Sometimes life is stressful. For me, this is one of those times. But I'm learning something interesting this time. In particular, I am stressed out by school right now. With papers, projects, and exams all barreling around the corner ready to blindside me, I'm just not seeing how it's going to all get done. And done well. I don't know that I can succeed. What am I going to do? I will be a failure.
Doubt is one issue that this brings up, but that's not what I'm thinking about now. I'm thinking about the idea of failure and how much that means to me. Essentially, in these stressed out times, the idea of failing at school (or work or relationships or whatever the stressful situation) the essence of my existence is being defined by this one situation, at least in my own head. Thank God that's not true.
Remove yourself from that stressed moment and mindset. First of all, I'm not likely to fail fail at school (or get fired from work or completely lose touch in this relationship). But in my head I project the worst possible scenario and build my thought pattern around that has assured future reality. What the heck? Second, if I am lucid enough to grasp this first truth, I am still deeply wounded by the idea that I have achieved less than perfection or less than expected of me. I think this is true for even us non-perfectionists.
But think about it. I fail all the time. I fail to show up to work or a meeting on time. I fail to get a project turned in when I say I will. I fail to clean the bathroom when I know it's my turn. I fail to follow up on a conversation that I meant to. Even though I am sorry for situations as these and wish that I had come through, I do not define myself by them, they do not consume my soul like these super stressful situations. But why?
Life is made up of a countless number of successes and a (hopefully smaller) countless number of failures. It seems awfully arbitrary for me to pick one to hang my hat on to tell me and who I am and what good am I. Running through life with the main purpose of avoiding failure just sounds exhausting and, ultimately, futile to me.
I believe in a God that defines me by Himself. I believe in a God that runs to greet me when I come crawling back, famished and mucky, and a God who invites me in for a feast after a day of good work. I believe in a God that is infinitely demanding and yet infinitely patient. I believe in a God that knows that I will not succeed on my own and has decided to take matters into His own hands. I believe in a God who is the Creator of the entire universe and yet knows the number of hairs on my head and calls me His son.
That is the best definition of "me" that I can grasp. That's who I am.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The "R" word (2 of 4) - Women
Before I begin, let me disclaim that I don't know that much about women. Shocking, I know. I am only writing about this subject because it constitutes 50% of the main topic of relationships. I have been blessed by a number of women in a number of circumstances that have been very open to me about all sorts of things, so these thoughts come from those conversations and from observations over my limited years.
Stuck between a rock and a hard place
I think it is safe to say that very few good relationships began with both people equally liking and being on the same page with each other. Interest has to spark in one and the other has to pick up on it. In these situations, then, women are often stuck going one of two ways.
On the one hand, if they are interested in a guy, their hands are often tied according to the traditional view of waiting for him to initiate. What is she to do in the meantime? How can she express her interest? If she does, they usually go one of two ways again: either he's not interested and runs, or he likes being pursued and they get into the pattern of him following her lead and focusing on her approval, which she gets tired of (be a man, man) and he resents. If she sits and waits... well, I understand that there's a lot of tension in the silence.
The flipside is if a guy is interested in the woman. He shows interest and pursues, then she decides how to react. Now, she's likely pretty excited that there is interest, regardless of the person, and I have a feeling that her girlfriends have a pretty significant impact with how much she initially lets him in. I could be wrong. So on one side, she could not be interested at all, and either run from him and drag him around until he figures it out for himself (sometimes we are slow though), or she (mercifully) just tells him straight up. Or, and I find this interesting, she may become (if she wasn't already) interested, realize she's interested and thus becoming vulnerable, or "not ready", and double takes back into situation #1.
Of course, there is a narrow path of bliss and perfection. But most women I know haven't found that often, if ever. So there's a rock, and there's a hard place.
What women want
I think if I actually knew the answer to this heading, I would have already written a book about it and been a gazillionaire. (Side note: I find it fascinating that it is so often discussed "what women want", and so infrequently discussed "what men want". Not that that's wrong, but why is that?) I would submit that all women have a "list" of some sort that their ideal guy is going to fit, whether rigid or loose, there are certain qualities that a man has to have if she's going to give any part of her life to him. And that's usually good, except when she's crazy. Women also seem to have an idea of how their relationship is going to go: how fast, how much commitment, what friends and family can be met when, etc. Men, generally, don't do this as much--the list or the ideals. I think this creates a good deal of tension in a lot of relationships.
