The Not-So-Pro Bowl January 29, 2010
Posted by Chris in Everything Else, Faith.add a comment
Thursday night’s all right for blogging…
The week before the Super Bowl is upon us. You know what that means; get ready for inane player interviews, over-hyped predictions, and the Pro Bowl.
The Pro Bowl?
In a stunning display of nonsense, the National Football League has moved the Pro Bowl from its previous post-championship schedule to the off week between the conference championship games and the Super Bowl. But there’s a slight problem. No one wants to play.
The best players in the league, presumably the AFC champion Indianapolis Colts and the NFC champion New Orleans Saints, can’t play. They have a little game next week to decide the world championship of professional football. But that doesn’t mean they won’t be there. The league mandates those Pro Bowlers interrupt their Super Bowl preparations to attend the game, doubtless as disinterested bystanders. Colts president Bill Polian called the new rule “stupid.”
The conference champions aren’t the only ones not playing. Many of the league’s stars, having participated in playoff games over the last two weeks, begged out of this week’s contest. Others, citing injury, surgery, and/or apathy, will be skipping the league’s ill-fated all-star game as well. So far, at least thirty-one Pro Bowlers won’t play.
The end result of this mass exodus? Mediocrity.
Don’t believe me? Consider the quarterbacks who aren’t playing: Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Phillip Rivers, Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, and a certain fellow by the name of Brett Favre. Heck, even Pro Bowl alternate Carson Palmer bailed on them. Of the six signal-callers originally selected to play, only one—Aaron Rogers of the Green Bay Packers—will actually participate. Which means viewers will be treated to the likes of David Garrard and Vince Young, the leagues 17th and 18th rated passers respectively. What, JaMarcus Russell was busy?
But perhaps the dumbest Pro Bowl development yet is the claim by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell that the Pro Bowl is already a “success,” by virtue of the increased attention it has received thus far. That’s like saying a church is a success by virtue of the headlines it made when the pastor ran off with the church secretary.
Speaking of the church, what organization—other than the NFL—has the audacity to produce a mediocre product and yet somehow expect it to attract a big audience? Too many churches regularly offer mediocrity: lifeless music, lackluster programming, and boring worship. Far too many pastors regularly offer pedestrian sermons, hastily thrown together on Saturday night due to overwork, misplaced priorities, or just plain laziness. And yet the church seems surprised when the ratings are down.
We expect quite a bit of the Holy Spirit when we choose to offer people mediocrity and then sit back and cross our fingers, hoping the Spirit will bail us out once more. Such an approach smacks of cheap grace. Striving for excellence is undoubtedly more costly, both in terms of cash and commitment. But costly grace is always more faithful.
The ratings for this year’s Pro Bowl are likely to be dismal. Viewers know better, and they are not inspired by Sunday afternoon mediocrity. I think they feel the same about Sunday morning.
See you back here next Thursday!
Going Gently into that Late Night January 22, 2010
Posted by Chris in Everything Else, Faith.1 comment so far
Thursday night’s all right for blogging…
The hours are winding down for my boy Conan. Today it was announced that a formal agreement has been reached between Conan O’Brien and the National Broadcasting Company on Conan’s departure from The Tonight Show. I will be sad to see him go. I still miss Johnny Carson, and Jay Leno’s brand of middle-of-the-road humor never really resonated with me.
The bottom line, of course, is ratings. Conan simply didn’t get them. Not yet, anyway. What Conan has had, of late, is lots of support. A generation of angry young viewers has taken to the internet, amassing hundreds of thousands of Facebook supporters and filling cyberspace with testy tweets. Of course, I’m sure Leno has his supporters, too. It’s just that messages sent by telegraph take longer to register than those sent by Twitter.
All kidding aside, I was proud of NBC when they made the move. They still had a viable product in Jay Leno. Viable, but dated; the demographics seemed to suggest that his audience, while still substantial, was aging. So NBC made a bold, visionary move for the future. But then they lost their nerve.
Seven months of subpar ratings were too much for the Peacock network to endure. NBC decided to give up on their noble experiment and return to the mediocrity of the affable but decidedly safe Leno. Leno represents security. For a network that is struggling mightily, he is the sanctuary of the mundane. He represents safety. And safety has a unique appeal, especially when faced with the fearsome specter of change.
