mid 2018 (and 2017 1st round pick Keston Hiura is a very advanced bat and could potentially be fast tracked to the majors this year as well). Therefore, it seems unwise to lock up anyone for 2B beyond 2019.

God in the Vineyard: Vocation and Theology of the Cross

In the last week two things happened:
-50 people were killed and hundreds more wounded in a mind boggling, heart breaking act of wanton violence that once again reminds us that evil is real and most clearly felt between the offenses we perpetuate upon one another.
-I heard a sermon that grappled with the absence of God in this Sunday's upcoming parable, the parable of the wicked tenants from Matthew 21:33-46.

These seemingly separate threads of events have been interweaving in my brain. Precisely because the sermon wrestles with something people wrestle with in the face of total catastrophe and especially catastrophe at the hands of another. Inevitably the question of where was God, what good is God, etc. comes into play. Shortly after people religious and non alike bash the phrase "thoughts and prayers". An act, which while I understand why they lament it (namely, they want political action and see the phrase as a means to do nothing more) I fear the critique adds another layer whether intentional on the part of those who chastise it or not, namely, that prayer is inaction. Prayer does nothing.

Prayer only does nothing, of course, if God does nothing. And the critique intimates that God, if God is real, is absent and helpless in the face of turmoil. I despise the critique. To be clear, while I am not knowledgeable enough in the field of sociology and gun violence or the current laws and facts about guns and gun control to have a solution I too want something to be done, but I don't think to do so means we should equate prayer in general - or even the prayer of a politician - as ineffectual, inactive, or insincere. I think we should instead tell them to offer something with their thoughts and prayers. Maybe include in those prayers discernment in how to best respond.

All that is a round about way to say, like the preacher who wondered, "If God is the land-owner, then God is absent" our world looks at tragedy and comes to the same conclusion: God is absent.

Now in the sermon by my esteemed colleague, she concludes that perhaps the best way to grasp contemporary promise is not to allegorize this parable and make God the land-owner. She may be right in that there were other good promises, maybe more concrete outside the parable. And Luther himself of course was rather critical of allegory in biblical interpretation mainly as a response to the over-allegorization of scriptures in his day, in part a consequence of Origen's idea that every passage had a higher spiritual meaning. And modern scholars often point to how parables as a genre were typically not meant to be over-allegorized but to illustrate a single point. This parable, however, more than most lends occasion to allegory. As William Barclay puts it:

In interpreting a parable it is normally a first principle that every parable has only one point and that the details are not to be stressed. Normally to try to find a meaning for every detail is to make the mistake of treating the parable as an allegory. But in this case it is different. In this parable the details do have a meaning and the chief priests and the Pharisees well know what Jesus was meaning this parable to say to them.

In this case the tenants do stand for somebody (Jewish religious leaders). Likewise, the land-owner's son is a clear reference to Jesus himself. It therefore makes it easy (and I think fair) to make God out to be the landowner.

But if that is the case, then God is absent in the story. Now, I think the caution and task of my colleague is important (even if I disagree that we should not take the land-owner to be God) in that beyond the parable there is a clear witness to God's presence. But let's focus on the parable and stay with it and the problem of God's presence within it, because even if we can conclude from the wider voice of scripture in God's presence, sometimes - like this last week - our world gets stuck in a moment as easily as in a parable. And in that moment, God is like the land-owner: far off.

It is worth asking how can people experience God in times he is far off? And to that the parable does offer an answer - in his servants and most especially in his Son! While in the parable the servants most likely is a reference to the prophets (perhaps especially John the Baptist considering the previous conversation preceding the text includes John's ministry) it is wider also in our day today. God sends ambassadors, people who act as his will and presence.

When people in tragedy and turmoil look for God's presence, they usually first start to find it by pointing to the aid and love of fellow citizens of humanity. It is in God's envoys. In our world, our daily life, our vocations (or callings into life) are the ways people experience God's bestowal of daily bread.

And What is meant by daily bread? as our catechism asks: "everything that has to do with the support and needs of the body." In various ways and places, God has prepared places for us to go, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Ephesians 2:10). This is actually why people have a right to be angry at their politicians: not for offering prayer but because they can do works of God that are outside the capacity of those not in office. Vocation is not just a title/job, it is an activity. It is a response to a calling. It is a way of understanding how each day we live out our Christian faith in the world.