But overall, I think it's pretty safe to say that women want, more than anything in a relationship, is to be loved. That is their deepest desire and the root of their deepest fear of being known. Whichever of those wins her internal battle will dictate her openness to the relationship. Much more than a man, a woman can be persuaded by pursuit. Men decide what they want, then they go after it. Women I think have some ideas (specific or general) of what they want, but are naturally and culturally in a more reactive position. So if a guy that they hadn't really considered before comes in and makes the right moves and meets the right criteria, she can hop on board pretty readily. A movie I watched recently said that men want a game but women want a story. Men want dragons and princesses to rescue, women want to know how they both got their in the first place and what's going to happen to them.
What you can do, ladies
The greatest curse on man-kind (emphasis on the "man") is passivity. Adam was the first when he just let Eve do her thing because she (or the serpent) may have yelled at him had he stepped in. But a good woman has the ability to draw out the strength of a man like no sport, game, or friendship possibly can. The two recommendations I can make to women interested in a man: be encouraging and be honest.
Internal masculinity is affirmed by other men in a man's life, but external masculinity is affirmed by a woman. If he reaches out to you, openly affirm him, let him in. You're not as good at hiding your barriers as you think you are. If you want him to come into your life, you have to let him and invite him. Don't pull him, but as he approaches, resist the temptation to hide or run. Once again, you'll notice that this takes an understanding of yourself and how open you are to this relationship and vulnerability. If you aren't truly aware of that, how can you expect him to be? But there is nothing better than a woman who tells a guy that he is great in the initiative and leadership he takes, who makes him feel confident and strong.
Be honest. Know that men don't work at the same pace that you do. I've heard it said that women search and find the right guy that they want to marry, whereas men wait until they're ready to get married and then find a woman that will fit. The point being that women move forward when they find the right guy and men move forward when they are ready. This is clearly a gross exaggeration, but I think the principle is true. Sometimes, even if you want him to be, he's just not ready to be dating. And sometimes, to borrow one of my new favorite phrases, "he's just not that into you". I think it's pretty clear that you should be honest with other people in your life, but my point here is to be honest with yourself. If he's not ready or not interested in pursuing you there is nothing you can do to change that. And quite honestly, you wouldn't want to. You don't want that guy that you can manipulate and turn to your liking. You want to wait for a guy who's interested in you because he's interested in you. Be honest with yourself. If it's not happening, you've probably done nothing wrong, and it's just where he is. I hear that waiting can be treacherous, but I think it is better than the alternative.
So that's my take on women. Gotta love 'em. Some of the things I find most attractive in women are an understanding of herself and her place in the world, physical and emotional modesty, and a smiley, affirming attitude. It's really fun to see relationships work as they ought, a woman filling in the man's weaknesses and vice versa. There really is not much better.
Now, onto the men. This one should be a little easier for me...
Stuck between a rock and a hard place
I think it is safe to say that very few good relationships began with both people equally liking and being on the same page with each other. Interest has to spark in one and the other has to pick up on it. In these situations, then, women are often stuck going one of two ways.
On the one hand, if they are interested in a guy, their hands are often tied according to the traditional view of waiting for him to initiate. What is she to do in the meantime? How can she express her interest? If she does, they usually go one of two ways again: either he's not interested and runs, or he likes being pursued and they get into the pattern of him following her lead and focusing on her approval, which she gets tired of (be a man, man) and he resents. If she sits and waits... well, I understand that there's a lot of tension in the silence.
The flipside is if a guy is interested in the woman. He shows interest and pursues, then she decides how to react. Now, she's likely pretty excited that there is interest, regardless of the person, and I have a feeling that her girlfriends have a pretty significant impact with how much she initially lets him in. I could be wrong. So on one side, she could not be interested at all, and either run from him and drag him around until he figures it out for himself (sometimes we are slow though), or she (mercifully) just tells him straight up. Or, and I find this interesting, she may become (if she wasn't already) interested, realize she's interested and thus becoming vulnerable, or "not ready", and double takes back into situation #1.
Of course, there is a narrow path of bliss and perfection. But most women I know haven't found that often, if ever. So there's a rock, and there's a hard place.
What women want
I think if I actually knew the answer to this heading, I would have already written a book about it and been a gazillionaire. (Side note: I find it fascinating that it is so often discussed "what women want", and so infrequently discussed "what men want". Not that that's wrong, but why is that?) I would submit that all women have a "list" of some sort that their ideal guy is going to fit, whether rigid or loose, there are certain qualities that a man has to have if she's going to give any part of her life to him. And that's usually good, except when she's crazy. Women also seem to have an idea of how their relationship is going to go: how fast, how much commitment, what friends and family can be met when, etc. Men, generally, don't do this as much--the list or the ideals. I think this creates a good deal of tension in a lot of relationships.
