The Red Sox are currently manufacturing a terrific collapse. All season long, they have dominated the American League East. Their lead over the Yankees in late May was 14.5 games; it's been in double digits for most of the season. On July 5 their lead was 12 games (Toronto was in 2nd place at that time). Yet here they are, on the morning after being swept in Toronto, with only a 1.5 game lead. In less than 4 months, their lead has dropped 13 games.
And they don't really care.
I'm not saying they want to lose or anything like that. But there's one major reason why they don't have to worry about losing this lead to the Yankees: they will still make the playoffs. Thanks to our friendly wild card playoff system, the team with the best record that doesn't win their division will still go to the playoffs. I remember when this was instituted, the argument was that it would create more excitement because it allows for another race to make the playoffs. In my mind, it was the "race for the best 2nd place team."
Now, I know there are some who will point out that the Red Sox would never have won the World Series in 2004 if it weren't for the wild card system. In fact, they wouldn't have made the playoffs in over a decade if it weren't for the wild card system. So do I think the Sox' World Series championship is invalid?
No, I don't. And here's why: the wild card system is necessary because of the arrangement of the leagues. With a 3-division format, you need the wild card for at least two reasons. 1) You have an uneven number of playoff teams and 2) there's no guarantee that the 2nd best team is one of the 3 division winners (in fact, this has often been the case with the Sox, in '99, '03 and '04). With the current system, the wild card has to happen. It does help in making sure the top 2 teams get into the postseason. In 2004, there is no doubt the Red Sox were one of the top 2 teams in the AL (in all of baseball, actually). They had every right to be in the postseason. But the wild card also assures us of the possibility that a team will take 2nd place rather than fight it out for 1st place.
And that is exactly what is happening this September. The Sox don't have any real reason to fight the Yankees for the division. Sure, they could get homefield advantage. There's always pride in beating the Yankees. But honestly, if you ask Terry Francona (and if he's being honest), he'd rather rest his guys and have them ready for October rather than risk wearing them out, even if that means losing the division.
You can't blame him, of course. He's just taking advantage of the system. Major League Baseball has arranged the leagues in such a way that the wild card is a necessity. Short of dropping teams, the wild card must stay. But this year, it hasn't created another playoff race, it's created apathy.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Thursday, September 13, 2007
cheaters never prosper...unless you're the Patriots
I have to be honest, I found the whole CameraGate scandal funny. When I found out about it, I laughed because the Pats got caught doing something that every team does in some form or another, namely, stealing signals from the other team. It's funny because that stuff happens in every sport, and everyone knows it. It's funny because the Patriots were dumb enough to get caught, which is astonishing for such an intelligently run team. Even more astonishing when you consider that they were specifically told not to do this during the off-season by the league. Gosh, Bill, you didn't think anyone was paying attention to that guy standing on the field pointing a camera directly at the other team's coaches after they told you they were going to be looking for it? Strikes me as a bit arrogant, to be honest.
But I find this less funny as time goes on, though not because of the crime, but because of the reaction. Listen, folks, there are worse problems going on in sports. Stealing a signal, which has to be deciphered accurately and quickly in order to work (which would really take quite a while, given the complexity of NFL defenses), is far less cheating (if you'll permit me gradations of cheating) than taking steroids or punching guys in the groin in the middle of a pile. It is far less worrisome than chop blocking a guy, a move which could potentially wreck a man's legs.
I'm not trying to excuse it with the "everyone's doing it" cry, although everyone is doing it (like I said, in some form or another). I'm not sure how this could taint the Patriots legacy. Check out this Bill Simmons article where he chats with Aaron Schatz of Pro Football Prospectus about this and other cheating scandals. Shoot, the Broncos have two major ones: they cheated to get around the salary cap in their 2 Super Bowl championship seasons, and their coach, Mike Shanahan, admitted to having people on staff who specifically use binoculars to steal opposing teams signals and lip read. Where's the outcry? Where's the tainted legacy of John Elway?
What bothers me the most, and this is what Simmons gets to, is that this gives folks even more reason to hate the Patriots. I hate the fact that many people treat them like they treat the Yankees- people hate dominate franchises. These two franchises are completely different. The Yankees won because they outspent everyone and changed (some say "ruined") the financial situation of Major League Baseball. The Pats have the same salary cap as the rest of the NFL, yet manage to win. They have the same restrictions, they just have better coaching and better scouting. Hating someone because they win by writing checks is one thing (though there are plenty more reasons to hate the Yankees); hating someone because they are better than your team playing within the same rules reeks of jealousy (speaking of jealousy, check out Andrew's post on Brady .
The Patriots deserve to get punished. I'll be willing to bet that the league will handle this appropriately. They cheated, they got caught, they should face the penalty without complaint. But let's not go crazy, they haven't been winning all these years because of their ability to interpret hand signals. They've won because Tom Brady can engineer a game-winning drive with time winding down, because Adam Vinatieri can't miss a clutch kick if he tried, because Belicheck can get the most out of his (sometimes average) players.
Seriously, you'd think that Ellis Hobbs was able to run the second half kickoff 108 yards only because they stole the Jets' signals and discovered they were going to be kicking off to the Patriots. What if they didn't steal signals, would Hobbs known to have run? Did stealing signals tell the Patriots to be patient with Tedy Bruschi as he made the slow adjustment from a small defensive end to middle linebacker? Did stealing signals tell them that Mike Vrabel, dwelling on the practice squad and special teams in Pittsburgh, would turn into one of the most intelligent and most underrated linebacker in football?
They didn't need to cheat, but unfortunately, they did. And they deserve to be punished. But let's not go witch hunting.
But I find this less funny as time goes on, though not because of the crime, but because of the reaction. Listen, folks, there are worse problems going on in sports. Stealing a signal, which has to be deciphered accurately and quickly in order to work (which would really take quite a while, given the complexity of NFL defenses), is far less cheating (if you'll permit me gradations of cheating) than taking steroids or punching guys in the groin in the middle of a pile. It is far less worrisome than chop blocking a guy, a move which could potentially wreck a man's legs.
I'm not trying to excuse it with the "everyone's doing it" cry, although everyone is doing it (like I said, in some form or another). I'm not sure how this could taint the Patriots legacy. Check out this Bill Simmons article where he chats with Aaron Schatz of Pro Football Prospectus about this and other cheating scandals. Shoot, the Broncos have two major ones: they cheated to get around the salary cap in their 2 Super Bowl championship seasons, and their coach, Mike Shanahan, admitted to having people on staff who specifically use binoculars to steal opposing teams signals and lip read. Where's the outcry? Where's the tainted legacy of John Elway?
What bothers me the most, and this is what Simmons gets to, is that this gives folks even more reason to hate the Patriots. I hate the fact that many people treat them like they treat the Yankees- people hate dominate franchises. These two franchises are completely different. The Yankees won because they outspent everyone and changed (some say "ruined") the financial situation of Major League Baseball. The Pats have the same salary cap as the rest of the NFL, yet manage to win. They have the same restrictions, they just have better coaching and better scouting. Hating someone because they win by writing checks is one thing (though there are plenty more reasons to hate the Yankees); hating someone because they are better than your team playing within the same rules reeks of jealousy (speaking of jealousy, check out Andrew's post on Brady .
The Patriots deserve to get punished. I'll be willing to bet that the league will handle this appropriately. They cheated, they got caught, they should face the penalty without complaint. But let's not go crazy, they haven't been winning all these years because of their ability to interpret hand signals. They've won because Tom Brady can engineer a game-winning drive with time winding down, because Adam Vinatieri can't miss a clutch kick if he tried, because Belicheck can get the most out of his (sometimes average) players.
Seriously, you'd think that Ellis Hobbs was able to run the second half kickoff 108 yards only because they stole the Jets' signals and discovered they were going to be kicking off to the Patriots. What if they didn't steal signals, would Hobbs known to have run? Did stealing signals tell the Patriots to be patient with Tedy Bruschi as he made the slow adjustment from a small defensive end to middle linebacker? Did stealing signals tell them that Mike Vrabel, dwelling on the practice squad and special teams in Pittsburgh, would turn into one of the most intelligent and most underrated linebacker in football?
They didn't need to cheat, but unfortunately, they did. And they deserve to be punished. But let's not go witch hunting.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
The Legend of Jason Varitek
I suppose there are probably some around the country who look at Jason Varitek and wonder why a .260 hitting catcher with average power numbers is in the middle of a 4 year, $40 million contract. Why would you spend that much money for someone who produces so little.
If you watched Clay Buchholz's no-hitter last night (in only his 2nd game), you'd understand why. This is the 3rd time Varitek has called a no-hitter, the other two being Hideo Nomo and Derek Lowe (in 2001 and 2002, respectively). The Nomo game sticks out because it was his first start in a Red Sox uniform, yet he didn't shake off Varitek until something like pitch number 63. Buchholz knew better than to question Varitek. If Varitek calls the pitch, chances are it's well-informed. His preparation is unparalleled. He studies the hitters, their tendencies and their weaknesses. He knows the opposing lineup better than anyone else on the field.
Consequently, he gives the Red Sox an advantage every time they take the field. The pitchers and coaching staff can have the confidence that the pitches called by Varitek are more than likely the correct call. Granted, the pitcher still has to make the pitch, as Varitek is known to say, "I just drop the fingers, they have to make the pitch." And I'm sure Varitek has made his share of mistakes, but there is no other catcher in all of baseball who can call a game like Varitek.
Take the example of Curt Schilling. He has always been known for his preparation, with multiple 3-ring binders of notes on hitters he's faced. When he came to Boston, however, even he had to defer to Varitek. On occasion, he does not, but I think he's learning his lesson. As noted, Varitek has caught 3 no-hitters, but he should have had a 4th. Earlier this season Schilling was one out away from recording his first career no-hitter. He shook off Varitek, thinking he knew the opposing hitter better than his catcher. He proceeded to lose his no-hitter, and chances are slim he'll get that close again.
In my opinion, Varitek earns his money. His leadership is unquestionable- being named captain of the team a few years back (I believe he's one of only 4 captains in all of baseball). Sure, he won't blow too many away with his bat, though it's not like he's useless at the plate. But he gives a competitive advantage to his team with every game he pitches. He's valuable to the younger pitchers because the can ease into learning the opposing hitters. At the same time, the veterans can take comfort in knowing that their catcher knows their repetoire and how that matches the scouting reports.
Clay Buchholz knows firsthand the benefit of pitching a game called by Jason Varitek. He joins an elite group of only 2 other rookies who have thrown a no-hitter in their 1st or 2nd game. He ought to be commended for having incredible command of all 3 of his pitches, and if he can throw like that he'll have a long and successful major league career. But I'll bet when his career is done, he'll look back and be thankful he had the chance to let Jason Varitek call his pitches. He's in the record books because of it.
If you watched Clay Buchholz's no-hitter last night (in only his 2nd game), you'd understand why. This is the 3rd time Varitek has called a no-hitter, the other two being Hideo Nomo and Derek Lowe (in 2001 and 2002, respectively). The Nomo game sticks out because it was his first start in a Red Sox uniform, yet he didn't shake off Varitek until something like pitch number 63. Buchholz knew better than to question Varitek. If Varitek calls the pitch, chances are it's well-informed. His preparation is unparalleled. He studies the hitters, their tendencies and their weaknesses. He knows the opposing lineup better than anyone else on the field.
Consequently, he gives the Red Sox an advantage every time they take the field. The pitchers and coaching staff can have the confidence that the pitches called by Varitek are more than likely the correct call. Granted, the pitcher still has to make the pitch, as Varitek is known to say, "I just drop the fingers, they have to make the pitch." And I'm sure Varitek has made his share of mistakes, but there is no other catcher in all of baseball who can call a game like Varitek.
Take the example of Curt Schilling. He has always been known for his preparation, with multiple 3-ring binders of notes on hitters he's faced. When he came to Boston, however, even he had to defer to Varitek. On occasion, he does not, but I think he's learning his lesson. As noted, Varitek has caught 3 no-hitters, but he should have had a 4th. Earlier this season Schilling was one out away from recording his first career no-hitter. He shook off Varitek, thinking he knew the opposing hitter better than his catcher. He proceeded to lose his no-hitter, and chances are slim he'll get that close again.
In my opinion, Varitek earns his money. His leadership is unquestionable- being named captain of the team a few years back (I believe he's one of only 4 captains in all of baseball). Sure, he won't blow too many away with his bat, though it's not like he's useless at the plate. But he gives a competitive advantage to his team with every game he pitches. He's valuable to the younger pitchers because the can ease into learning the opposing hitters. At the same time, the veterans can take comfort in knowing that their catcher knows their repetoire and how that matches the scouting reports.
Clay Buchholz knows firsthand the benefit of pitching a game called by Jason Varitek. He joins an elite group of only 2 other rookies who have thrown a no-hitter in their 1st or 2nd game. He ought to be commended for having incredible command of all 3 of his pitches, and if he can throw like that he'll have a long and successful major league career. But I'll bet when his career is done, he'll look back and be thankful he had the chance to let Jason Varitek call his pitches. He's in the record books because of it.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Romans 8:15 in the TNIV
I've been using the TNIV for a while now and really enjoy it. I used it originally because I was teaching a class using a book that speaks highly of the TNIV and I wanted to check it out. For a couple terrific reviews, check out Craig Blomberg's review and one by a guy named Rick Mansfield (ht: Jeremy).
But this morning I was reading in Romans 8 and ran across v15, which reads like this:
It caught me off guard because I'm used to something like the NIV, which reads, "For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear..." Part of the reason why I like reading different translations is that it offers different renderings that cause you to go back and look at what Paul is really saying, which is what happened here.
