Later today Baylor University plays Texas Tech University in football. The last time the Bears and Red Raiders played football my dad died. I'm really hoping today is a better day.
On the bright side, reflecting on this has helped my perspective. Juxtaposing football and life and death is a good reminder of how trivial football really is. A lot of what we focus on in life is really pretty trivial. So many things are not bad, but they are only important to the extent that we use them to build or at least proclaim the Kingdom. Unfortunately, for me and many of the Christians I know, it doesn't seem like this is the way we typically use the activities God has let us enjoy.
I'm not saying to stop doing the things you like. But I do feel like most of us would benefit from an honest examination of what we are really living for.
So have a great Saturday. Enjoy all the games or whatever you have on your itinerary today. But maybe spend some time thinking about how you can do what you do with the Kingdom as the drive train.
Saturday, October 3, 2015
Monday, September 21, 2015
More thoughts on our sports subculture
A while back I posted about some ideas relating to sports, and especially youth sports. My basic premise was that we have created a subculture where many of the norms of a civilized society no longer apply. You can see that post here. I've wanted to return to that concept for a while and finally have a chance to do so.
First, I have an update to that initial post. I challenged the idea that it is okay for coaches to scream at our kids. We wouldn't let anyone else do it. Why is it okay for coaches? Here's a real life example of how absurd this issue has become. A few weeks ago I was in a parent meeting at my son's middle school. This was for parents of 12 and 13 year old football players. At one point in the meeting the head coach was explaining some of the values he and his staff hoped to instill in our children. One that he mentioned specifically was respect. He stated that it is very important for people to be respectful. Sounds good to me.
About five minutes later in the same address, the same coach tells us that it will be okay if he or his staff shouts at our children. I don't remember the exact phrase he used. But I am sure he was referring to shouting, yelling, screaming, fussing at young players. His reasoning was that this behavior would make the kids mentally tough. Apparently, he was completely oblivious to the absurdity of this. On one hand he wants people to be respectful. On the other hand he wants the right to treat my child, and any other child on his team, in a degrading, disrespectful, and immature way. Why are we okay with this as parents? Why are we okay with this as a society?
Now for more current thoughts. This weekend I saw a commercial for a gangster movie. The scene involved a gangster telling a six year old child that no matter what he did or who he did it to, if nobody saw him do it then it never happened. How do you feel about that logic?
{Disclaimer: I'm clearly not a professional ethicist. So if I have faulty reasoning here, I'd appreciate some help from those of you who are trained in such matters.}
A few weeks ago I heard someone say a phrase that really disturbs me. I'll come back to that in a bit. Let's talk about rules for a minute. Rules are important in a society. They are important in sports, supposedly. In my mind they are so important that breaking the rules constitutes cheating. Now, I realize that people break the rules accidentally. It happens all the time. And as long as the player is trying to the best of his/her ability to abide by the rules then I'm okay with mistakes, especially if they are discovered and penalties assessed. But when players (or coaches) break the rules on purpose that is cheating. And even if you score more points than the opponent, in my opinion you didn't really win if you cheated to do it.
Now, back to the phrase the bugs me so much. I've heard fans say this, pee wee coaches say this, national broadcasters say this, parents say this, players say this, and even coaches at advanced levels. Here it is, "It's only holding if they throw the flag." In other words, "You did not really break the rule if the referee didn't see it." Or, "You didn't cheat if you didn't get caught." I've found this attitude to be really prevalent in the sports world even among children.
There is another similar situation that comes up. It's the idea of a "good" foul. We've taught the people involved in this subculture known as sports, that if you get an advantage out of it, then breaking the rules is okay. Think about the defensive back who grabs the jersey of a receiver because he knew he was beat. "Well he got a penalty but he prevented the receiver from scoring so that was a good foul." No, that was cheating. Think about the basketball team that fouls to get the ball back late in the game. "Well that's just good strategy." No, that's cheating.
You can think I am being over the top. You can think I am being a sissy. You can think I am making a mountain out of a mole hill. But, we have developed a culture where following the rules is only important until you need some advantage. Then, the rules are ignored or just blatantly broken. This is not good.