But overall, I think it's pretty safe to say that women want, more than anything in a relationship, is to be loved. That is their deepest desire and the root of their deepest fear of being known. Whichever of those wins her internal battle will dictate her openness to the relationship. Much more than a man, a woman can be persuaded by pursuit. Men decide what they want, then they go after it. Women I think have some ideas (specific or general) of what they want, but are naturally and culturally in a more reactive position. So if a guy that they hadn't really considered before comes in and makes the right moves and meets the right criteria, she can hop on board pretty readily. A movie I watched recently said that men want a game but women want a story. Men want dragons and princesses to rescue, women want to know how they both got their in the first place and what's going to happen to them.
What you can do, ladies
The greatest curse on man-kind (emphasis on the "man") is passivity. Adam was the first when he just let Eve do her thing because she (or the serpent) may have yelled at him had he stepped in. But a good woman has the ability to draw out the strength of a man like no sport, game, or friendship possibly can. The two recommendations I can make to women interested in a man: be encouraging and be honest.
Internal masculinity is affirmed by other men in a man's life, but external masculinity is affirmed by a woman. If he reaches out to you, openly affirm him, let him in. You're not as good at hiding your barriers as you think you are. If you want him to come into your life, you have to let him and invite him. Don't pull him, but as he approaches, resist the temptation to hide or run. Once again, you'll notice that this takes an understanding of yourself and how open you are to this relationship and vulnerability. If you aren't truly aware of that, how can you expect him to be? But there is nothing better than a woman who tells a guy that he is great in the initiative and leadership he takes, who makes him feel confident and strong.
Be honest. Know that men don't work at the same pace that you do. I've heard it said that women search and find the right guy that they want to marry, whereas men wait until they're ready to get married and then find a woman that will fit. The point being that women move forward when they find the right guy and men move forward when they are ready. This is clearly a gross exaggeration, but I think the principle is true. Sometimes, even if you want him to be, he's just not ready to be dating. And sometimes, to borrow one of my new favorite phrases, "he's just not that into you". I think it's pretty clear that you should be honest with other people in your life, but my point here is to be honest with yourself. If he's not ready or not interested in pursuing you there is nothing you can do to change that. And quite honestly, you wouldn't want to. You don't want that guy that you can manipulate and turn to your liking. You want to wait for a guy who's interested in you because he's interested in you. Be honest with yourself. If it's not happening, you've probably done nothing wrong, and it's just where he is. I hear that waiting can be treacherous, but I think it is better than the alternative.
So that's my take on women. Gotta love 'em. Some of the things I find most attractive in women are an understanding of herself and her place in the world, physical and emotional modesty, and a smiley, affirming attitude. It's really fun to see relationships work as they ought, a woman filling in the man's weaknesses and vice versa. There really is not much better.
Now, onto the men. This one should be a little easier for me...
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The "R" word (1 of 4) - Where it begins
Reeeeeeelationships. And I don't mean simple, inoffensive, unambiguous general relationships. I'm talking about what you actually think about when you hear the word "relationships". I mean a guy and a girl, 20s and 30s (had to include "30s" for Dennis), admittedly irrational yet incredibly real. Emotions, feelings, confusion, excitement, sorrow, joy. That's what I'm talking about. So allow me to contribute to the conversation. Consider the following much more observations than recommendations, and we'll see where it goes. This might take a while...
Where to begin?
I've heard it said that relationships are easy. Or at least ought to be easy. Take that slowly: Relationships ... ought to be easy. The argument here is that if a guy and a girl fit together well, they will slide through the good times and bad times, have highs and lows, but ultimately know that it is good. If that is not experienced, you probably haven't hit relationship euphoria. What do you think?
On the flip side, some say relationships are a game, at least at first. Whether these result from personal insecurities, social norms, or anything in between, there seem to be standards that are expected to be met in order to proceed. It's like a chess match where each person not only thinks three moves ahead from where they are, but has to anticipate scenarios of the other person's reactions to their moves. Do you observe this?
Maybe a better question is: is there a difference between the way relationships generally are and the way they should be?