Change takes guts. Change takes vision. And perhaps most of all, change takes patience.
The Tonight Show was on top—and Leno was the undisputed King of Late Night—when NBC made the change. Bold. They gave it seven months. Not so bold.
Seven months was almost enough time for Lane Kiffen to wreck Tennessee football, but it’s probably not enough time to determine whether or not Conan could actually make a go of Tonight. Nevertheless, the suits at NBC pulled the plug and switched back. So much for courage. But when you’re on top, who needs courage?
Our Protestant mainline churches used to be on top, too. We were the undisputed Kings of Sunday Morning. Sure, there were indications that the demographics were changing. There were transformations in culture and society going on all around us. But that didn’t matter. Too many of our denominations chose “not so bold.” Cue the decline sign for our studio audience.
Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if our mainline Protestant denominations, when they were at the top of their game, had decided to risk everything and invest for the future instead of choosing the safety of the familiar. Would we still be in the decline we are in today or would we be on the brink of seeing the bold yet risky investment we made years before pay off?
Now many of our churches find themselves faced with the distinctly more difficult task of changing when they are no longer on top. Declining attendance and dwindling budgets make change harder. But for many churches, it’s no longer a matter of choice. It’s a matter of survival.
Will Christ’s church survive? Yes. But it won’t be easy. It will require our best efforts and our strong commitment. And it will require more than seven months. Faithful, long-term vision is essential for the vitality of the church.
Conan, too, will survive. And as for Leno, he probably still has some life in him. But I can’t help wondering if he’ll regret not having walked away at the top of his game. There are, after all, lots of Muhammad Alis, but very few John Elways.
See you back here next Thursday night.
The Devil Went Down to Haiti January 15, 2010
Posted by Chris in Faith.add a comment
Thursday night’s all right for blogging…
Pat Robertson is back in the news. This time it’s over some comments he made regarding the recent disaster in Haiti. He referred to a legendary story about how Haitians made a pact with the Devil over 200 years ago—in exchange for victory over their French colonial masters—and how “ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after another.”
Is the story of the deal with the Devil true? Not exactly. The legendary story of the pact may have more to do with Haitian Voodoo mythology and colonial displeasure with a successful slave revolt than with some Satanic settlement. But lack of evidence never stops some people.
Robertson has taken quite a beating in the media over the last 24 hours. The negative response has been so strong that a spokesperson for his organization was forced to make a statement on their website, essentially claiming that Pat was simply misunderstood. Again.
Many aren’t buying it. Irate Facebook folks have suggested, among other things, that Robertson should be excommunicated from the church, voted out of the human race, and even set adrift on an ice floe. That’s cold (pardon the pun).
Robertson has a history of similarly outrageous comments, espousing the theological “truths” about why Israeli leaders have strokes or why hurricanes like Louisiana. But is he serious or just a few French fries short of a Happy Meal, like that crazy uncle whom you have to apologize for whenever you have company:
“I’m so sorry, don’t mind Uncle Pat. He doesn’t mean any harm. He’s just a little…well, you know…” (insert rotating-finger motion next to head here).
I have to think Robertson is more misguided than malicious. Not that such is any less dangerous. Misguided is more dangerous, I think. When mean-spirited people are confronted about their behavior, they sometimes see the destructiveness of their malicious ways and stop. When misguided people (especially misguided religious people) are confronted about their behavior, they often interpret it as the spiritual forces of wickedness working against them and consider it their holy duty to press onward, all the more doggedly.
Like a lot of people, I think Robertson’s theology is faulty. So what should our response be to people like Pat Robertson? Rebuke? Recoil? Reeducate? Regurgitate?
I don’t have an easy answer for that question. But I believe the beginning of the answer might lie in this bit of my own theological experience. I’ve rarely discovered more about my own beliefs—what I truly believe and why I believe it—than when I’ve chosen to be in conversation with people who have beliefs quite contrary to mine.
Meet you here again next Thursday.