If you are on the side of, "Well, its not that big of a deal to break a rule here and there if it gives you an advantage." Or, "Some rules are just silly." Or, "Rules are situational." Or, "You just don't have to follow the rules if it is not convenient." Really? How did you feel about it last spring when the supreme court basically threw the rule of law out the window?
Maybe even worse, if you are on the side of, "It's only holding if the referee throws the flag." how is that different from the gangster who says, "If nobody sees it, it never happened."?
Did the subculture of sports influence the larger culture or did the larger culture infiltrate sports? I have no idea. But it chills me to the core that we now have a society that teaches children "Rules don't matter." If they learn that in the sports they are playing from the time they are five or six years old, we can only expect the long term result to be a society that cheats to get rich, gets angry when police try to enforce laws, stuffs the ballot boxes, etc. O, wait...
First, I have an update to that initial post. I challenged the idea that it is okay for coaches to scream at our kids. We wouldn't let anyone else do it. Why is it okay for coaches? Here's a real life example of how absurd this issue has become. A few weeks ago I was in a parent meeting at my son's middle school. This was for parents of 12 and 13 year old football players. At one point in the meeting the head coach was explaining some of the values he and his staff hoped to instill in our children. One that he mentioned specifically was respect. He stated that it is very important for people to be respectful. Sounds good to me.
About five minutes later in the same address, the same coach tells us that it will be okay if he or his staff shouts at our children. I don't remember the exact phrase he used. But I am sure he was referring to shouting, yelling, screaming, fussing at young players. His reasoning was that this behavior would make the kids mentally tough. Apparently, he was completely oblivious to the absurdity of this. On one hand he wants people to be respectful. On the other hand he wants the right to treat my child, and any other child on his team, in a degrading, disrespectful, and immature way. Why are we okay with this as parents? Why are we okay with this as a society?
Now for more current thoughts. This weekend I saw a commercial for a gangster movie. The scene involved a gangster telling a six year old child that no matter what he did or who he did it to, if nobody saw him do it then it never happened. How do you feel about that logic?
{Disclaimer: I'm clearly not a professional ethicist. So if I have faulty reasoning here, I'd appreciate some help from those of you who are trained in such matters.}
A few weeks ago I heard someone say a phrase that really disturbs me. I'll come back to that in a bit. Let's talk about rules for a minute. Rules are important in a society. They are important in sports, supposedly. In my mind they are so important that breaking the rules constitutes cheating. Now, I realize that people break the rules accidentally. It happens all the time. And as long as the player is trying to the best of his/her ability to abide by the rules then I'm okay with mistakes, especially if they are discovered and penalties assessed. But when players (or coaches) break the rules on purpose that is cheating. And even if you score more points than the opponent, in my opinion you didn't really win if you cheated to do it.
Now, back to the phrase the bugs me so much. I've heard fans say this, pee wee coaches say this, national broadcasters say this, parents say this, players say this, and even coaches at advanced levels. Here it is, "It's only holding if they throw the flag." In other words, "You did not really break the rule if the referee didn't see it." Or, "You didn't cheat if you didn't get caught." I've found this attitude to be really prevalent in the sports world even among children.
There is another similar situation that comes up. It's the idea of a "good" foul. We've taught the people involved in this subculture known as sports, that if you get an advantage out of it, then breaking the rules is okay. Think about the defensive back who grabs the jersey of a receiver because he knew he was beat. "Well he got a penalty but he prevented the receiver from scoring so that was a good foul." No, that was cheating. Think about the basketball team that fouls to get the ball back late in the game. "Well that's just good strategy." No, that's cheating.
You can think I am being over the top. You can think I am being a sissy. You can think I am making a mountain out of a mole hill. But, we have developed a culture where following the rules is only important until you need some advantage. Then, the rules are ignored or just blatantly broken. This is not good.
If you are on the side of, "Well, its not that big of a deal to break a rule here and there if it gives you an advantage." Or, "Some rules are just silly." Or, "Rules are situational." Or, "You just don't have to follow the rules if it is not convenient." Really? How did you feel about it last spring when the supreme court basically threw the rule of law out the window?
Maybe even worse, if you are on the side of, "It's only holding if the referee throws the flag." how is that different from the gangster who says, "If nobody sees it, it never happened."?