I'll tell you what I don't like about the TNIV rendering: it causes an unnecessary tension with other passages where Paul clearly tells us that we are slaves (or servants, they are the same word in Greek). For instance, in Romans 6:22 Paul says, "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." So the question is: are we slaves or not? The answer, of course, is that we are slaves, but to whom? This is the key to understanding the difference between slavery in 6:22 and in 8:15.
But if one read Romans 8:15 in the TNIV in isolation, they would assume that Paul has no place for "slavery" in the Christian life. However, when you read 6:22, and even note that Paul starts this letter with "Paul, a slave [servant] of Christ Jesus", you realize that Paul is quite comfortable with such language (as is the rest of the New Testament). Being both slaves and sons, servants and children, is an apparent paradox, but nonetheless a powerful truth. I think that the TNIV muddies the waters a bit when it doesn't have to, but perhaps I'm missing something. Can any of you think of a reason why the TNIV translation is preferable in this instance?
But this morning I was reading in Romans 8 and ran across v15, which reads like this:
The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father."
It caught me off guard because I'm used to something like the NIV, which reads, "For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear..." Part of the reason why I like reading different translations is that it offers different renderings that cause you to go back and look at what Paul is really saying, which is what happened here.
I'll tell you what I don't like about the TNIV rendering: it causes an unnecessary tension with other passages where Paul clearly tells us that we are slaves (or servants, they are the same word in Greek). For instance, in Romans 6:22 Paul says, "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." So the question is: are we slaves or not? The answer, of course, is that we are slaves, but to whom? This is the key to understanding the difference between slavery in 6:22 and in 8:15.
But if one read Romans 8:15 in the TNIV in isolation, they would assume that Paul has no place for "slavery" in the Christian life. However, when you read 6:22, and even note that Paul starts this letter with "Paul, a slave [servant] of Christ Jesus", you realize that Paul is quite comfortable with such language (as is the rest of the New Testament). Being both slaves and sons, servants and children, is an apparent paradox, but nonetheless a powerful truth. I think that the TNIV muddies the waters a bit when it doesn't have to, but perhaps I'm missing something. Can any of you think of a reason why the TNIV translation is preferable in this instance?
Saturday, August 11, 2007
on passing out tracts
I don't know too many folks who prefer to pass out tracts as their means of sharing the gospel. I do know of a few, but I wonder if it's a generational thing. My friends and I are reticent to use this form of evangelism, yet I know of some folks older than I who carry them around just in case. We have all sorts of reasons for not liking to pass out tracts, but most, I would imagine, center around our cowardice.
Late last night, my good friend Bruce and I went out and passed out water and tracts to folks cruising the bar scene in Allston. It was fairly simple, we had a folding table set up with some water and tracts. As people walked by, we offered them free water, if they stopped and took a tract, great. If not, we just said "have a nice night" or "God bless" or something like that, pretty harmless. I don't think either of us were expecting to shake the whole area or anything. No bars closed down, no healings, no mass conversions- just meeting a simple need (hydrating folks who drink too much alcohol) and offering a tract.
Now, I don't think that passing out tracts is necessarily the best form of evangelism. I think that we're better off sharing the gospel through consistent friendships and lifestyles. Generally speaking, if someone observes you and talks with you over a longer period of time, they are more likely to be impacted by what you say than if they are handed a tract by a random stranger on the street corner.
But I think we ought to reconsider our reticence. One, I don't think the damage done is nearly as bad as we would like to think. We make excuses about "scaring people off" and "leaving a bad taste in their mouth", but let's be honest: very few, if anyone, walks away from receiving a tract or pamphlet thinking "now I'll never believe in Jesus." Most are willing to walk away and throw away the tract and leave it at that, and will probably never give it another thought.
Two, it's true that the percentage of people who receive a tract and actually follow Christ is probably pretty small. Obviously we can't know that for sure, but I'd be willing to grant that point. But who cares? For little-to-no risk, if anyone is impacted isn't it worth it? I realize the "if one person comes to the Lord..." saying is as cliche as they come, but there is some merit to it. Besides, take a look at all the people you interact with any a fairly regular basis: family, friends, coworkers, corner market employees, neighbors, mailmen, coffee shop workers, etc. What percentage of these folks are coming to Christ by our "friendship evangelism" method? If it's fairly high in your life, God bless you and please share your secret. But most of us probably aren't doing too well, so we can't use the "how effective is it?" excuse regarding tracts. (Oh please Lord, help me.) While you're at it, take a second and read Mr Genor's Testimony. You can probably find the audio, I just found this transcript.
Three, there's something to be said for forcing us to do something that makes us uncomfortable. Last night I absolutely did not want to go out. Bruce and I had talked about it, and when I was more pumped up with zeal earlier in the day I was all for it. By the time 11:30pm had rolled around, I was ready to go to bed. I called Bruce and asked him what he wanted to do, to which he replied "let's go out." I think my answer was something like "that was not the answer I was rooting for" and Bruce replied "same here." Neither Bruce nor I are extroverted people, we don't strike up conversations with complete strangers on a regular basis. I'll give Bruce credit, he really pushed us out there and took the lead. Both of us wouldn't choose this form of evangelism, but it forced us to be more reliant on the Spirit than we normally would. If nothing else, we took a chance we normally wouldn't take. But, you never know, maybe one drunk frat boy will wake up this morning and read that little pamphlet two strangers handing out water gave him.
Late last night, my good friend Bruce and I went out and passed out water and tracts to folks cruising the bar scene in Allston. It was fairly simple, we had a folding table set up with some water and tracts. As people walked by, we offered them free water, if they stopped and took a tract, great. If not, we just said "have a nice night" or "God bless" or something like that, pretty harmless. I don't think either of us were expecting to shake the whole area or anything. No bars closed down, no healings, no mass conversions- just meeting a simple need (hydrating folks who drink too much alcohol) and offering a tract.
Now, I don't think that passing out tracts is necessarily the best form of evangelism. I think that we're better off sharing the gospel through consistent friendships and lifestyles. Generally speaking, if someone observes you and talks with you over a longer period of time, they are more likely to be impacted by what you say than if they are handed a tract by a random stranger on the street corner.
But I think we ought to reconsider our reticence. One, I don't think the damage done is nearly as bad as we would like to think. We make excuses about "scaring people off" and "leaving a bad taste in their mouth", but let's be honest: very few, if anyone, walks away from receiving a tract or pamphlet thinking "now I'll never believe in Jesus." Most are willing to walk away and throw away the tract and leave it at that, and will probably never give it another thought.
Two, it's true that the percentage of people who receive a tract and actually follow Christ is probably pretty small. Obviously we can't know that for sure, but I'd be willing to grant that point. But who cares? For little-to-no risk, if anyone is impacted isn't it worth it? I realize the "if one person comes to the Lord..." saying is as cliche as they come, but there is some merit to it. Besides, take a look at all the people you interact with any a fairly regular basis: family, friends, coworkers, corner market employees, neighbors, mailmen, coffee shop workers, etc. What percentage of these folks are coming to Christ by our "friendship evangelism" method? If it's fairly high in your life, God bless you and please share your secret. But most of us probably aren't doing too well, so we can't use the "how effective is it?" excuse regarding tracts. (Oh please Lord, help me.) While you're at it, take a second and read Mr Genor's Testimony. You can probably find the audio, I just found this transcript.
Three, there's something to be said for forcing us to do something that makes us uncomfortable. Last night I absolutely did not want to go out. Bruce and I had talked about it, and when I was more pumped up with zeal earlier in the day I was all for it. By the time 11:30pm had rolled around, I was ready to go to bed. I called Bruce and asked him what he wanted to do, to which he replied "let's go out." I think my answer was something like "that was not the answer I was rooting for" and Bruce replied "same here." Neither Bruce nor I are extroverted people, we don't strike up conversations with complete strangers on a regular basis. I'll give Bruce credit, he really pushed us out there and took the lead. Both of us wouldn't choose this form of evangelism, but it forced us to be more reliant on the Spirit than we normally would. If nothing else, we took a chance we normally wouldn't take. But, you never know, maybe one drunk frat boy will wake up this morning and read that little pamphlet two strangers handing out water gave him.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Boston Trades, Part I: the Red Sox
Note: this past week was an exciting week to be a Boston sports fan, with both the Red Sox and the Celtics making trades and generating excitement all throughout the city. These 2 posts are some thoughts I have on those deals and the implications of them.
It's interesting that a team can lead their division by 8 games and everyone in Boston is wondering what deal they'll make to help their team. But, that's Red Sox Nation. The consensus is that they had 2 needs: a right handed reliever and a right handed power hitting outfielder. They were unable to pick up a right handed hitter, although they tried to get Jermaine Dye from Chicago. The Sox had the advantage of not needing to make a trade involving one of their big prospects (Jon Lester, Clay Buchholz, and Jacoby Ellsbury), which is probably what Chicago was asking for. While getting another bat would have been nice, it isn't worth trading a major prospect for a .220 hitting rental.
They did, however, fill the need of a right handed reliever. It seems odd to say that they had a bullpen need, since they have what is widely regarded as the best bullpen in baseball. But there are potential problems with this bullpen: Hideki Okajima (the best setup man in baseball right now) has surpassed his highest number of innings pitched and it's the first week in August, Mike Timlin is hurt again, and Donnelly is out for the rest of the season. Papelbon is secure as the closer, though you have to be concerned with him wearing down.
What surprised me, though, is that the Sox went out and got a guy who has always been a closer. Eric Gagne was one of the best closers in baseball in Los Angeles, but he's been hurt the last couple years. His contract only runs through the end of this year, so we aren't stuck with a huge salary hit for years to come. Apparently he was willing to come and take a different role in order to have a good shot at winning a World Series, and you can't blame him. That gives us 3 guys in the bullpen who may finish with sub-2.00 ERAs. If the Sox have the lead going into the 7th, it'll be tough to come back on them.
Actually, this team now reminds me of the 2002 Angels, who won the World Series that year. Their starting pitching was good, but their bullpen was unhittable. Their offense was good enough to win, but nothing that blew you out of the water. The Sox should have a better offense than that, but they've been shaky, especially in clutch situations (which has been their area of expertise the last few years). I'm hopeful now that Manny is hitting well again that things will turn around, but they still need some more help (if only JD Drew would actually hit something...anything).
So this trade helps them solidify their place at the top of the AL East and keeps them among the top 2-3 teams in the AL. The other contenders (Tigers, Angels, Yankees, Twins) did nothing at the deadline to help their teams, which is odd. And while I'm sad to see Kason Gabbard go (I loved keeping score a couple weeks ago when he was pitching and looking at the scorecard to see so many ground ball outs, what a great performance), the trade was a good move. Now if our bats can hit enough to get us a lead by the 7th inning we should be all set.
It's interesting that a team can lead their division by 8 games and everyone in Boston is wondering what deal they'll make to help their team. But, that's Red Sox Nation. The consensus is that they had 2 needs: a right handed reliever and a right handed power hitting outfielder. They were unable to pick up a right handed hitter, although they tried to get Jermaine Dye from Chicago. The Sox had the advantage of not needing to make a trade involving one of their big prospects (Jon Lester, Clay Buchholz, and Jacoby Ellsbury), which is probably what Chicago was asking for. While getting another bat would have been nice, it isn't worth trading a major prospect for a .220 hitting rental.
They did, however, fill the need of a right handed reliever. It seems odd to say that they had a bullpen need, since they have what is widely regarded as the best bullpen in baseball. But there are potential problems with this bullpen: Hideki Okajima (the best setup man in baseball right now) has surpassed his highest number of innings pitched and it's the first week in August, Mike Timlin is hurt again, and Donnelly is out for the rest of the season. Papelbon is secure as the closer, though you have to be concerned with him wearing down.
What surprised me, though, is that the Sox went out and got a guy who has always been a closer. Eric Gagne was one of the best closers in baseball in Los Angeles, but he's been hurt the last couple years. His contract only runs through the end of this year, so we aren't stuck with a huge salary hit for years to come. Apparently he was willing to come and take a different role in order to have a good shot at winning a World Series, and you can't blame him. That gives us 3 guys in the bullpen who may finish with sub-2.00 ERAs. If the Sox have the lead going into the 7th, it'll be tough to come back on them.
Actually, this team now reminds me of the 2002 Angels, who won the World Series that year. Their starting pitching was good, but their bullpen was unhittable. Their offense was good enough to win, but nothing that blew you out of the water. The Sox should have a better offense than that, but they've been shaky, especially in clutch situations (which has been their area of expertise the last few years). I'm hopeful now that Manny is hitting well again that things will turn around, but they still need some more help (if only JD Drew would actually hit something...anything).
So this trade helps them solidify their place at the top of the AL East and keeps them among the top 2-3 teams in the AL. The other contenders (Tigers, Angels, Yankees, Twins) did nothing at the deadline to help their teams, which is odd. And while I'm sad to see Kason Gabbard go (I loved keeping score a couple weeks ago when he was pitching and looking at the scorecard to see so many ground ball outs, what a great performance), the trade was a good move. Now if our bats can hit enough to get us a lead by the 7th inning we should be all set.
Boston Trades, Part II: the Celtics
I'm sure you all recall last Saturday's post where I discussed the rabid obsession the city of Boston has with offseason sports talk. Normally, this involves the Red Sox and the Patriots, but this past week the Celtics finally made some waves. For the past few years, most of the city couldn't care less about the Celtics during the season, nevermind talking about them at the beginning of August. That all changed with two words: Kevin Garnett.