Happy 4th of July! July 4, 2009
Posted by Chris in Baseball.add a comment
Time for my monthly blog! And what better to blog about on the great American holiday of Independence Day than…baseball! I’m sitting at my desk, wearing my Dodgers cap as I watch the Dodgers on TV. Predictably, the hackneyed FOX broadcasters are beating me down with Manny Ramirez references: Manny in the dugout, Manny in the on-deck circle, Manny putting on his cap, Manny drinking water, Manny breathing air, ad nauseum. But FOX’s weak coverage can’t take away from the greatness of the Dodgers. So on the 4th of July, here’s four things I think are great about the Dodgers:
1. Dodger Stadium. It’s a great place to watch a game. Sunny, open, beautifully manicured, old school scoreboards, and those crazy-tilty roof panels around the outfield. Plus, SoCal weather doesn’t hurt. Although the worst sunburn I think I ever got was courtesy a Dodgers day home game.
2. Dodgers uniforms. The home whites are among the most classic uni-s in the majors (along with Yankees home, Cards home, Tigers home, Red Sox road).
3. Vin Scully. One of the all-time great voices of baseball. If you haven’t heard Scully call a game on the radio, you’ve missed something really cool. In his 60th year with the Dodgers, he now mostly just calls home games. But hey, he’s 81 years old. I hope I can recognize a baseball at age 81.
4. Dodger history. One of the most storied franchises, period. Brooklyn, Branch Rickey (a Methodist!), Pee Wee Reese, Duke Snider, Gil Hodges, Jackie Robinson, Walter O’Malley, Sandy Koufax, Don Drysdale, Tommy LaSorda, Davey Lopes, Steve Garvey, Ron Cey, Fernando Valenzuela, Pedro Guerrero, Orel Hersheiser, Mike Piazza, et al. And, six World Series championships.
There you have it. And I didn’t even mention Dodger Dogs (they’re grilled and realllly good) or Joe Torre. Have a happy 4th!
The World’s Worst Blogger June 2, 2009
Posted by Chris in Everything Else.2 comments
Is anyone still listening? I come online this afternoon to freely admit that I’m not a particularly good blogger. Or perhaps more specifically, I’m not all that faithful to the task of blogging. I have been on blog hiatus for several months now. Maybe a word of explanation will help.
I took Lent off from blogging. My reasoning was simple; Lent was (and is), at least for me, more about discovering who God is and less about discovering who I am. So here I am, trying to observe a holy Lent, and yet filling copious amounts of cyberspace with rantings about what I think, what I believe, and what I find to be blogworthy. These two things suddenly seemed completely incongruous with one another.
A couple of days later, an incident with the computer reinforced my hiatus-think. I installed this new antivirus program on my computer at home. Unknown to me, it created a new folder in my e-mail: the “spam” folder. I discovered it by accident one day, several weeks into the season of Lent. As I looked at the folder, I realized that for several weeks it had been filtering out all kinds of ridiculous messages about Nigerian fortunes left to me and male enlargement and fake Rolex watches and other assorted nonsense. By filtering out all these inane distractions, it had actually been helping me to do what I had wanted to do in the first place; observe a holy Lent, by focusing more on God and less on me.
So I took the season off from blogging. And I gave serious consideration as to whether blogging is really of all that much value.
Here’s where I ended up; blogging can be of great value, if done properly. So what’s a proper blog? My personal opinion: blogs that are selfishly about the blogger and not much else are more often than not a waste of time, energy, and whatever little bytes they occupy in cyberspace. If I’m going to blog, then there really needs to be more to it than simply “I’ve got some particular axe to grind.” Blogs that share an opinion on the events of the day, blogs that tell someone’s story or update friends about a new house or a new job, blogs that post pictures of kids as they grow up; all these things are wonderful uses of the technology. But any blog that is solely about me, while being devoid of any usefulness for the reader, is not likely to appear here. My hope is that as I blog, the things discussed will mean something to you as well. I favor blog as dialogue, rather than blog as monologue.
Others may have quite different opinions regarding the proper use of blogging and as always, YMMV. But as I return to the blogosphere, I hope that what I write—no matter how trivial or mundane it may appear—might actually give you cause to think, as opposed to simply inundating you with what I think.
Making the World a Better Place February 18, 2009
Posted by Chris in Baseball.2 comments
Newsday reports that Alex Rodriguez wants to “make the world a better place.” At least that’s what he said in his latest confusing presser.