Just as a prophet is sent by God to bear God's presence through a word to the people, just like a servant goes to the vineyard when sent by the landowner to be that landowner's presence (in the ancient world how you treated the messenger was to reflect the person whose message they bore), so also spouses are sent to one another, teachers to students, EMT's to those who are hurt, etc. all as means in which people can believe in good and by extension the ultimate Good - God. The parable reminds us of two distinct facts: we are sometimes the means by which people come into contact with God, and murder really does make God then feel absent. For when the good is trampled by death, when people are pulled from their vocations by violence and murder, the people around them experience an absence in what God has placed before them. When the sacred command to preserve life is violated, so is the experience of God. Is it any wonder that the Psalms often praised God's activity when they were rescued from death and when they feared danger and death they questioned if God had turned away from them forever? That is how we still experience God!

In short, if faithful living towards our various vocations can cause people to "see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven" (Matthew 5:16), then violating God's laws breaks down vocation and makes people wonder "How long, O LORD? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me?" (Psalm 13:1).

The second thing this has me go to is theology of the cross, namely, that ultimately all theology must be on or shaped by the cross of Christ. As a Lutheran, I find this particularly important. As Regin Prenter puts it, "Luther's God is the God who reveals himself in the cross of Christ, God hidden in suffering." In here, we find the one mode of God's presence when it is otherwise driven from the story: in the Son. When the landowner sends his Son, which pretty much all commentators note is foolishness by this point, he is determining to send his benevolent will to the wicked tenants (he could have, and by our standards as well as the standards of Jesus' contemporaries should have arrested them already). What is more though, is when we leave the parable, Jesus makes abundantly clear that the murder of the son does not banish the landowner's presence. Instead, when it comes to Jesus himself, the stone that the builders rejected becomes the corner stone! The final act to drive out the landowner's hand from under them becomes the greatest means in which he executes his will on this wicked humanity. Capon puts it this way:

Jesus is saying quite clearly, in other words, that not only is his own mild exousia unacceptable to their unfaith; it is also and nevertheless - in its very unacceptability - the cornerstone of their salvation, even though they will not trust it. The world is saved only by his passion, death, and resurrection, not by any of the devices that, in its unbelief, it thinks it can take refuge in. Furthermore, that same unacceptability will be the cornerstone of their judgement and of the world's...

The theology of the cross is unsettling because it is so unacceptable as Capon puts it. Precisely because the Almighty is veiled in the suffering humanity of Jesus, it becomes a paradox too great for us to naturally accept. In this way, however, the message of the Gospel can proclaim both salvation and the present action of God in the one place God seems driven away. Just when God is lost by the removal of our standard mode of knowing and experiencing God's goodness in each other, God's greatest act of compassion strikes us in the death of his Son. Just when murderous acts drive God from our world, the cross places him firmly at ground zero. As Gerhard Forde puts it: "The cross makes us part of its story. The cross becomes our story. That is what it means to say, as Luther did, 'The cross alone is our theology.'"

Now precisely because the cross is God hidden in suffering, revealed in the cross of Jesus in a way that unlocks the story of God's working among us, the cross also rarely looks desirable or good especially prior to the announcement of the Gospel. Even to the disciples, prior to Easter, Good Fridays looked anything but good. But the good news is God has not been lost or inactive. And in death, God opens the way of life. None of that is to glorify the violence of Jesus' persecutors or a gunman in Las Vegas, but to draw the person in the suffering violence brings to the one place where suffering has meaning: the cross. Paul regularly speaks of sufferings as sharing in the suffering of Christ. In your suffering then you are not alone. In fact, you are being driven to the fountain of life through faith in Christ.

Some will scoff at any notion of any kind of good news in suffering, especially since we have glorified the avoidance of suffering to the point that suffering often produces in people their greatest spiritual crisis. In the face of horror it will feel powerless, and yet the Gospel testifies to how it isn't powerless. Thus there is a word to believe here, and a word to share. This word is the word of Christ and the story of his reign. The parable reminds us to produce fruit: fruits of our vocations. And one of those vocations is to speak the peace of the cross in crisis. The peace of God that surpasses understanding. One of those vocations is to send aid to those in need. One of those vocations is to each day promote the life God gives, but also to remember that in the face of human sin, there are times the presence of God is all but lost, except for one light in the darkness, veiled in the same shroud that often casts God hidden before our eyes (violence), and yet still shining. Sometimes when all human efforts to bear the presence of God is not enough, we will find that all we have, is a rock. The type of rock builders reject when making the good things of this world, and yet by this rock we can build our entire faith.