Here's a little background for those of you who aren't too familiar with the Boston Celtics. The Celtics have won 16 titles, the most of any NBA franchise. But there hasn't been a championship since 1986. Prior to that point the dominated the 50's-60's, won 2 titles in the 70's, and 3 more in the 80's. They had the greatest center of all time (Bill Russell), the point guard that changed the game (Bob Cousy), one of the most underrated superstars of all time (John Havlicek, who scored over 26,000 points without a 3-point line), one of the greatest clutch performers in sports history (Larry Bird) and the genius who ran the whole show (Red Auerbach). Secondary performers on this team would have been "the man" in many other places (Kevin McHale, Sam Jones). The Celtics were the best franchise in basketball, hands down, perhaps the most successful franshise in all of sports.
But in 1986 the Celtics drafted Len Bias from Maryland with the number 2 pick, then he promptly died a couple days later of a cocaine overdose. After that the stars starting getting injured, with McHale playing on a bad foot that troubles him to this day, and Bird sitting in traction all day for his back then showing up to play a game at night. They looked like they had a chance with Reggie Lewis in the early 90's, but he died suddenly with a heart condition. They've struggled in mediocrity ever since, becoming irrelevant on the Boston sports scene.
Danny Ainge returned a few years ago to help rebuild the franchise and make them a contender. He opted, understandably, to go young and give a few years to rebuild. He drafted Al Jefferson, who will be a superstar, and a few other youngsters to team up with Paul Pierce. This method didn't work too well and the Celtics have been mired in mediocrity and the apathy of their fanbase. The problem: the Red Sox and Patriots won titles and contended most years while the Celtics were irrelevant.
On May 22 the Celtics didn't get one of the top 2 picks in the draft and the general feeling was that they had lost out on their chance to become relevant again. But, give Ainge credit, the "go young" plan was thrown out the window and they traded for Ray Allen on draft day, a high scoring shooting guard from Seattle. I wrote on June 30 that the Celtics had to make another deal to get themselves into title contention. I also wrote "Thankfully, Jefferson is, as of right now, still a Celtic. If you're guaranteed a title by trading him, then maybe it would be okay; but that isn't likely to happen, so the best thing they could do is keep him."
I was right, the Celtics did have another deal to make, and it involved Jefferson. While they aren't necessarily guaranteed a title (which I suppose is impossible anyway), they are now front runners to do so. They got Kevin Garnett, one of the top 10 players in the game today, probably top 5. That gives them 2 of the top 15 (Pierce and Garnett), and 3 of the top 25 players in the game (with Ray Allen). They are the best team in the East on paper, and easily in the top 5 of the entire NBA (I'd say 4th behind San Antonio, Phoenix and Dallas). They are relevant.
There are problems, or at least potential problems. Outside of the big 3, they have a young and not-quite-ready point guard (Rajon Rondo), a starting center who would be a solid backup (Kendrick Perkins) and not much else. Oh yeah, they still have a shaky coach in Doc Rivers (though Bill Simmons has pointed out that the lack of decent players may help solve Doc's inability to come up with a consistent rotation- by only having 7 NBA-quality guys he can't really mess it up). I think the big 3 is enough to win the East, I'm not sure they're enough to beat the top teams of the West, especially if one of them gets injured.
What I love about the big 3 is the "hunger factor." All 3 have had disappointing teams: Pierce has always had to carry an undertalented team, Allen has been stuck in places like Milwaukee and Seattle, and Garnett has been exiled with awful teams in Minnesota. These are 3 All-Stars who have never seriously contending for a title, and now that they are in their early 30's, they are dying for the opportunity to win it all. It bodes well that we now have 3 highly competitive veterans who are hungry to hoist the championship trophy.
I'm sad to see Jefferson go, and I hope he tears it up in Minnesota. But the bottom line is that if you have a chance to win a title soon, you make the necessary moves to do so. Give Ainge credit, he tried the youth movement and failed, so he ditched it and was able to pull off two deals to put themselves in a position to contend. Boston is now a place where veteran free agents want to play, which 2 months ago was unthinkable. And Boston is talking about the Celtics in the middle of the Red Sox leading the division and the Patriots starting training camp with an amazing roster. That was unthinkable not only 2 months ago, but for the past few years.
Here's a little background for those of you who aren't too familiar with the Boston Celtics. The Celtics have won 16 titles, the most of any NBA franchise. But there hasn't been a championship since 1986. Prior to that point the dominated the 50's-60's, won 2 titles in the 70's, and 3 more in the 80's. They had the greatest center of all time (Bill Russell), the point guard that changed the game (Bob Cousy), one of the most underrated superstars of all time (John Havlicek, who scored over 26,000 points without a 3-point line), one of the greatest clutch performers in sports history (Larry Bird) and the genius who ran the whole show (Red Auerbach). Secondary performers on this team would have been "the man" in many other places (Kevin McHale, Sam Jones). The Celtics were the best franchise in basketball, hands down, perhaps the most successful franshise in all of sports.
But in 1986 the Celtics drafted Len Bias from Maryland with the number 2 pick, then he promptly died a couple days later of a cocaine overdose. After that the stars starting getting injured, with McHale playing on a bad foot that troubles him to this day, and Bird sitting in traction all day for his back then showing up to play a game at night. They looked like they had a chance with Reggie Lewis in the early 90's, but he died suddenly with a heart condition. They've struggled in mediocrity ever since, becoming irrelevant on the Boston sports scene.
Danny Ainge returned a few years ago to help rebuild the franchise and make them a contender. He opted, understandably, to go young and give a few years to rebuild. He drafted Al Jefferson, who will be a superstar, and a few other youngsters to team up with Paul Pierce. This method didn't work too well and the Celtics have been mired in mediocrity and the apathy of their fanbase. The problem: the Red Sox and Patriots won titles and contended most years while the Celtics were irrelevant.
On May 22 the Celtics didn't get one of the top 2 picks in the draft and the general feeling was that they had lost out on their chance to become relevant again. But, give Ainge credit, the "go young" plan was thrown out the window and they traded for Ray Allen on draft day, a high scoring shooting guard from Seattle. I wrote on June 30 that the Celtics had to make another deal to get themselves into title contention. I also wrote "Thankfully, Jefferson is, as of right now, still a Celtic. If you're guaranteed a title by trading him, then maybe it would be okay; but that isn't likely to happen, so the best thing they could do is keep him."
I was right, the Celtics did have another deal to make, and it involved Jefferson. While they aren't necessarily guaranteed a title (which I suppose is impossible anyway), they are now front runners to do so. They got Kevin Garnett, one of the top 10 players in the game today, probably top 5. That gives them 2 of the top 15 (Pierce and Garnett), and 3 of the top 25 players in the game (with Ray Allen). They are the best team in the East on paper, and easily in the top 5 of the entire NBA (I'd say 4th behind San Antonio, Phoenix and Dallas). They are relevant.
There are problems, or at least potential problems. Outside of the big 3, they have a young and not-quite-ready point guard (Rajon Rondo), a starting center who would be a solid backup (Kendrick Perkins) and not much else. Oh yeah, they still have a shaky coach in Doc Rivers (though Bill Simmons has pointed out that the lack of decent players may help solve Doc's inability to come up with a consistent rotation- by only having 7 NBA-quality guys he can't really mess it up). I think the big 3 is enough to win the East, I'm not sure they're enough to beat the top teams of the West, especially if one of them gets injured.
What I love about the big 3 is the "hunger factor." All 3 have had disappointing teams: Pierce has always had to carry an undertalented team, Allen has been stuck in places like Milwaukee and Seattle, and Garnett has been exiled with awful teams in Minnesota. These are 3 All-Stars who have never seriously contending for a title, and now that they are in their early 30's, they are dying for the opportunity to win it all. It bodes well that we now have 3 highly competitive veterans who are hungry to hoist the championship trophy.
I'm sad to see Jefferson go, and I hope he tears it up in Minnesota. But the bottom line is that if you have a chance to win a title soon, you make the necessary moves to do so. Give Ainge credit, he tried the youth movement and failed, so he ditched it and was able to pull off two deals to put themselves in a position to contend. Boston is now a place where veteran free agents want to play, which 2 months ago was unthinkable. And Boston is talking about the Celtics in the middle of the Red Sox leading the division and the Patriots starting training camp with an amazing roster. That was unthinkable not only 2 months ago, but for the past few years.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
a couple small changes
Every now and then I get the inspiration to update the links/pictures on the right of this page. Since I rarely even get the inspiration to post something, I figure making changes ought to be celebrated, no matter how small. So, I organized my links slightly differently. I start with blogs of people I know, but now have alphabetized them by first name (a couple of you may not have known I even read your blog), note that A-Rock's first name is actually Aarik, hence being first in my list..
From there I separate my links into 2 more categories: sites I quasi-regularly visit regarding Christianity or theology (this is broadly speaking, admittedly) and other sites I visit that don't fall under either of the other 2 categories. The first of these are in no particular order, the second in alphabetical order. Why am I not consistenly in my alphabetizing? Because this is my site and I'll do what I want, that's why. I'm assuming I don't have to say this, but just because I link to something doesn't mean I wholeheartedly endorse everything (or anything, for that matter) those sites contain. It just means I find them interesting enough to read.
I also try to update the pictures of books I'm reading and cds I'm listening to every few months or so. The books are fairly up to date, and at some point I really want post some thoughts on the "How to Read the Bible..." books now that I've used them in teaching for the last year. The cds are somewhat up to date. Truth be told, I don't listen to nearly as much music as I used to, largely because I rarely have time to sit down and listen anymore. I've added "Whole 'Nother Deal", "Photographs", and "Jazzy Jeff & the Fresh Prince Greatest Hits" to the list, which have been my companions on the car lately. That's right, DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince have made my cd rotation. You'd have to understand that I go way back with these guys. It's not so much the music as it is the trip down memory lane that I appreciate. A little nostalgia is good for the soul.
At any rate, there you go. I keep hoping I'll post more, but you know how that goes. This is, however, my second post of the day, even if this one doesn't really count. Small victories, my friends, small victories.
From there I separate my links into 2 more categories: sites I quasi-regularly visit regarding Christianity or theology (this is broadly speaking, admittedly) and other sites I visit that don't fall under either of the other 2 categories. The first of these are in no particular order, the second in alphabetical order. Why am I not consistenly in my alphabetizing? Because this is my site and I'll do what I want, that's why. I'm assuming I don't have to say this, but just because I link to something doesn't mean I wholeheartedly endorse everything (or anything, for that matter) those sites contain. It just means I find them interesting enough to read.
I also try to update the pictures of books I'm reading and cds I'm listening to every few months or so. The books are fairly up to date, and at some point I really want post some thoughts on the "How to Read the Bible..." books now that I've used them in teaching for the last year. The cds are somewhat up to date. Truth be told, I don't listen to nearly as much music as I used to, largely because I rarely have time to sit down and listen anymore. I've added "Whole 'Nother Deal", "Photographs", and "Jazzy Jeff & the Fresh Prince Greatest Hits" to the list, which have been my companions on the car lately. That's right, DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince have made my cd rotation. You'd have to understand that I go way back with these guys. It's not so much the music as it is the trip down memory lane that I appreciate. A little nostalgia is good for the soul.
At any rate, there you go. I keep hoping I'll post more, but you know how that goes. This is, however, my second post of the day, even if this one doesn't really count. Small victories, my friends, small victories.
ah, preseason football
In a city like Boston, offseason sports talk can be just as exciting as regular season sports talk. This is especially true for the Red Sox and the Patriots. Baseball may end in October, but that doesn't stop everyone from calling in radio shows and making ridiculous trade proposals or predicting how the Sox will dominate/flop. In fact, the love for speculation has grown so powerful that I heard a guy call up a popular radio show the other day and offer thoughts on next year's pitching rotation! It's July, the Sox have a 7.5 game lead over the Yankees, we have the potential to win another World Series, and some local yokel is worrying about who is going to be our number 5 starter next season! Ah, Boston.
While the Sox normally dominate offseason speculation, the Patriots are giving them a good run for their money this time around, and for good reason. The Pats were one 1st down away from making another trip to the Super Bowl. They had no receiver who could make a defense pay for leaving them in single coverage. They didn't have a linebacker who could stop a run up the middle or provide coverage in the middle of the field (poor Tedy Bruschi has lost a step or two). They had obvious holes, but still they were this close to going to the Super Bowl (and probably winning it).
So, the Pats made a splash this offseason. For receivers, they added Wes Welker, Dante Stallworth and Randy Moss. Welker is the speedy slot receiver, the kind of guy Tom Brady loves. Stallworth and Moss give them legitimate downfield threats. All 3 of these guys are upgrades from anyone they had last year. So, on paper, they seem to have advanced significantly.
Here are the potential problems: Stallworth has a history of substance abuse problems. Moss has a history of not trying hard in practice or in the game. These are not typical Patriots guys. Patriots guys are like Bruschi or Vrabel. They are "less talented" players who have worked their butts off to learn the most difficult system in football and give up their personal stats for the sake of winning. Stallworth may be okay, but Moss is the biggest concern. He may be the most physically talented receiver in the history of football, and that's not an exaggeration. But he doesn't care. In the Patriots offense, it's unlikely he will catch more than 70 passes, and I'm not sure it'll be that many. I think Welker may end up with more catches in this offense. Will Moss survive the season not being the center of Brady's attention? As I heard someone say this week, "Brady's favorite receiver is whoever's open." He won't take a chance 50 yards downfield if there's someone open over the middle. How will Moss feel about that?