Did the subculture of sports influence the larger culture or did the larger culture infiltrate sports? I have no idea. But it chills me to the core that we now have a society that teaches children "Rules don't matter." If they learn that in the sports they are playing from the time they are five or six years old, we can only expect the long term result to be a society that cheats to get rich, gets angry when police try to enforce laws, stuffs the ballot boxes, etc. O, wait...
Sunday, May 3, 2015
Marriage and Discrimination
This post would have been a lot more timely a week or so ago, but better late than never; supposedly.
So suppose a man walks into a bicycle dealership and asks to buy a car. The salesman refuses to sell him one. The man cries foul. He throws a fit. He hires an attorney to file a lawsuit claiming that the dealership discriminated against him.
Does he win his case? Do you think that is a silly scenario? You probably think its a silly scenario. The bicycle dealership was not discriminating against the man. The bicycle dealership will not sell him a car because it cannot sell him a car. Bicycle dealerships are a different category of business than car dealerships. By definition, bicycle dealers sell bicycles, not cars. The man made a categorical mistake by trying to purchase a car from a bicycle dealer. He was not discriminated against.
I heard one of our Supreme Court justices talking about an issue before him last week. He asked if a man could marry a woman, how could it not be blatant sexual discrimination to tell him that he could not marry a man? He has made the same categorical mistake as the hypothetical man in the bicycle dealership. Marriage is, by definition the union of one man and one woman. If two men or two women want to pledge their lives and their love to one another and live together as such the rest of their lives, they can do so. However, one cannot call this marriage because that is not what marriage is. Same sex unions and domestic partnerships are in a different category than marriage.
Actually, the definition I gave of marriage is not quite specific enough. For example, a man cannot marry any woman. Suppose a man wanted to marry his mother. Most people would be opposed to that. Does that mean they are discriminating against the man and his mother? No. It means that the mother-son relationship places them in a category that prevents them from becoming married. Again, they could pledge their lives and love to one another and live together and even have sexual relations, but nobody would consider them married. Mothers cannot marry sons, fathers cannot marry daughters, and that is okay. That is the way God, nature, and western civilization have viewed this issue for centuries. There is a specific definition of marriage and none of the cases described above fit the definition.
Last week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in relation to the same sex marriage issue. It troubles me that our culture has reached a point where we want to call same sex union marriage. It troubles me equally that this is before the judicial branch. The judiciary is not supposed to create laws. If the legislature redefines marriage by law, then they are acting within the scope of their power. Courts should not be deciding these things.
One thing I know, whatever the court decides, this issue is not going away. Church, let's pray. The issue is not who wins the culture wars. The issue is people need Jesus. Let's pray that He shows up and saves many on both sides of the issue.
So suppose a man walks into a bicycle dealership and asks to buy a car. The salesman refuses to sell him one. The man cries foul. He throws a fit. He hires an attorney to file a lawsuit claiming that the dealership discriminated against him.
Does he win his case? Do you think that is a silly scenario? You probably think its a silly scenario. The bicycle dealership was not discriminating against the man. The bicycle dealership will not sell him a car because it cannot sell him a car. Bicycle dealerships are a different category of business than car dealerships. By definition, bicycle dealers sell bicycles, not cars. The man made a categorical mistake by trying to purchase a car from a bicycle dealer. He was not discriminated against.
I heard one of our Supreme Court justices talking about an issue before him last week. He asked if a man could marry a woman, how could it not be blatant sexual discrimination to tell him that he could not marry a man? He has made the same categorical mistake as the hypothetical man in the bicycle dealership. Marriage is, by definition the union of one man and one woman. If two men or two women want to pledge their lives and their love to one another and live together as such the rest of their lives, they can do so. However, one cannot call this marriage because that is not what marriage is. Same sex unions and domestic partnerships are in a different category than marriage.
Actually, the definition I gave of marriage is not quite specific enough. For example, a man cannot marry any woman. Suppose a man wanted to marry his mother. Most people would be opposed to that. Does that mean they are discriminating against the man and his mother? No. It means that the mother-son relationship places them in a category that prevents them from becoming married. Again, they could pledge their lives and love to one another and live together and even have sexual relations, but nobody would consider them married. Mothers cannot marry sons, fathers cannot marry daughters, and that is okay. That is the way God, nature, and western civilization have viewed this issue for centuries. There is a specific definition of marriage and none of the cases described above fit the definition.