Maybe he would like to teach the world to sing while he’s at it.
You want to make the world a better place, A-Rod? How about getting a base hit during the playoffs? At least hit a ball out of the infield this post-season (provided, of course, the Yankees make it to the post-season).
Oh, and one more thing. Quit holding press conferences.
Fraud! February 18, 2009
Posted by Chris in Faith.add a comment
As if we haven’t had enough of them lately, another massive financial fraud has been exposed. Billionaire R. Allen Stanford has been charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with masterminding a fraudulent $8,000,000,000 (that’s 8 billion) Certificate of Deposit scheme. It seems that Stanford and his cronies promised people what the SEC called “improbable and unsubstantiated” rates of return on their investments.
While conventional institutions were struggling to pay paltry rates, Antigua-based Stanford International Bank (SIB) promised double-digit returns-15.71%, to be exact-in 1995 and 1996. And when the S&P 500 lost some 39% in 2008, SIB reported they were only down 1.3%. Wow! SIB claimed they were able to achieve this level of performance through a “diversified portfolio of investments.” The SEC statement calls it a “massive fraud based on false promises and fabricated historical return data to prey on investors.”
The SEC has done the right thing, I think, to freeze as many of Stanford’s assets as possible in order to protect whatever remains of investors’ monies. But what makes an investor, be it an institution or an individual, susceptible to the kind of amazingly improbable, highly implausible, incredibly unlikely, yet all-too-irresistible promises of high profits? I hate to bring up the G-word. But greed is a factor here, somehow.
Now it’s far, far too easy to say that greedy investors merely got what they deserved. I don’t think that’s the case at all. Some were honest people simply looking for the best return on their investments. But common sense should, at the very least, give all of us pause to consider how people like Stanford or Bernie Madoff make their money, especially when their promises are head-and-shoulders above everyone else.
There is a line-sometimes fine, sometimes not-so-fine-separating true business visionaries who can see legitimate, huge profits where no one else can and phony hucksters who simply see a world full of suckers. How can an uninformed financial layperson tell the difference, when even trained financial professionals have fallen victim to these schemes? Two things come to mind.
The first is diligence. Do your homework. Ask questions. Challenge absurd promises. Maintain a healthy skepticism regarding claims that do not ring true.
The second is this: keep your greed in check. Reread this portion of 1 Timothy:
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs (1 Timothy 6:10, NIV).
The desire to get rich quickly and easily can short-circuit our common sense quickly and easily. Greed makes us particularly susceptible to being pierced at the hands of swindlers and con artists. Crooks know that. That’s how they stay in business, looking for people who are in love with money. You see, they know it’s those people who are more likely to disregard common sense, sound financial advice, etc., in favor of flim-flammery.
I hope the SEC can rein in some of this stuff, and soon. But until human beings get a handle on greed, there will be more fraudulent schemes.
Steroids and Apologies February 10, 2009
Posted by Chris in Baseball, Everything Else.2 comments
The news that Alex Rodriguez used steroids while with the Texas Rangers didn’t exactly shock me. It disappointed me. But shocking? Not really. In this now infamous “steroid era,” it almost seems more shocking to hear of a big league ballplayer who put up big numbers and didn’t use steroids.
What is shocking to me is the news that Tom Hicks, the owner of the Texas Rangers, wants an apology from A-Rod. The Dallas Morning News reports that Hicks claims to feel “personally betrayed” by Rodriguez. On A-Rod’s apology to Texas fans, Hicks waxes, “I’d rather have one further apology to the owner of the Texas Rangers who signed him to that contract. Then I’ll decide if I accept that apology.”
I place this in the category of unmitigated gall. Hicks seems to suggest that he was running a church camp until A-Roid came along. The facts do not support such a position. Does anyone remember Rafael Palmeiro and his famous finger-wagging denial? A partial list of other Texas Rangers who have fallen under the cloud of steroids (on Hicks’ watch) includes such luminaries as Ivan Rodriguez, Juan Gonzalez, Gary Matthews, Jr, Ken Caminiti, Randy Velarde, Chad Allen, Sammy Sosa, et al. This doesn’t even include the would-be linchpin of modern MLB steroid use, Jose Canseco.