At linebacker, they added Adalius Thomas, one of the most versatile linebackers in the league. This guy, at least from a physical attribute standpoint, is a classic Belichick guy. Belichick loves guys who can play multiple roles (Troy Brown, Mike Vrabel, Richard Seymour), and Thomas has more raw skills (strength, speed) than any other linebacker they have. The questions are: can he learn the system and will he pass up personal glory for the sake of the team? I don't know enough about him to offer up an opinion, but I will be watching.
So on paper this team looks like it should go to the Super Bowl. In fact, most experts have written their name down in ink rather than pencil, which is enough to make me worried. As a Boston sports fan, it's in my nature to downplay my team's chances so as not to be disappointed. But the truth is this team should go to the Super Bowl. We have the best coach, the best quarterback (who now has weapons), the best defensive line, an improved linebacking core, and so on. All this for a team that was one 1st down away from going to the Super Bowl. But training camp will tell us a lot. Will Moss even get through (I'm not convinced he will, I wouldn't be surprised to see him get cut at the first sign of trouble). Will the new additions mesh well with the veterans? It makes preseason a lot of fun (but not quite as much fun as the real thing).
While the Sox normally dominate offseason speculation, the Patriots are giving them a good run for their money this time around, and for good reason. The Pats were one 1st down away from making another trip to the Super Bowl. They had no receiver who could make a defense pay for leaving them in single coverage. They didn't have a linebacker who could stop a run up the middle or provide coverage in the middle of the field (poor Tedy Bruschi has lost a step or two). They had obvious holes, but still they were this close to going to the Super Bowl (and probably winning it).
So, the Pats made a splash this offseason. For receivers, they added Wes Welker, Dante Stallworth and Randy Moss. Welker is the speedy slot receiver, the kind of guy Tom Brady loves. Stallworth and Moss give them legitimate downfield threats. All 3 of these guys are upgrades from anyone they had last year. So, on paper, they seem to have advanced significantly.
Here are the potential problems: Stallworth has a history of substance abuse problems. Moss has a history of not trying hard in practice or in the game. These are not typical Patriots guys. Patriots guys are like Bruschi or Vrabel. They are "less talented" players who have worked their butts off to learn the most difficult system in football and give up their personal stats for the sake of winning. Stallworth may be okay, but Moss is the biggest concern. He may be the most physically talented receiver in the history of football, and that's not an exaggeration. But he doesn't care. In the Patriots offense, it's unlikely he will catch more than 70 passes, and I'm not sure it'll be that many. I think Welker may end up with more catches in this offense. Will Moss survive the season not being the center of Brady's attention? As I heard someone say this week, "Brady's favorite receiver is whoever's open." He won't take a chance 50 yards downfield if there's someone open over the middle. How will Moss feel about that?
At linebacker, they added Adalius Thomas, one of the most versatile linebackers in the league. This guy, at least from a physical attribute standpoint, is a classic Belichick guy. Belichick loves guys who can play multiple roles (Troy Brown, Mike Vrabel, Richard Seymour), and Thomas has more raw skills (strength, speed) than any other linebacker they have. The questions are: can he learn the system and will he pass up personal glory for the sake of the team? I don't know enough about him to offer up an opinion, but I will be watching.
So on paper this team looks like it should go to the Super Bowl. In fact, most experts have written their name down in ink rather than pencil, which is enough to make me worried. As a Boston sports fan, it's in my nature to downplay my team's chances so as not to be disappointed. But the truth is this team should go to the Super Bowl. We have the best coach, the best quarterback (who now has weapons), the best defensive line, an improved linebacking core, and so on. All this for a team that was one 1st down away from going to the Super Bowl. But training camp will tell us a lot. Will Moss even get through (I'm not convinced he will, I wouldn't be surprised to see him get cut at the first sign of trouble). Will the new additions mesh well with the veterans? It makes preseason a lot of fun (but not quite as much fun as the real thing).
Friday, July 13, 2007
Red Sox midseason report
So we're coming off the All-Star break with the Sox leading Toronto and New York by 10 games in the AL East. So am I worried? Of course, but for more than the typical "I'm a Sox fan and I'm always worried" reasons, although that's true enough. But despite the large lead and impressive performances, I think there is grounds for concern.
Those grounds start with the fact that this team is built to win the World Series, not just the division. If all we cared about was winning the AL East, we'll be fine. I don't think it's overconfident to say that the Sox will probably win the division. Yes, the Blue Jays are good, but they don't have the firepower in the rotation or in the lineup to overcome the Sox. The Yankees have floundered, but they have played better as of late and you know they'll have to get better. But, in all honesty, I don't think they have the pitching to pull off a comeback. Of course they could, you can't count them out, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Red Sox Nation, however, shouldn't be content with winning the division. We're passed the stage of being happy with just beating the Yankees, our payroll is too big for that. Besides, we already did that in the single greatest comeback in the history of sports in 2004. Remember when the Sox were down 3-0 against the Yankees, then Dave Roberts stole second, Bill Mueller drove him in with a clutch single off the greatest closer of all time, Mariano Rivera, and the Sox went on to beat the Yankees the next 4 games and sweep the Cardinals for their first World Series victory since 1918? Remember that? Yeah, that was awesome. (Now pause for a second and recall your favorites 2004 memories).
Anyway, so here's the deal: the Sox aren't really beating the best teams around, particularly Detroit. That scares me. There's no reason for us to be swept by the Tigers, this team is built too carefully to be able to lose like that. Yet, heading into the All-Star break, that's exactly what happened. Sure, we look great against Tampa Bay. Who cares? Unless the Devil Rays receive some special invite to the playoffs it doesn't matter.
The pitching has been great, 2nd in the AL in ERA, with the best bullpen in the game. No one can complain about it. Yet, I still find myself being a little worried. Sure, Okajima and Papelbon are the best setup-man/closer tandem in baseball. But do we have a righty out of the bullpen we can trust? Delcarmen has looked great recently, but we can't put all our stock in a 23 year old with a spotty track record for the last couple years. I love him, and I think he'll do well in the future, but for now I don't necessarily think he's our guy (though part of me hopes he is, he's a local kid making it big, gotta love that).
I've also spoken about my doubts of Curt Schilling. Yes, he almost threw a no-hitter. But then he stunk his next few starts and is now on the disabled list. He ain't a kid anymore. And Wakefield has been solid, but not great, same for Tavares (who I love, if for no other reason than his resemblance to Nosferatu, I will stand by this forever). So that leaves us with Beckett and Dice-K, which is awesome. But can we beat the Tigers with that tandem? Are they better than Verlander/Bonderman/Rogers? I'm not sure. And that worries me.
Our offense has been fairly flat. Manny and Ortiz haven't hit for power, Drew is proving to be a bust (I'd point out that I predicted that, but that wasn't exactly difficulty), Lugo can't hit any better than I can, and Coco has only recently decided to make contact with the ball. Youkilis has been phenomenal, so has Pedroia (after a horrific start), Lowell and Varitek have both been solid. All this to say, this is the area of need. They may not have to make a deal, that is, if Manny and Ortiz step it up. That would be enough. On paper this is a great offense, but they just haven't worked out so far. I'd rather not have to make a deal, since I don't want to see any prospects go.
So here's where I stand. We are actually the 2nd best team in the AL, behind Detroit. If Manny and Ortiz, particularly Manny, step up with the production (Ortiz has a decent average, but his power numbers are way down), we may not have to trade a prospect for another bat. We may need to make a deal for another starter if Schilling doesn't come back. Sigh. I hate it. My favorite team in the whole world is dominating their division and I'm still looking over my shoulder. 86 years is hard to overcome...
Those grounds start with the fact that this team is built to win the World Series, not just the division. If all we cared about was winning the AL East, we'll be fine. I don't think it's overconfident to say that the Sox will probably win the division. Yes, the Blue Jays are good, but they don't have the firepower in the rotation or in the lineup to overcome the Sox. The Yankees have floundered, but they have played better as of late and you know they'll have to get better. But, in all honesty, I don't think they have the pitching to pull off a comeback. Of course they could, you can't count them out, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Red Sox Nation, however, shouldn't be content with winning the division. We're passed the stage of being happy with just beating the Yankees, our payroll is too big for that. Besides, we already did that in the single greatest comeback in the history of sports in 2004. Remember when the Sox were down 3-0 against the Yankees, then Dave Roberts stole second, Bill Mueller drove him in with a clutch single off the greatest closer of all time, Mariano Rivera, and the Sox went on to beat the Yankees the next 4 games and sweep the Cardinals for their first World Series victory since 1918? Remember that? Yeah, that was awesome. (Now pause for a second and recall your favorites 2004 memories).
Anyway, so here's the deal: the Sox aren't really beating the best teams around, particularly Detroit. That scares me. There's no reason for us to be swept by the Tigers, this team is built too carefully to be able to lose like that. Yet, heading into the All-Star break, that's exactly what happened. Sure, we look great against Tampa Bay. Who cares? Unless the Devil Rays receive some special invite to the playoffs it doesn't matter.
The pitching has been great, 2nd in the AL in ERA, with the best bullpen in the game. No one can complain about it. Yet, I still find myself being a little worried. Sure, Okajima and Papelbon are the best setup-man/closer tandem in baseball. But do we have a righty out of the bullpen we can trust? Delcarmen has looked great recently, but we can't put all our stock in a 23 year old with a spotty track record for the last couple years. I love him, and I think he'll do well in the future, but for now I don't necessarily think he's our guy (though part of me hopes he is, he's a local kid making it big, gotta love that).
I've also spoken about my doubts of Curt Schilling. Yes, he almost threw a no-hitter. But then he stunk his next few starts and is now on the disabled list. He ain't a kid anymore. And Wakefield has been solid, but not great, same for Tavares (who I love, if for no other reason than his resemblance to Nosferatu, I will stand by this forever). So that leaves us with Beckett and Dice-K, which is awesome. But can we beat the Tigers with that tandem? Are they better than Verlander/Bonderman/Rogers? I'm not sure. And that worries me.
Our offense has been fairly flat. Manny and Ortiz haven't hit for power, Drew is proving to be a bust (I'd point out that I predicted that, but that wasn't exactly difficulty), Lugo can't hit any better than I can, and Coco has only recently decided to make contact with the ball. Youkilis has been phenomenal, so has Pedroia (after a horrific start), Lowell and Varitek have both been solid. All this to say, this is the area of need. They may not have to make a deal, that is, if Manny and Ortiz step it up. That would be enough. On paper this is a great offense, but they just haven't worked out so far. I'd rather not have to make a deal, since I don't want to see any prospects go.
So here's where I stand. We are actually the 2nd best team in the AL, behind Detroit. If Manny and Ortiz, particularly Manny, step up with the production (Ortiz has a decent average, but his power numbers are way down), we may not have to trade a prospect for another bat. We may need to make a deal for another starter if Schilling doesn't come back. Sigh. I hate it. My favorite team in the whole world is dominating their division and I'm still looking over my shoulder. 86 years is hard to overcome...
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Hymn of the Week: Rock of Ages
Has it really been 6 months since my last Hymn of the Week post? Yikes! A few weeks back we sang this hymn in church during communion time (at the request of fellow hymnophile JP). It's an 18th century hymn written by Augustus Montague Toplady in Britian. It's not necessarily one most of us sing very often or even know, but it is a terrific hymn. Check out the lyrics:
Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee;
Let the water and the blood,
From Thy riven side which flowed,
Be of sin the double cure;
Save from wrath and make me pure.
Not the labour of my hands
Can fulfil Thy law’s demands;
Could my zeal no respite know,
Could my tears for ever flow,
All for sin could not atone;
Thou must save, and Thou alone.
Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to the cross I cling;
Naked, come to Thee for dress;
Helpless, look to Thee for grace;
Foul, I to the fountain fly;
Wash me, Saviour, else I die.
While I draw this fleeting breath,
When my eyelids close in death,
When I soar to worlds unknown,
See Thee on Thy judgement throne,
Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee.
Note: the line "when my eyelids close in death" originally read "when my eyestrings break in death." I'm not sure when this line was changed, but I do have to wonder why "eyestrings" was ever a word.
You'll note how the lyrics are strongly theocentric- it places the work of salvation (presented in various metaphors and pictures) in God's hands. I've read that Toplady wrote this in response to the perceived man-centered approach of John Wesley (an assessment I disagree with). I'm quite certain that an Arminian/Wesleyan could sing this hymn without any trouble (nor more than one who is reformed singing And Can It Be).
This song, like a number of others I've mentioned, ends with an eschatological view. Many of the great hymns conclude with the hope of eternity with the Lord. I like how the hymn begins and ends with the hope of God protecting us (anyone who has heard me teach will be quick to point out that this literary device is called "inclusio") because it helps us to see that the same loving God that covers us now will continue to cover us for eternity.
One concept in this song that many may struggle with is the inadequacy of anything we can offer God. This is a song about what God has done/is doing/will do rather than what we will do. The actions that we do in this song (for example, "come to Thee", "look to Thee") are accompanied by descriptions of our inability to offer anything good on our own- "naked","helpless."
Any thoughts you'd like to share?
Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee;
Let the water and the blood,
From Thy riven side which flowed,
Be of sin the double cure;
Save from wrath and make me pure.
Not the labour of my hands
Can fulfil Thy law’s demands;
Could my zeal no respite know,
Could my tears for ever flow,
All for sin could not atone;
Thou must save, and Thou alone.
Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to the cross I cling;
Naked, come to Thee for dress;
Helpless, look to Thee for grace;
Foul, I to the fountain fly;
Wash me, Saviour, else I die.
While I draw this fleeting breath,
When my eyelids close in death,
When I soar to worlds unknown,
See Thee on Thy judgement throne,
Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee.