Last week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in relation to the same sex marriage issue. It troubles me that our culture has reached a point where we want to call same sex union marriage. It troubles me equally that this is before the judicial branch. The judiciary is not supposed to create laws. If the legislature redefines marriage by law, then they are acting within the scope of their power. Courts should not be deciding these things.
One thing I know, whatever the court decides, this issue is not going away. Church, let's pray. The issue is not who wins the culture wars. The issue is people need Jesus. Let's pray that He shows up and saves many on both sides of the issue.
Saturday, April 4, 2015
The day between Good Friday and Easter
Kris and JT have gone to the Meyer's family Easter reunion. The big J and I are home because he is sick; poor kid. The house is incredibly quiet and its actually kind of nice.
I'm contemplating life, death, the day Jesus was in the tomb. What all was going on in the spiritual realm? Why a day of waiting? Why a material realm at all? How terrible is it to be without hope?
Skeptics like to say that God is just a crutch. They think man invented God in order to cope with his own mortality. Apparently, we are not evolved enough to handle some stresses without inventing something to pacify us.
I think it must be the other way around (actually I know it is the other way around according to Romans 1). Skeptics and atheists invented the lie that there is no God to pacify themselves. They can't deal with the stress of an after-life with no God so they took him out of the picture. They have convinced themselves that he is not real so they can feel free from the constraints of immortality under his reign. But they are actually the ones left with no freedom. How sad.
Church, how fantastic is it to have hope?
I'm contemplating life, death, the day Jesus was in the tomb. What all was going on in the spiritual realm? Why a day of waiting? Why a material realm at all? How terrible is it to be without hope?
Skeptics like to say that God is just a crutch. They think man invented God in order to cope with his own mortality. Apparently, we are not evolved enough to handle some stresses without inventing something to pacify us.
I think it must be the other way around (actually I know it is the other way around according to Romans 1). Skeptics and atheists invented the lie that there is no God to pacify themselves. They can't deal with the stress of an after-life with no God so they took him out of the picture. They have convinced themselves that he is not real so they can feel free from the constraints of immortality under his reign. But they are actually the ones left with no freedom. How sad.
Church, how fantastic is it to have hope?
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
Memories
My PFSAD is going to be a lot tougher this year than most years. My dad died November 29th, 2014. I'm still getting used to missing him. He was a good man. One of the things we had in common was enjoying football, especially college football. We got through about two thirds of this season together but the cancer got him before it was over with.
When I was four years old we moved to Bartlesville, Oklahoma. This was back before cable TV and ABC was pretty much the only station that carried college football. We might get to watch one of our teams play on Saturday afternoon. But one of my fondest memories of my early childhood is lying in the living room floor on Saturday nights with the lights down. Dad would have a transistor radio in his hand and he would be tuning in as many Southwest Conference football games as he could. Of course, our keenest interest was in UT and Baylor, but we would listen to whatever we could pick up.
I guess it doesn't sound like much. But it sure was fun. Even remembering it is somehow fun, even though the tears sting my eyes.
I have many other memories that involve Dad and football. They help. But this is still going to be a strange and difficult off season.
Hey, if you are a dad, find something your kid likes to do and go make some memories with him/her. You'll be glad you did and so will your child.
When I was four years old we moved to Bartlesville, Oklahoma. This was back before cable TV and ABC was pretty much the only station that carried college football. We might get to watch one of our teams play on Saturday afternoon. But one of my fondest memories of my early childhood is lying in the living room floor on Saturday nights with the lights down. Dad would have a transistor radio in his hand and he would be tuning in as many Southwest Conference football games as he could. Of course, our keenest interest was in UT and Baylor, but we would listen to whatever we could pick up.
I guess it doesn't sound like much. But it sure was fun. Even remembering it is somehow fun, even though the tears sting my eyes.
I have many other memories that involve Dad and football. They help. But this is still going to be a strange and difficult off season.
Hey, if you are a dad, find something your kid likes to do and go make some memories with him/her. You'll be glad you did and so will your child.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)