Staying in control
Here's what I've noticed. Without being explicitly said, relationships almost always begin with both sides exhibiting an exorbitant amount of control. This is kind of ironic because, if the relationship reaches its fulfillment (aka marriage), both sides ultimately give up the control of self (not the same as self-control) so that the union would be greater. But people seem to have a need to control how they are perceived. They put on a show of what they think the other person will like.
Have you ever avoided calling back immediately because you don't want to seem desperate or pushy?
Have you ever dressed down from what you normally would so as to appear more casual? Or dressed up to appear more classy? Or dressed more sideways to appear more hip?
Have you ever spent more than a minute thinking about what color socks to wear, even though your pants and shoes cover them? Or shoes? (Ladies, we really don't notice.)
Have you ever started a conversation or gone to an event that you don't really care about because you think someone else would be impressed?
Have you ever embellished how far you ran, how many hours you worked, or what kind of activities you did to impress someone? Have you ever de-exaggerated (what's the word I'm looking for here?) these so as to not be intimidating?
Maybe it's just me and the people I hang with, but I've personally done all of these things. More than once. But why? I do it without thinking about it. Am I afraid of who I am? Am I afraid that she won't like me? Wouldn't that be better to know now than after we get going and she finds out? But no. I like her to see and think about me just as I want her to. I like to be in control of how I'm perceived. But it's exhausting!
Just the tip of the iceberg
So when thinking about relationships being easy or a game, I would say yes to both. I think there is always, inevitably some degree of play or show, but that may not necessarily be a bad thing. It kind of keeps things light and interesting. Obviously, if that is where the foundation is laid there will be problems, but I think people learn about how they work with different styles as they flirt or date or court or whatever.
So at some point, you start with the game, but at some point the relationship has to transition to real and "easy" if it's going to be sustainable. That's a tricky transition because real things come out. The things you pretended away before. It gets quirky. It gets personality. It gets real.
Coming up next...
I also think it's interesting how men and women approach relationships differently. So I'll be thinking and writing about that in my next few posts. The next post I'll share some thoughts and observations on women, admittedly from a biased and unclear male perspective. Then I'll do some reflecting on men, which I think I have a better grasp on, seeing as I am one. Lastly, I think it'll be appropriate to think about the aspect of faith in relationships--where it fits, how it works, successes and failures that I've seen and experienced.
Wow, I am unqualified for this...
Where to begin?
I've heard it said that relationships are easy. Or at least ought to be easy. Take that slowly: Relationships ... ought to be easy. The argument here is that if a guy and a girl fit together well, they will slide through the good times and bad times, have highs and lows, but ultimately know that it is good. If that is not experienced, you probably haven't hit relationship euphoria. What do you think?
On the flip side, some say relationships are a game, at least at first. Whether these result from personal insecurities, social norms, or anything in between, there seem to be standards that are expected to be met in order to proceed. It's like a chess match where each person not only thinks three moves ahead from where they are, but has to anticipate scenarios of the other person's reactions to their moves. Do you observe this?
Maybe a better question is: is there a difference between the way relationships generally are and the way they should be?
Staying in control
Here's what I've noticed. Without being explicitly said, relationships almost always begin with both sides exhibiting an exorbitant amount of control. This is kind of ironic because, if the relationship reaches its fulfillment (aka marriage), both sides ultimately give up the control of self (not the same as self-control) so that the union would be greater. But people seem to have a need to control how they are perceived. They put on a show of what they think the other person will like.
Have you ever avoided calling back immediately because you don't want to seem desperate or pushy?
Have you ever dressed down from what you normally would so as to appear more casual? Or dressed up to appear more classy? Or dressed more sideways to appear more hip?
Have you ever spent more than a minute thinking about what color socks to wear, even though your pants and shoes cover them? Or shoes? (Ladies, we really don't notice.)
Have you ever started a conversation or gone to an event that you don't really care about because you think someone else would be impressed?
Have you ever embellished how far you ran, how many hours you worked, or what kind of activities you did to impress someone? Have you ever de-exaggerated (what's the word I'm looking for here?) these so as to not be intimidating?
Maybe it's just me and the people I hang with, but I've personally done all of these things. More than once. But why? I do it without thinking about it. Am I afraid of who I am? Am I afraid that she won't like me? Wouldn't that be better to know now than after we get going and she finds out? But no. I like her to see and think about me just as I want her to. I like to be in control of how I'm perceived. But it's exhausting!