Note: the line "when my eyelids close in death" originally read "when my eyestrings break in death." I'm not sure when this line was changed, but I do have to wonder why "eyestrings" was ever a word.
You'll note how the lyrics are strongly theocentric- it places the work of salvation (presented in various metaphors and pictures) in God's hands. I've read that Toplady wrote this in response to the perceived man-centered approach of John Wesley (an assessment I disagree with). I'm quite certain that an Arminian/Wesleyan could sing this hymn without any trouble (nor more than one who is reformed singing And Can It Be).
This song, like a number of others I've mentioned, ends with an eschatological view. Many of the great hymns conclude with the hope of eternity with the Lord. I like how the hymn begins and ends with the hope of God protecting us (anyone who has heard me teach will be quick to point out that this literary device is called "inclusio") because it helps us to see that the same loving God that covers us now will continue to cover us for eternity.
One concept in this song that many may struggle with is the inadequacy of anything we can offer God. This is a song about what God has done/is doing/will do rather than what we will do. The actions that we do in this song (for example, "come to Thee", "look to Thee") are accompanied by descriptions of our inability to offer anything good on our own- "naked","helpless."
Any thoughts you'd like to share?
Saturday, June 30, 2007
thoughts on the Celtics draft day
No matter what happened on Thursday night, all of us Celtics fans were going to be slightly disappointed (or more than slightly) because we weren't getting one of the top 2 picks. It's even more deflating considering the Celts did everything they could in the last couple months to ensure they ended up with an awful record to help their chances in getting a top-2 pick. Alas, the ended up picking #5, which is generally really good in a deep draft like this. But, if management wants to win pronto, that pick wasn't going to help. Thus, I, like many others, felt the Celtics (with Danny Ainge at GM and Doc Rivers at head coach) would trade this pick and pick up a veteran in attempt to win soon.
And the Celtics did just that. They traded the #5 pick (Jeff Green of Georgetown), point guard Delonte West and Wally Szczerbiak to Seattle for all-star guard Ray Allen and the #35 pick (they got Big Baby Davis from LSU, a solid big man). Granted, Kevin Garnett would have been preferable to Ray Allen, but that deal wasn't going to happen on draft day. So, Ainge pulled the trigger on this deal; the question is: was it the right deal?
In assessing any deal the Celts were going to make, the number one concern for me was retaining Al Jefferson. Jefferson is one of the best young big men in the game, a soon-to-be perennial All-Star. There was plenty of trade talk regarding him, since he is one of the most coveted young players in the game, but I felt like trading him would be a panic move. In other words, Ainge and Rivers would be fearing getting fired if they don't win immediately, so they trade the future for the present. Thankfully, Jefferson is, as of right now, still a Celtic. If you're guaranteed a title by trading him, then maybe it would be okay; but that isn't likely to happen, so the best thing they could do is keep him.
So the goal was to make the team a legit contender in the East right away without giving up Jefferson. I guess the Celtics did that by getting Ray Allen. That gives them 3 legit scoring threats in Paul Pierce, Jefferson and Allen. Actually, that's more than "legit scoring threats", they are bonafide scorers. However, one of the biggest areas of concern is the lack of defense on this team, and Allen does not help in that department much at all. Then again, Szczerbiak is one of the worst defenders in the league. So, this team will score a lot of points, and they will give up a lot of points.
But they are better than they were going into the draft. I think this deal puts them somewhere around the 4-5 best team in the East. The problem is that they aren't likely to be much better than that unless they make another deal or somehow steal a great draft pick in next year's draft. This team will not contend for a title as they are presently constituted, that's all there is to it. But they are better.
Some decry this deal because of Ray Allen's age (he's turning 32 next month). For sure this has to be a concern, since most shooting guards begin to falter at about this time. Others decry this deal because of injury concerns, since Allen missed time last year due to ankle problems. I'd simply point out that he missed more time than he needed since Seattle was, just like the Celtics, attempting to lose games in order to gain a better draft pick (unlike the Celtics, they succeeded, grabbing Kevin Durant at the #2 pick).
So here is the starting lineup for next year, subject to change if they make more deals:
Point Guard- Rajon Rondo
Shooting Guard- Ray Allen
Small Forward- Paul Pierce
Power Forward- Al Jefferson
Center- Kendrick Perkins
The weakest spot here is Perkins, who is a serviceable big man, not really a center you can win a title with. The also have little help off the bench. Allan Ray (not to be confused with Ray Allen) is their best defender off the bench. If they want to go small, they could go with a combination of Rondo, Ray, Allen, Pierce and Jefferson (and that's awfully small). They don't really have a backup point guard, either, which is a shame seeing how young Rondo is. I suspect they'll make another trade, packaging Theo Ratliff, Gerald Green and some future draft pick for another veteran sometime during the season (and probably Sebastian Telfair and his gun-wielding posse, too).
All this to say, I think the Celtics made their team better. But they've locked themselves into winning with the next 2-3 years or else. If not, Pierce and Allen will be too old or gone and they're left with Jefferson and a core of mostly role players. The other option would have been to trade Paul Pierce and go completely young, like the Bulls have done (to some success). That's dangerous because you simply stockpile young players who aren't likely to win a championship in hopes that they'll stick with the teama few years down the road rather than jumping ship.
So I think this team will win about half of it's games, scoring a bunch and giving up even more, and will get bounced in the second round of the playoffs. They won't contend for an Eastern Conference title this year, but maybe the following. Of course, this is all subject to change if they make another deal, and they probably will. I give them a "B" for draft day.
And the Celtics did just that. They traded the #5 pick (Jeff Green of Georgetown), point guard Delonte West and Wally Szczerbiak to Seattle for all-star guard Ray Allen and the #35 pick (they got Big Baby Davis from LSU, a solid big man). Granted, Kevin Garnett would have been preferable to Ray Allen, but that deal wasn't going to happen on draft day. So, Ainge pulled the trigger on this deal; the question is: was it the right deal?
In assessing any deal the Celts were going to make, the number one concern for me was retaining Al Jefferson. Jefferson is one of the best young big men in the game, a soon-to-be perennial All-Star. There was plenty of trade talk regarding him, since he is one of the most coveted young players in the game, but I felt like trading him would be a panic move. In other words, Ainge and Rivers would be fearing getting fired if they don't win immediately, so they trade the future for the present. Thankfully, Jefferson is, as of right now, still a Celtic. If you're guaranteed a title by trading him, then maybe it would be okay; but that isn't likely to happen, so the best thing they could do is keep him.
So the goal was to make the team a legit contender in the East right away without giving up Jefferson. I guess the Celtics did that by getting Ray Allen. That gives them 3 legit scoring threats in Paul Pierce, Jefferson and Allen. Actually, that's more than "legit scoring threats", they are bonafide scorers. However, one of the biggest areas of concern is the lack of defense on this team, and Allen does not help in that department much at all. Then again, Szczerbiak is one of the worst defenders in the league. So, this team will score a lot of points, and they will give up a lot of points.
But they are better than they were going into the draft. I think this deal puts them somewhere around the 4-5 best team in the East. The problem is that they aren't likely to be much better than that unless they make another deal or somehow steal a great draft pick in next year's draft. This team will not contend for a title as they are presently constituted, that's all there is to it. But they are better.
Some decry this deal because of Ray Allen's age (he's turning 32 next month). For sure this has to be a concern, since most shooting guards begin to falter at about this time. Others decry this deal because of injury concerns, since Allen missed time last year due to ankle problems. I'd simply point out that he missed more time than he needed since Seattle was, just like the Celtics, attempting to lose games in order to gain a better draft pick (unlike the Celtics, they succeeded, grabbing Kevin Durant at the #2 pick).
So here is the starting lineup for next year, subject to change if they make more deals:
Point Guard- Rajon Rondo
Shooting Guard- Ray Allen
Small Forward- Paul Pierce
Power Forward- Al Jefferson
Center- Kendrick Perkins
The weakest spot here is Perkins, who is a serviceable big man, not really a center you can win a title with. The also have little help off the bench. Allan Ray (not to be confused with Ray Allen) is their best defender off the bench. If they want to go small, they could go with a combination of Rondo, Ray, Allen, Pierce and Jefferson (and that's awfully small). They don't really have a backup point guard, either, which is a shame seeing how young Rondo is. I suspect they'll make another trade, packaging Theo Ratliff, Gerald Green and some future draft pick for another veteran sometime during the season (and probably Sebastian Telfair and his gun-wielding posse, too).
All this to say, I think the Celtics made their team better. But they've locked themselves into winning with the next 2-3 years or else. If not, Pierce and Allen will be too old or gone and they're left with Jefferson and a core of mostly role players. The other option would have been to trade Paul Pierce and go completely young, like the Bulls have done (to some success). That's dangerous because you simply stockpile young players who aren't likely to win a championship in hopes that they'll stick with the teama few years down the road rather than jumping ship.
So I think this team will win about half of it's games, scoring a bunch and giving up even more, and will get bounced in the second round of the playoffs. They won't contend for an Eastern Conference title this year, but maybe the following. Of course, this is all subject to change if they make another deal, and they probably will. I give them a "B" for draft day.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
messages to the 7 churches: background info for Revelation
This past spring (I guess it's still technically spring) I had the joy/challenge of teaching 4 weeks on Revelation. I've studied Revelation on and off for a few years (took an exegesis course on it in seminary, read a few books, etc), and have come to be a firm believer that John was writing not only to give a glimpse into the end of time, but to address specific circumstances of his readers. Chapters 2-3 give us the 7 churches to whom he wrote (though many feel the number 7 here is more symbolic, which is probably true, but at the very least we can say that his audience did include these 7 churches), and I discovered some interesting background data that help us see how Christ tailored His message to them through John. Following are some notes I jotted down as I was researching, some I learned a while ago, some recently, some I probably learned a while ago and had to relearn due to my failing memory.
To the church in Ephesus (2:1-7)- I learned the least about this city, mainly because I came in with more knowledge of it. It was very important in the NT times: Timothy was stationed there when Paul wrote his letters to him, Luke dedicates an entire chapter to the events in Ephesus in Acts 19, Paul wrote a letter to Ephesus (or least the churches in that area, see the textual problem of Ephesians 1:1), and church tradition says that John lived in Ephesus later in his life, which means that his gospel and his letters may have been written for Christians there. Ephesus also would have been the first stop for John's letter carrier, so naturally it would be addressed first.
To the church in Smyrna (2:8-11)- John addresses a problem with the Jewish-Christian relations in Smyrna. It's interesting to note that around 155 AD some Jewish people of Smyrna endorsed and even assisted in the killing of one of the great early Christian martyrs, Polycarp. That's about 60 years after Revelation was written, so it seems that this could have been a lasting problem for Christians in this city. The martyrdom of Polycarp is one of my favorite non-biblical stories, you can read it here.
To the church in Pergamum (2:12-17)- Pergamum was the capital of Asia at this time, and was the center of Emperor worship in this region, hence John calling this place "where Satan has his throne." It also had a large altar to Zeus, which I read was about 120 feet by 112 feet, which seems ridiculously huge. It's easy to see how this could be considered the home of Satan. Regarding the promise of a "white stone with a new name written on it", I read that in some places, when a person was found guilty of a crime they were given a black stone, but when found innocent, they were given a white stone. This may have been in mind here.
To the church in Thyatira (2:18-29)- This seems to have been the least important and least exciting of the 7 churches. It was a city of merchants, though the various metal workers present there may explain the emphasis on "burnished bronze" in v18 and the "iron scepter" of v27. The Romans called the planet Venus the "morning star", which was a symbol of victory, which may be why Christ promises to give them in "morning star" in v28.
To the church in Sardis (3:1-6)- Christ's main message to this church is one of readiness. He tells them to "wake up!" in v2 and threatens to "come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you" (v3). What is interesting is that Sardis had a great citadel which was never taken in battle. However, it was twice overtaken by sneak attacks at night. The residents of this city knew all too well the dangers of being unprepared for what might come, Christ's message to them must have hit home.
To the church in Philadelphia (3:7-13)- My Revelation professor (Dr Sean McDonough, not related the baseball announcer of the same name) pointed out that Christ's promise to make the Philadelphians "pillars in the temple of my God" may have had special meaning to them. This city had apparently suffered bad earthquakes that caused a lot of damage to the buildings there. The promise to become part of the unshakable structure of the Lord's temple would have been particularly powerful for these believers.
To the church in Laodicea (3:14-22)- This city was home to many famous banks and medical schools, which may explain why they felt so proud of their own accomplishments (v17). Some geographical background info may also explain some often misunderstood verses. Vv15-16 are often thought to mean that Christ would rather someone be completely on fire for Him or completely against Him (hot or cold), rather than someone who wavers (lukewarm). In reality, it is much more likely that Christ chose this aquametaphor specifically for this group because of their water problems. Laodicea lacked its own good water supply. It was located in between Hierapolis, which had a hot water supply used for medicinal purposes, and Laodicea, which had a natural cold water supply used for drinking. The waters mixed near Laodicea and made lukewarm water, which was good for nothing. Jesus is speaking more about usefulness than He is the level of one's commitment towards Him. The picture of a person spitting out lukewarm water would have been familiar to a Laodicean, even if we misunderstand it.
To the church in Ephesus (2:1-7)- I learned the least about this city, mainly because I came in with more knowledge of it. It was very important in the NT times: Timothy was stationed there when Paul wrote his letters to him, Luke dedicates an entire chapter to the events in Ephesus in Acts 19, Paul wrote a letter to Ephesus (or least the churches in that area, see the textual problem of Ephesians 1:1), and church tradition says that John lived in Ephesus later in his life, which means that his gospel and his letters may have been written for Christians there. Ephesus also would have been the first stop for John's letter carrier, so naturally it would be addressed first.