Hicks certainly has every right to be upset with Rodriguez’s lies. But does Tom Hicks really expect me to believe that as the owner of the team, he had absolutely NO idea what went on in his own clubhouse, apparently in large numbers? It now seems entirely possible that at least half of the 2002 Rangers lineup (that led baseball with 230 homeruns that season) may have been juiced.
Obviously, no one should expect Tom Hicks to personally go through every players’ locker. But as the CEO of the organization, doesn’t he have a responsibility to put into place a system of management and oversight that would prevent such widespread illicit activity? And doesn’t the ultimate responsibility for the failure of that system belong to Hicks himself? Yet he wants an apology from A-Rod.
What’s next for Hicks? Will he demand an apology from Chan Ho Park for all those balls hit off Park that have yet to land? Will he demand an apology from the Yankees for fleecing him in the A-Rod trade? Will he demand an apology from me for not buying enough five-dollar Lemon Chills?
This is about more than baseball. It is about corporate irresponsibility. Tom Hicks didn’t break any laws or violate any fiduciary responsibilities; it is, after all, his own money. But lack of CEO accountability is at least part of the stuff of which excessive Wall Street bonuses are made. More egregious examples of such behavior get you a cell next to Jeff Skilling.
I don’t blame Hicks for being mad. But now that it appears his organization had more syringes than strikeouts in 2002, I am wondering when Hicks will apologize to me. Be it ignorance, indifference, arrogance, naiveté, or something more sinister, Hicks’ handling of steroids in Arlington is yet another case in mismanagement. Which may explain why the Texas Rangers are one of only three MLB teams never to have appeared in the World Series. I await a lavish apology. Or at least a free Lemon Chill.
Excommunication February 3, 2009
Posted by Chris in Faith.1 comment so far
Excommunication is complicated. Really complicated. It’s even more complicated when a member of the clergy is being excommunicated. Being Methodist, I don’t fully understand the process. We don’t excommunicate troublesome pastors; we just move them to another church. But even among Catholics there is a great deal of confusion and distress over a recent excommunication that has been “rehabilitated” by Pope Benedict XVI.
Bishop Richard Williamson is a Holocaust denier. He denies that any Jews were killed in Nazi gas chambers during WWII, calling such claims “lies, lies, lies.” He was excommunicated by Pope John Paul II for his extreme views. But in recent days the current Pope has chosen to “un-excommunicate” Williamson for reasons that seem unclear. What does seem clear is the furor the Pope’s decision has created. There are even calls for the Pope to step down over the mess.
I watched an interview with Williamson on Swedish TV. I also read some of his comments on the 9/11 attacks. He claims it is “absolutely for certain” that it was not airplanes that destroyed the Twin Towers, but a professional demolition team working in a conspiracy to establish a “police state.” He urges people to go to “9/11mysteries.com” if you doubt him. In my humble opinion, Williamson is a nut. Certifiable.
Ordinarily my response to such idiots is to simply ignore them. But I can’t help wondering what unchurched folks must think when prominent “church” people make such outlandish, hurtful claims and are then “rehabilitated” by the hierarchy of their church. And I can’t help wondering what my own Bishop would do with me if I gave an interview to the Waco paper claiming that the Holocaust never really happened.
The Crime Blotter January 26, 2009
Posted by Chris in Faith.1 comment so far
This world seems to find new and creative ways to test my faith every day. Today’s test was not this morning’s 7:15 a.m. devotional (as some may have expected), but was instead the news that a sweet little lady from our church was robbed last night. Two young criminals followed her home from the store and took her purse from her in her own driveway. Thankfully, she didn’t suffer any serious physical injuries and the things the crooks took from her can easily be replaced. Except, of course, for the sense of safety and security she lost; that’s not as easy. But the real test of faith came when, after visiting with her, it came time for us to pray. I am not particularly proud to admit it, but one of my first thoughts was to wish that I could somehow catch up with these young robbers so that I could put my foot square in their a**. But then the words of this meddlesome Jesus caught up to me, words about praying even for my enemies. Make no mistake about it, this practice of Christianity we are engaged in is not for the faint of heart. It requires courage. A bit of compassion doesn’t hurt either, like when the victim of this crime held my hand and said through tear-filled eyes, “They’re just young boys.” Mature faith. Mea culpa.