To the church in Smyrna (2:8-11)- John addresses a problem with the Jewish-Christian relations in Smyrna. It's interesting to note that around 155 AD some Jewish people of Smyrna endorsed and even assisted in the killing of one of the great early Christian martyrs, Polycarp. That's about 60 years after Revelation was written, so it seems that this could have been a lasting problem for Christians in this city. The martyrdom of Polycarp is one of my favorite non-biblical stories, you can read it here.
To the church in Pergamum (2:12-17)- Pergamum was the capital of Asia at this time, and was the center of Emperor worship in this region, hence John calling this place "where Satan has his throne." It also had a large altar to Zeus, which I read was about 120 feet by 112 feet, which seems ridiculously huge. It's easy to see how this could be considered the home of Satan. Regarding the promise of a "white stone with a new name written on it", I read that in some places, when a person was found guilty of a crime they were given a black stone, but when found innocent, they were given a white stone. This may have been in mind here.
To the church in Thyatira (2:18-29)- This seems to have been the least important and least exciting of the 7 churches. It was a city of merchants, though the various metal workers present there may explain the emphasis on "burnished bronze" in v18 and the "iron scepter" of v27. The Romans called the planet Venus the "morning star", which was a symbol of victory, which may be why Christ promises to give them in "morning star" in v28.
To the church in Sardis (3:1-6)- Christ's main message to this church is one of readiness. He tells them to "wake up!" in v2 and threatens to "come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you" (v3). What is interesting is that Sardis had a great citadel which was never taken in battle. However, it was twice overtaken by sneak attacks at night. The residents of this city knew all too well the dangers of being unprepared for what might come, Christ's message to them must have hit home.
To the church in Philadelphia (3:7-13)- My Revelation professor (Dr Sean McDonough, not related the baseball announcer of the same name) pointed out that Christ's promise to make the Philadelphians "pillars in the temple of my God" may have had special meaning to them. This city had apparently suffered bad earthquakes that caused a lot of damage to the buildings there. The promise to become part of the unshakable structure of the Lord's temple would have been particularly powerful for these believers.
To the church in Laodicea (3:14-22)- This city was home to many famous banks and medical schools, which may explain why they felt so proud of their own accomplishments (v17). Some geographical background info may also explain some often misunderstood verses. Vv15-16 are often thought to mean that Christ would rather someone be completely on fire for Him or completely against Him (hot or cold), rather than someone who wavers (lukewarm). In reality, it is much more likely that Christ chose this aquametaphor specifically for this group because of their water problems. Laodicea lacked its own good water supply. It was located in between Hierapolis, which had a hot water supply used for medicinal purposes, and Laodicea, which had a natural cold water supply used for drinking. The waters mixed near Laodicea and made lukewarm water, which was good for nothing. Jesus is speaking more about usefulness than He is the level of one's commitment towards Him. The picture of a person spitting out lukewarm water would have been familiar to a Laodicean, even if we misunderstand it.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
welcome to the world....
I'd like to say congrats to my good friends, Matt and Pam, and welcome to the world their baby boy, Gideon Matthew Neave. This little guy is as cute as can be, and I really mean that. I have no problems saying if a baby is ugly (not to their parents, of course), so you can rest assured I am not paying lip service when I say Gideon is absolutely adorable. This makes something like 8 babies born in our church since the beginning of 2006, which is a fairly high number considering we only run about 200 people. And we have a couple more pregnant, too (I just reread that sentence and it sounds like I'm saying we have a couple more babies pregnant, which is obviously not true, but I find the ambiguity funny so I'm leaving it). Exciting times. Blessings to the Neave family.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
5.5 random things: sports edition
5.5: This post is dedicated to the sports radio morning personality who recently said to his cohosts, "True or false: name the top 7 hitters in the American League." Yes, he was serious.
5: There's a lot of talk around Boston about the Celtics not "winning the lottery" this past week when they didn't draw one of the top 2 picks in the upcoming draft, instead getting number 5. There is no doubt this franchise seems unlucky, this is the 10th anniversary of them not getting the number 1 pick (despite having the best odds) which went to San Antonio, who took Tim Duncan and have since won 3 titles (and will probably win a 4th this year). Personally, I think they ought to look into trading the pick along with a couple young players for a veteran. There are teams out there who would like to unload a large salary. In an ideal world, we'd find a way to rescue Kevin Garnett from Minnesota and keep Paul Pierce and Al Jefferson. I think it's possible, but we might have to unload a future draft pick along with our first pick this year and a young talent such as Gerald Green. I'd make that trade any day.
4: Since so much of this week has focused on the luck (or lack thereof) of the Celtics, many seem to have forgotten that even if you can't control luck, you can control stupidity. So my question is this: why did the Celtics sign Doc Rivers, a coach with little upside other than being a great guy, to an extension? What signs of hope has he given over the last 3 years? It amazes me how dumb some franchises can be. This reminds me of the 2003 series between the Red Sox and the Yankees, where many people blamed the Curse of the Bambino for the Sox blowing game 7. I say "no way," we were cursed with a stupid manager, who left Pedro in far too long. You can't control injuries or ping pong balls or anything like that, but you can control not making indefensible decisions.
3: Well, the Red Sox are firmly in 1st place, and much of the town is gloating over the Yankees demise. I'm comfortably in the camp of waiting to see what happens, you have to think that the Yankees will pull something together at some point. I don't think they are a World Series caliber team, by any means, but they are still the Yankees and they can still find a way to win.
2: With that said, signing Clemens was a dumb move for them. First, what makes anyone think that a 5-6 inning pitcher in the National League (a very pitcher friendly league) will suddenly come in and be an ace in the American League (a very unfriendly league for pitchers)? Here's a tip: an ace of a staff must be able to go more than 6 innings on a consistent basis. Second, by signing him to $20 million+ you make it more difficult to trade and sign players around the trading deadline. I realize that they are the Yankees, with deeper pockets than anyone else in baseball, but at some point money has to play a factor. Will Steinbrenner really spend more money on a sinking ship? Actually, yes, he probably will.
1: When will the "Kevin Youkilis for MVP" talk start? He currently leads the team in hitting (.349, 4th in the AL) by 20 points (over Mike Lowell, off to another hot start), runs scored (1 run more than David Ortiz), hits (6 more than Ortiz), he's second in On Base Percentage (behind Ortiz), and 3rd in slugging (even better than Manny Ramirez). On top of that, I read earlier this week that he hasn't made an error at first base since last July! I don't really think that he'll be this good at the end of the season, but there is no doubt that the Sox would not be where they are without him. They've been able to bat him in the number 2 hole, where his ability to get on base is paramount, and even in the 5 spot, where he provides some protection for the big bats. Not bad for someone making $424,500. Compare that to other first basemen in the league: Paul Konerko (.213, $12,000,000); Shea Hillenbrand (.231, $6,000,000); and Richie Sexson (.180, $15,500,000). I won't bother looking into the NL; that's just comparing a few AL first baseman, not including Jason Giambi, who makes over $20,000,000 but plays more DH than anything else. Here's hoping Youk makes the All-Star team this year.
5: There's a lot of talk around Boston about the Celtics not "winning the lottery" this past week when they didn't draw one of the top 2 picks in the upcoming draft, instead getting number 5. There is no doubt this franchise seems unlucky, this is the 10th anniversary of them not getting the number 1 pick (despite having the best odds) which went to San Antonio, who took Tim Duncan and have since won 3 titles (and will probably win a 4th this year). Personally, I think they ought to look into trading the pick along with a couple young players for a veteran. There are teams out there who would like to unload a large salary. In an ideal world, we'd find a way to rescue Kevin Garnett from Minnesota and keep Paul Pierce and Al Jefferson. I think it's possible, but we might have to unload a future draft pick along with our first pick this year and a young talent such as Gerald Green. I'd make that trade any day.
4: Since so much of this week has focused on the luck (or lack thereof) of the Celtics, many seem to have forgotten that even if you can't control luck, you can control stupidity. So my question is this: why did the Celtics sign Doc Rivers, a coach with little upside other than being a great guy, to an extension? What signs of hope has he given over the last 3 years? It amazes me how dumb some franchises can be. This reminds me of the 2003 series between the Red Sox and the Yankees, where many people blamed the Curse of the Bambino for the Sox blowing game 7. I say "no way," we were cursed with a stupid manager, who left Pedro in far too long. You can't control injuries or ping pong balls or anything like that, but you can control not making indefensible decisions.
3: Well, the Red Sox are firmly in 1st place, and much of the town is gloating over the Yankees demise. I'm comfortably in the camp of waiting to see what happens, you have to think that the Yankees will pull something together at some point. I don't think they are a World Series caliber team, by any means, but they are still the Yankees and they can still find a way to win.
2: With that said, signing Clemens was a dumb move for them. First, what makes anyone think that a 5-6 inning pitcher in the National League (a very pitcher friendly league) will suddenly come in and be an ace in the American League (a very unfriendly league for pitchers)? Here's a tip: an ace of a staff must be able to go more than 6 innings on a consistent basis. Second, by signing him to $20 million+ you make it more difficult to trade and sign players around the trading deadline. I realize that they are the Yankees, with deeper pockets than anyone else in baseball, but at some point money has to play a factor. Will Steinbrenner really spend more money on a sinking ship? Actually, yes, he probably will.
1: When will the "Kevin Youkilis for MVP" talk start? He currently leads the team in hitting (.349, 4th in the AL) by 20 points (over Mike Lowell, off to another hot start), runs scored (1 run more than David Ortiz), hits (6 more than Ortiz), he's second in On Base Percentage (behind Ortiz), and 3rd in slugging (even better than Manny Ramirez). On top of that, I read earlier this week that he hasn't made an error at first base since last July! I don't really think that he'll be this good at the end of the season, but there is no doubt that the Sox would not be where they are without him. They've been able to bat him in the number 2 hole, where his ability to get on base is paramount, and even in the 5 spot, where he provides some protection for the big bats. Not bad for someone making $424,500. Compare that to other first basemen in the league: Paul Konerko (.213, $12,000,000); Shea Hillenbrand (.231, $6,000,000); and Richie Sexson (.180, $15,500,000). I won't bother looking into the NL; that's just comparing a few AL first baseman, not including Jason Giambi, who makes over $20,000,000 but plays more DH than anything else. Here's hoping Youk makes the All-Star team this year.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
why I am a premillennialist: some thoughts in progress
One of the most debated passages in the Bible is Rev 20:1-6. What do we make of the "1000 year" reign of Christ and His people? I cannot pretend to have figured this passage out perfectly; it seems to me that each position has its share of problems. Here are the main views taken by scholars, all of which have a good history of interpretation within the church:
Postmillennial- this view sees the millennium happening at the end of the "church age", preceding Christ's return. To put it simply, the world will be essentially Christian before Christ returns and His followers are resurrected.
Amillennial- this view sees the millennium beginning with Christ's first coming and continuing until His return, the picture of Christ and His people reigning in Rev 20 is a present reality. In my opinion, the best recent commentary on Revelation is Greg Beale's commentary, who is an amillennialist.
Premillennial- this view sees the millennium as a future time after Christ returns to this earth and His followers are resurrected. Within this view are 2 main camps: dispensationalist (one form of which can be seen in the Left Behind series) who add their own distinct flavor (pretribulational rapture, distinction between the Church and Israel), and historical premillennialists, who essentially hold to what I just said above.
I would be classified as a historical premillennialist, but a slightly odd one, because my reading of Revelation often looks more like something an amillennialist would hold (I won't bother getting into this now, just trust me). I had a friend in seminary who describe me this way: an anti-dispensationalist historical premillennialist with amillennialist tendencies. I'd say that's pretty accurate.
Anyway, I want to state from the outset that I think each of these 3 views are well within the realm of orthodoxy. This is not a hill I want to die on, I think we can find ways to coexist just fine (though I admit my pleasure in taking shots at dispensationalism). But the millennium, whatever we make of it, is in Scripture so I figure it's worth at least forming an opinion, no matter how tentative. I'll say a couple quick things before I begin my short list: 1) I don't take the 1000 years literally, I think it is a symbolic number just like the other numbers in Revelation; 2) I'm trying to restrict my comments to Revelation 20:1-6 and other passages in this book, since I could go on forever by including every conceivably important verse in the Bible; 3) I do think there are plenty of holes in the premillennial position- it's just that I think it has fewer big holes than the other positions. Without further ado, here you go:
1) The issue of Satan no longer deceiving the nations. I've often heard a caricature of the premillienial position that we sit in fear of the devil and his schemes. I'd rather say, in the words of one of my pastors, that we are "in awe of God but aware of the devil" (this, of course, can be true of any of these millenial positions). Elsewhere in the NT Satan is seen as active in our time (1 Peter 5:8-9), which may be enough to see Satan being bound happenig in the future. But even more convincing is Revelation 12:12, where Satan is said to be filled with anger because he has little time left. So, as the following verses show us, he decides to wage war on God's people. That is hard to reconcile with the picture of Satan being bound for a long period of time and his powers of deception being taken away. It is said by some that the words and picture in Rev 20 do not necessarily have to mean that all of his powers are thwarted (Beale gives his reasons for this in his commentary). But I wonder what language John would use if that were exactly the picture he wanted to draw. If he wanted to show that Satan's powers were no longer useful, what would he say, since apparently "seized", "bound", "locked and sealed... to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore" are not strong enough? (And it can't be something along the lines of "annihilated" since that doesn't happen until later in the chapter.)
2) Witnesses or judges? Throughout Revelation God's people are called to be and are portrayed as witnesses in this world. The word "witness" recalls the courtroom, where witnesses offer evidence which may assist in convicting or acquiting someone. God's people act as witnesses in that they testify for God, and their testimony condemns the world (or can vindicate some if they repent). Throughout this book God's people are called to be faithful witnesses unto the very end, even if that means their death (that is, after all, following in Christ's footsteps, see 1:5). However, in Rev 20 they are now seen as judges with Christ. This reflects a change in the Christian's current state and their state to come. This change comes when Christ returns and takes His throne on this earth, and His followers reign with Him.
3) The martyrs under the altar or reigning with Christ? Ben Witherington points out that the martyred souls in Rev 6:9-11 are under the altar awaiting the judgment of those responsible for their deaths. In Rev 20, the souls of the martyrs are seen as reigning and judging with Christ. In Rev 6, they are told to wait. In Rev 20, they don't seem to be waiting for anything, they are finally fulfilling their roles as a "kingdom and priests" that is seen in Revelation. In other words, there is a change in their position, a change which is a result of the resurrection.
4) Addressing Beale's claim that beheaded souls must refer to non-material bodies. Beale claims that psuche (traditionally translated "soul") does not have to refer to a physical body (as it does in Rev 8:9, 12:11, 16:3- in these passages "living body" may be the best translation), and this is true (Rev 6:9 is a perfect example of this). He also claims that it cannot refer to a physical body here because these folks were beheaded: "an awkward picture emerges: 'bodies of beheaded people'" (pg 998). This, however, is not a problem if you see these folks as those who have been resurrected. In other words, John sees "the souls of those who had been beheaded" but were now resurrected (therefore no longer missing their heads).
5) If "came to life" refers to physical resurrection in v5, then it is likely to in v4. Beale argues that the meaning of this verb can change within one verse, which is true. But one must provide strong evidence that this is the case. It is possible John changes the meaning that quickly, but doing good exegesis in difficult passages isn't about proposing what is possible but what is most likely.
6) The problem of "resurrection." In v4, the "souls" of the martyrs "come to life" and reign with Christ. This is, in John's words, "the first resurrection" (v5), as opposed to when the "rest of the dead" come to life. For an amillenial or postmillenial interpretation to work, "come to life" and "resurrection" in v4 have to be taken in a "spiritual" sense (though I hate that term, because I don't think that's how the Bible uses "spiritual" at all, but it's the common lingo so I'll adopt it here) rather than physical. If "first resurrection" refers to a non-material resurrection, then when does the physical resurrection take place? I guess I have a problem with any view that sees "resurrection" as anything other than a bodily resurrection (to be clear, amillennialists and postmillennialists do believe in a bodily resurrection of believers, they just don't think that's what's in view here).
You'll notice that one of the common themes in these is the change in these verses from the rest of the Book of Revelation. The way the martyrs are described is different from elsewhere in the book. God's people have now come to life and are resurrected. Satan's work is described differently here than elsewhere in Revelation (see chapter 12). Something has changed to make all this happen. In my opinion, the best explanation for this is that these verses are speaking of a different time from the rest of the book of Revelation. We are still waiting for these verses to be fulfilled, when Christ will return and His followers will be resurrected just as He was.
Postmillennial- this view sees the millennium happening at the end of the "church age", preceding Christ's return. To put it simply, the world will be essentially Christian before Christ returns and His followers are resurrected.
Amillennial- this view sees the millennium beginning with Christ's first coming and continuing until His return, the picture of Christ and His people reigning in Rev 20 is a present reality. In my opinion, the best recent commentary on Revelation is Greg Beale's commentary, who is an amillennialist.
Premillennial- this view sees the millennium as a future time after Christ returns to this earth and His followers are resurrected. Within this view are 2 main camps: dispensationalist (one form of which can be seen in the Left Behind series) who add their own distinct flavor (pretribulational rapture, distinction between the Church and Israel), and historical premillennialists, who essentially hold to what I just said above.
I would be classified as a historical premillennialist, but a slightly odd one, because my reading of Revelation often looks more like something an amillennialist would hold (I won't bother getting into this now, just trust me). I had a friend in seminary who describe me this way: an anti-dispensationalist historical premillennialist with amillennialist tendencies. I'd say that's pretty accurate.
Anyway, I want to state from the outset that I think each of these 3 views are well within the realm of orthodoxy. This is not a hill I want to die on, I think we can find ways to coexist just fine (though I admit my pleasure in taking shots at dispensationalism). But the millennium, whatever we make of it, is in Scripture so I figure it's worth at least forming an opinion, no matter how tentative. I'll say a couple quick things before I begin my short list: 1) I don't take the 1000 years literally, I think it is a symbolic number just like the other numbers in Revelation; 2) I'm trying to restrict my comments to Revelation 20:1-6 and other passages in this book, since I could go on forever by including every conceivably important verse in the Bible; 3) I do think there are plenty of holes in the premillennial position- it's just that I think it has fewer big holes than the other positions. Without further ado, here you go:
1 And I saw an angel coming out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time. 4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshipped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
1) The issue of Satan no longer deceiving the nations. I've often heard a caricature of the premillienial position that we sit in fear of the devil and his schemes. I'd rather say, in the words of one of my pastors, that we are "in awe of God but aware of the devil" (this, of course, can be true of any of these millenial positions). Elsewhere in the NT Satan is seen as active in our time (1 Peter 5:8-9), which may be enough to see Satan being bound happenig in the future. But even more convincing is Revelation 12:12, where Satan is said to be filled with anger because he has little time left. So, as the following verses show us, he decides to wage war on God's people. That is hard to reconcile with the picture of Satan being bound for a long period of time and his powers of deception being taken away. It is said by some that the words and picture in Rev 20 do not necessarily have to mean that all of his powers are thwarted (Beale gives his reasons for this in his commentary). But I wonder what language John would use if that were exactly the picture he wanted to draw. If he wanted to show that Satan's powers were no longer useful, what would he say, since apparently "seized", "bound", "locked and sealed... to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore" are not strong enough? (And it can't be something along the lines of "annihilated" since that doesn't happen until later in the chapter.)
2) Witnesses or judges? Throughout Revelation God's people are called to be and are portrayed as witnesses in this world. The word "witness" recalls the courtroom, where witnesses offer evidence which may assist in convicting or acquiting someone. God's people act as witnesses in that they testify for God, and their testimony condemns the world (or can vindicate some if they repent). Throughout this book God's people are called to be faithful witnesses unto the very end, even if that means their death (that is, after all, following in Christ's footsteps, see 1:5). However, in Rev 20 they are now seen as judges with Christ. This reflects a change in the Christian's current state and their state to come. This change comes when Christ returns and takes His throne on this earth, and His followers reign with Him.
3) The martyrs under the altar or reigning with Christ? Ben Witherington points out that the martyred souls in Rev 6:9-11 are under the altar awaiting the judgment of those responsible for their deaths. In Rev 20, the souls of the martyrs are seen as reigning and judging with Christ. In Rev 6, they are told to wait. In Rev 20, they don't seem to be waiting for anything, they are finally fulfilling their roles as a "kingdom and priests" that is seen in Revelation. In other words, there is a change in their position, a change which is a result of the resurrection.
4) Addressing Beale's claim that beheaded souls must refer to non-material bodies. Beale claims that psuche (traditionally translated "soul") does not have to refer to a physical body (as it does in Rev 8:9, 12:11, 16:3- in these passages "living body" may be the best translation), and this is true (Rev 6:9 is a perfect example of this). He also claims that it cannot refer to a physical body here because these folks were beheaded: "an awkward picture emerges: 'bodies of beheaded people'" (pg 998). This, however, is not a problem if you see these folks as those who have been resurrected. In other words, John sees "the souls of those who had been beheaded" but were now resurrected (therefore no longer missing their heads).
5) If "came to life" refers to physical resurrection in v5, then it is likely to in v4. Beale argues that the meaning of this verb can change within one verse, which is true. But one must provide strong evidence that this is the case. It is possible John changes the meaning that quickly, but doing good exegesis in difficult passages isn't about proposing what is possible but what is most likely.
6) The problem of "resurrection." In v4, the "souls" of the martyrs "come to life" and reign with Christ. This is, in John's words, "the first resurrection" (v5), as opposed to when the "rest of the dead" come to life. For an amillenial or postmillenial interpretation to work, "come to life" and "resurrection" in v4 have to be taken in a "spiritual" sense (though I hate that term, because I don't think that's how the Bible uses "spiritual" at all, but it's the common lingo so I'll adopt it here) rather than physical. If "first resurrection" refers to a non-material resurrection, then when does the physical resurrection take place? I guess I have a problem with any view that sees "resurrection" as anything other than a bodily resurrection (to be clear, amillennialists and postmillennialists do believe in a bodily resurrection of believers, they just don't think that's what's in view here).
You'll notice that one of the common themes in these is the change in these verses from the rest of the Book of Revelation. The way the martyrs are described is different from elsewhere in the book. God's people have now come to life and are resurrected. Satan's work is described differently here than elsewhere in Revelation (see chapter 12). Something has changed to make all this happen. In my opinion, the best explanation for this is that these verses are speaking of a different time from the rest of the book of Revelation. We are still waiting for these verses to be fulfilled, when Christ will return and His followers will be resurrected just as He was.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Is it a compliment? Episode III
Welcome to the third installment of "Is it a compliment?", the favorite gameshow here at Blog of Danny. The basic jist of the game is this: I give you a comment someone has recently made to me that may or may not have been a compliment (and of course the ambiguity is heightened by the lack of context or voice inflection), and you weigh in with your opinions/contextual conjectures. You can check the "Is it a compliment?" link to the right to see previous episodes. This has been a popular feature thus far, I trust it will continue to be. Anyway, here is this week's quote:
"Well... you have hair."
"Well... you have hair."
Saturday, April 21, 2007
my top 5 NT studies books
Those who know me well are aware of my affinity for books, especially books in the realm of biblical studies. A while back I decided to post my favorite 5 NT books from my own personal library, but I'm just now getting around to it. Please note, these are only from my personal library, there may be (and probably are) some out there that would make it on the list but I don't own them. Also note that these are not commentaries (maybe I'll get around to that), but rather books that cover a particular topic or theme. These are not necessarily in any particular order, except that my favorite is last, because I believe in saving the best for last (which is why I eat the edges of my Pop-Tarts first, as well as the crusts of my sandwich).
So my first one is actually an honorable mention, which is kind of cheating (maybe I should have called this my top 6). The Bible Background Commentary on the New Testament by Craig Keener is technically a commentary, so it doesn't fit the criteria for my list. However, I feel that I can't leave it off because I have found it to be an indispensable resource (I just realized after I typed this sentence that those exact words are on the cover of the book, weird). The truth is that most of us never study ancient history or ancient cultures, so our knowledge of important background information is limited. We often get the sense that there is something going on that we don't understand because the NT culture is so far removed from our own. So whether you're dealing with head coverings or Jewish dinner customs, Keener has given us a crash course in ancient culture all in one book going passage by passage. I personally think that if someone learns the basics of exegesis and hermeneutics (see the Fee and Stuart books pictured on the right), then the most important resource for them is a good book on background information. Keener fits that bill.
Back in my senior year of college I took a class on the Life and Teachings of Jesus. One of the books assigned to us was this book, The Jesus Quest, by Ben Witherington III. I suppose it is
n't so much an NT studies book as it is a book about NT studies and studiers. Witherington is a master of making clear what is often confusing, especially when it comes to the view points of other scholars. In this book he takes on what is known as the "Quest for the Historical Jesus." He gives an overview of various scholarly opinions, from those of the Jesus Seminar (his chapter is great for those who aren't familiar with this group) to more serious scholars, such as John Meier and N T Wright. He gives solid critiques of the views presented, but also is able to pull away some good lessons to learn from just about any scholar. It would be nice if he would update this book to include some of the recent works (such as that of James Dunn), but if you're one of those who watch all those "Jesus specials" on TV (I'm raising my hand) and wonder who these scholars are, chances are Witherington will talk about them.
I've always found Richard Hays to be an absolutely fascinating scholar. Though I often disagree with his approach, he never ceases to challenge my reading of a text. At least one of his books has become som
ething of a modern classic (Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul) that is referred to frequently by NT scholars. Simply put, he's one of those scholars that you must deal with even when you disagree. That is how I approach this book on NT ethics, The Moral Vision of the New Testament. Hays will no doubt infuriate those from a strong conservative viewpoint (that would be me, by the way) because he doesn't really take an "inerrancy" point of view, but if you read him carefully you'll find that he presents strong cases for his arguments. He often comes away with conservative stances (abortion is wrong, homosexual intercourse is wrong, etc), but is probably not strong enough for some. In a rare touch for Bible scholars, he even includes some personal stories, which I find refreshing (his story about his good friend who was gay was particularly touching). His chapter on war and pacificism (he's a pacifist) was, to be honest, challenging. I'm not saying he turned me into a pacifist, but he certainly made me think. All this to say, I highly recommend this book, but only for those who are well grounded in Scripture. For someone who is still trying to figure out where they stand on some issues and struggle with the authority of the Bible in our lives, this is not the book for them.
One of the hardest things about making this list is choosing only one N T Wright book. I could just as easily have chosen his book on Paul, The Climax of the Covenant or even better is his phenomenal treatment of the resurrection, The Resurrection of the Son of God, which is probably his best book. I have opted, however, to go with Jesus & the Victory of God because it was this book that introduced me to Wright's scholarship and made me a fan. Mind you, there are plenty of points of disagreement, but he often forces me to rethink my position. Wright is probably the most consistent scholar I'
ve ever read, even if consistent to a fault. For example, Wright opposes much of popular Christian writing on Jesus by arguing that Jesus did in fact have a message to preach to His original hearers, not just a timeless system of salvation (this is easily misunderstood, Wright certainly believes in salvation for all ages). Wright reads the gospels in light of this understanding, which I agree with. However, being stubbornly consistent in this has led Wright to take some unlikely interpretations, such as the notion that Jesus never refers to His second coming. Those references in Mark 13 (and parallels) to Christ coming on the clouds of heaven are Christ's judgment on Jerusalem in 70AD rather than Him returning some day (again, Wright does believe Jesus is coming back from other texts, notably Paul, he just doesn't think Jesus Himself predicts it). I tend to think that runs contrary to the words of the angel in Acts 1:9-11, spoken a mere month and a half after Jesus uttered His words. At any rate, Wright is masterful in placing Jesus within His historical context and explaining His message in His own time (which does, in turn, help us understand it more clearly, rather than confusing it as some might suppose). Wright is also quite adept at pointing out the fundamental flaws in some scholars (such as Crossan & the Jesus Seminar). If you get nothing else out of his writings, you should pay attention to his methodology and his critiques of other's presuppositions. You will learn more than you counted on.
As with N T Wright, I had trouble choosing which Richard Bauckham book I would add to this list. Interestingly, my favorites are two small books. I could have chosen God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (a mere 89 pages) and been quite happy with it. But I opted for his book in the New Testament Theology series, The Theology of the Book of Revelation. What I love about Bauckham (again, similar to Wright) is that you can learn how to do exegesis/theology while you read his books. Packed into 164 pages are discussions on the high Christology of Revelation (the sharing of divine titles and worship between the One who sits on the throne and the Lamb as evidence of this), the importance of God as Creator for the book ("Where faith in God the Creator wanes, so inevitably does hope for resurrection, let alone the new creation of all things. It is the God who is the Alpha who will also be the Omega." p51), a great discussion on true victory as depicted in Revelation (faithful witness through suffering and death), and so on. As I am currently teaching Revelation I continually find myself refering to Bauckham to make clear what I often find muddled.
Without a doubt my favorite book in NT studies is Gordon Fee's mageste
rial tome, God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. In this book, Fee discusses (in great depth) every instance where Paul mentions or alludes to the Holy Spirit. He covers grammatical issues, theological issues, contextual problems and so on with great clarity. This book is over 900 pages (!), but can be read in portions (although if you want to read it cover to cover I'm sure you'll still learn a lot). He pulls his exegetical discussions together at the end with a helpful synthesis of Paul's view of the Holy Spirit. One of the distinctive contributions Fee makes to this discussion is his insistence that the Holy Spirit was an experienced reality to Paul and his churches. In other words, there were actual manifestations of the Spirit's power and presence (see 1 Corinthians 14 and Galatians 3:5). While Fee comes from a Penecostal background, he does have some differing views from this tradition. Most notably is the view that all Christians are full of the Spirit from the moment of conversion. In Paul's mind, there is no such thing as a non-Spirit filled Christian, those terms are contradictory (see Romans 8:9 and the assumption that his readers all have the Spirit in Galatians 3:1-5 and 5:22-25).
So my first one is actually an honorable mention, which is kind of cheating (maybe I should have called this my top 6). The Bible Background Commentary on the New Testament by Craig Keener is technically a commentary, so it doesn't fit the criteria for my list. However, I feel that I can't leave it off because I have found it to be an indispensable resource (I just realized after I typed this sentence that those exact words are on the cover of the book, weird). The truth is that most of us never study ancient history or ancient cultures, so our knowledge of important background information is limited. We often get the sense that there is something going on that we don't understand because the NT culture is so far removed from our own. So whether you're dealing with head coverings or Jewish dinner customs, Keener has given us a crash course in ancient culture all in one book going passage by passage. I personally think that if someone learns the basics of exegesis and hermeneutics (see the Fee and Stuart books pictured on the right), then the most important resource for them is a good book on background information. Keener fits that bill.
Back in my senior year of college I took a class on the Life and Teachings of Jesus. One of the books assigned to us was this book, The Jesus Quest, by Ben Witherington III. I suppose it is
n't so much an NT studies book as it is a book about NT studies and studiers. Witherington is a master of making clear what is often confusing, especially when it comes to the view points of other scholars. In this book he takes on what is known as the "Quest for the Historical Jesus." He gives an overview of various scholarly opinions, from those of the Jesus Seminar (his chapter is great for those who aren't familiar with this group) to more serious scholars, such as John Meier and N T Wright. He gives solid critiques of the views presented, but also is able to pull away some good lessons to learn from just about any scholar. It would be nice if he would update this book to include some of the recent works (such as that of James Dunn), but if you're one of those who watch all those "Jesus specials" on TV (I'm raising my hand) and wonder who these scholars are, chances are Witherington will talk about them. I've always found Richard Hays to be an absolutely fascinating scholar. Though I often disagree with his approach, he never ceases to challenge my reading of a text. At least one of his books has become som
ething of a modern classic (Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul) that is referred to frequently by NT scholars. Simply put, he's one of those scholars that you must deal with even when you disagree. That is how I approach this book on NT ethics, The Moral Vision of the New Testament. Hays will no doubt infuriate those from a strong conservative viewpoint (that would be me, by the way) because he doesn't really take an "inerrancy" point of view, but if you read him carefully you'll find that he presents strong cases for his arguments. He often comes away with conservative stances (abortion is wrong, homosexual intercourse is wrong, etc), but is probably not strong enough for some. In a rare touch for Bible scholars, he even includes some personal stories, which I find refreshing (his story about his good friend who was gay was particularly touching). His chapter on war and pacificism (he's a pacifist) was, to be honest, challenging. I'm not saying he turned me into a pacifist, but he certainly made me think. All this to say, I highly recommend this book, but only for those who are well grounded in Scripture. For someone who is still trying to figure out where they stand on some issues and struggle with the authority of the Bible in our lives, this is not the book for them.One of the hardest things about making this list is choosing only one N T Wright book. I could just as easily have chosen his book on Paul, The Climax of the Covenant or even better is his phenomenal treatment of the resurrection, The Resurrection of the Son of God, which is probably his best book. I have opted, however, to go with Jesus & the Victory of God because it was this book that introduced me to Wright's scholarship and made me a fan. Mind you, there are plenty of points of disagreement, but he often forces me to rethink my position. Wright is probably the most consistent scholar I'
ve ever read, even if consistent to a fault. For example, Wright opposes much of popular Christian writing on Jesus by arguing that Jesus did in fact have a message to preach to His original hearers, not just a timeless system of salvation (this is easily misunderstood, Wright certainly believes in salvation for all ages). Wright reads the gospels in light of this understanding, which I agree with. However, being stubbornly consistent in this has led Wright to take some unlikely interpretations, such as the notion that Jesus never refers to His second coming. Those references in Mark 13 (and parallels) to Christ coming on the clouds of heaven are Christ's judgment on Jerusalem in 70AD rather than Him returning some day (again, Wright does believe Jesus is coming back from other texts, notably Paul, he just doesn't think Jesus Himself predicts it). I tend to think that runs contrary to the words of the angel in Acts 1:9-11, spoken a mere month and a half after Jesus uttered His words. At any rate, Wright is masterful in placing Jesus within His historical context and explaining His message in His own time (which does, in turn, help us understand it more clearly, rather than confusing it as some might suppose). Wright is also quite adept at pointing out the fundamental flaws in some scholars (such as Crossan & the Jesus Seminar). If you get nothing else out of his writings, you should pay attention to his methodology and his critiques of other's presuppositions. You will learn more than you counted on.
As with N T Wright, I had trouble choosing which Richard Bauckham book I would add to this list. Interestingly, my favorites are two small books. I could have chosen God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (a mere 89 pages) and been quite happy with it. But I opted for his book in the New Testament Theology series, The Theology of the Book of Revelation. What I love about Bauckham (again, similar to Wright) is that you can learn how to do exegesis/theology while you read his books. Packed into 164 pages are discussions on the high Christology of Revelation (the sharing of divine titles and worship between the One who sits on the throne and the Lamb as evidence of this), the importance of God as Creator for the book ("Where faith in God the Creator wanes, so inevitably does hope for resurrection, let alone the new creation of all things. It is the God who is the Alpha who will also be the Omega." p51), a great discussion on true victory as depicted in Revelation (faithful witness through suffering and death), and so on. As I am currently teaching Revelation I continually find myself refering to Bauckham to make clear what I often find muddled.Without a doubt my favorite book in NT studies is Gordon Fee's mageste
rial tome, God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. In this book, Fee discusses (in great depth) every instance where Paul mentions or alludes to the Holy Spirit. He covers grammatical issues, theological issues, contextual problems and so on with great clarity. This book is over 900 pages (!), but can be read in portions (although if you want to read it cover to cover I'm sure you'll still learn a lot). He pulls his exegetical discussions together at the end with a helpful synthesis of Paul's view of the Holy Spirit. One of the distinctive contributions Fee makes to this discussion is his insistence that the Holy Spirit was an experienced reality to Paul and his churches. In other words, there were actual manifestations of the Spirit's power and presence (see 1 Corinthians 14 and Galatians 3:5). While Fee comes from a Penecostal background, he does have some differing views from this tradition. Most notably is the view that all Christians are full of the Spirit from the moment of conversion. In Paul's mind, there is no such thing as a non-Spirit filled Christian, those terms are contradictory (see Romans 8:9 and the assumption that his readers all have the Spirit in Galatians 3:1-5 and 5:22-25).
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Easter service comedy
This morning in church our pastor gave a childrens sermon, which is always a treat. After he had gathered all the kids of the church around him, he asked them what was special about Easter.
A little boy, William, age 3, yells out, "new underpants!"
A little boy, William, age 3, yells out, "new underpants!"
Friday, April 06, 2007
once again, 5.5 random things
5.5: This post is dedicated to Sarasota, Florida. Though you are hot, you were a pleasure to visit.
5: Well, the Sox have started out 2-2, with 1 great pitching performance (Dice-K), 2 good pitching performances (Beckett and Wakefield, who lost due to a lack of offense), and 1 horrible one from Curt Schilling, who thinks he deserves a $13 million dollar extension for next year, despite the fact that he's only getting older (at an age when this is not helpful) and his numbers have dropped each year he's been here. Obviously it's early, but you have to wonder about him. Plus, he has a blog now, how cliche is that!
4: Boston is hardly a hotbed for college sports, but the city paid more attention to this year's basketball tournament than probably any in recent memory (including ones where Boston College actually had a chance to make some waves). This is due to the Celtics' deplorable record, ensuring that they will not pick worse than number 5 in this year's draft. My fear is that they'll buy into the hype and draft Joakim Noah from Florida. He's done well in college, and I'm always fond of picking proven winners, but he'll never be more than a good bench player in the pros. He can play some defense, can rebound, and will out-hustle anyone on the floor. But he can't shoot, at all, and I'm not convinced he'll be able to cover power forwards in the NBA (can you picture him covering Duncan, Garnett or Brand?).
3: Speaking of drafts, you may get a kick out of this, courtesy of Tim Challies.
2: I'm ready for a weather change here in Boston. I've always loved the cold, and I always will. But I think living in an apartment with no heat this year (yes, that's right, no heat all winter) has finally taken its toll, well, that and being in Florida last week where I could wear shorts all day long and not have to worry about it. Besides, it's baseball season, it's time to be outside playing and watching games, not bundling up. I think I'm getting soft in my old age.
1: Well folks, it's Good Friday. Easter is my favorite holiday of the year. I pray that you all relish in the grace that God has given us. Take time to meditate on the single greatest act of love and power this world has ever, and will ever, witness. Praise God for the death and resurrection of His Son!
5: Well, the Sox have started out 2-2, with 1 great pitching performance (Dice-K), 2 good pitching performances (Beckett and Wakefield, who lost due to a lack of offense), and 1 horrible one from Curt Schilling, who thinks he deserves a $13 million dollar extension for next year, despite the fact that he's only getting older (at an age when this is not helpful) and his numbers have dropped each year he's been here. Obviously it's early, but you have to wonder about him. Plus, he has a blog now, how cliche is that!
4: Boston is hardly a hotbed for college sports, but the city paid more attention to this year's basketball tournament than probably any in recent memory (including ones where Boston College actually had a chance to make some waves). This is due to the Celtics' deplorable record, ensuring that they will not pick worse than number 5 in this year's draft. My fear is that they'll buy into the hype and draft Joakim Noah from Florida. He's done well in college, and I'm always fond of picking proven winners, but he'll never be more than a good bench player in the pros. He can play some defense, can rebound, and will out-hustle anyone on the floor. But he can't shoot, at all, and I'm not convinced he'll be able to cover power forwards in the NBA (can you picture him covering Duncan, Garnett or Brand?).
3: Speaking of drafts, you may get a kick out of this, courtesy of Tim Challies.
2: I'm ready for a weather change here in Boston. I've always loved the cold, and I always will. But I think living in an apartment with no heat this year (yes, that's right, no heat all winter) has finally taken its toll, well, that and being in Florida last week where I could wear shorts all day long and not have to worry about it. Besides, it's baseball season, it's time to be outside playing and watching games, not bundling up. I think I'm getting soft in my old age.
1: Well folks, it's Good Friday. Easter is my favorite holiday of the year. I pray that you all relish in the grace that God has given us. Take time to meditate on the single greatest act of love and power this world has ever, and will ever, witness. Praise God for the death and resurrection of His Son!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