Just the tip of the iceberg
So when thinking about relationships being easy or a game, I would say yes to both. I think there is always, inevitably some degree of play or show, but that may not necessarily be a bad thing. It kind of keeps things light and interesting. Obviously, if that is where the foundation is laid there will be problems, but I think people learn about how they work with different styles as they flirt or date or court or whatever.
So at some point, you start with the game, but at some point the relationship has to transition to real and "easy" if it's going to be sustainable. That's a tricky transition because real things come out. The things you pretended away before. It gets quirky. It gets personality. It gets real.
Coming up next...
I also think it's interesting how men and women approach relationships differently. So I'll be thinking and writing about that in my next few posts. The next post I'll share some thoughts and observations on women, admittedly from a biased and unclear male perspective. Then I'll do some reflecting on men, which I think I have a better grasp on, seeing as I am one. Lastly, I think it'll be appropriate to think about the aspect of faith in relationships--where it fits, how it works, successes and failures that I've seen and experienced.
Wow, I am unqualified for this...
Friday, September 11, 2009
No such thing as freedom
Living in DC and now taking classes on the formation of policy in government really challenges me to think about what it means to live under a system of rules and laws that you don't personally construct. I mean, if I made all the laws for me and you made all the laws for you, we'd have no problem abiding by them; heck, we'd even appreciate them. But these laws on Social Security tax, drinking age, healthcare, [insert other controversial law here] don't necessarily jive with rules that you or I feel should be placed on society. But it doesn't really matter, does it?
I had no say where I was born or where I lived for the first two decades of my life, which means that I had no say about what laws I have to follow. Why should I pay for public schools I don't send kids to or roads I don't drive on? Why should I stop at the red light if it is clear and going through would cause no harm to me? But if I don't comply, they write me a ticket and/or throw me in jail. So essentially, I'm bound to these rules I never agreed to but am somehow subject to as a result of where I physically am. This is what government is. It is an entity that creates rules and regulations that establish a societal framework--or "govern"--a society as a whole, regardless of individual consideration. The same laws apply to you and to me, regardless of how we feel about them. And it doesn't change unless there are some serious problems that build up.
This is true for a democracy like the United States as much as it is for a dictatorship like Cuba. It doesn't matter who makes up the laws, it's just always true that we're all subject to them.
But why?
Voluntarily or involuntarily, we give up some of our freedom as a result of having these laws imposed on us. The idea is that you gain freedoms and benefits as a result of the same laws imposed on others, individually and collectively. It is up to the lawmakers, then, to decide which freedoms are given and which taken, however they choose to weigh them.
But we most concede, then, that we are never completely free. Either there are laws restricting our desires but protecting us from harm (I can't just go take someone's 2010 Mustang if I want it, but you can't take mine either) or there are no laws but we are subject to the will of others more powerful (physically, mentally, socially) than us. I think you could also argue that social or cultural laws are just as important as written legal laws.
Yet I am an eternal optimist. I love America, I think government is important, I value society as a whole far greater than any one person. I simply think that it is fascinating to look at the idea of "government" and "freedom" from an ultra-individualistic perspective.
But what if we were never meant to be completely free? What if we are always subject to something or someone for the rest of our lives and beyond? What if the ideal of "freedom" is something that we made up because it makes us feel powerful and in control? America would have trouble coming to grasp this, but I'm just wondering, "What if..."
I had no say where I was born or where I lived for the first two decades of my life, which means that I had no say about what laws I have to follow. Why should I pay for public schools I don't send kids to or roads I don't drive on? Why should I stop at the red light if it is clear and going through would cause no harm to me? But if I don't comply, they write me a ticket and/or throw me in jail. So essentially, I'm bound to these rules I never agreed to but am somehow subject to as a result of where I physically am. This is what government is. It is an entity that creates rules and regulations that establish a societal framework--or "govern"--a society as a whole, regardless of individual consideration. The same laws apply to you and to me, regardless of how we feel about them. And it doesn't change unless there are some serious problems that build up.
This is true for a democracy like the United States as much as it is for a dictatorship like Cuba. It doesn't matter who makes up the laws, it's just always true that we're all subject to them.
But why?
Voluntarily or involuntarily, we give up some of our freedom as a result of having these laws imposed on us. The idea is that you gain freedoms and benefits as a result of the same laws imposed on others, individually and collectively. It is up to the lawmakers, then, to decide which freedoms are given and which taken, however they choose to weigh them.
But we most concede, then, that we are never completely free. Either there are laws restricting our desires but protecting us from harm (I can't just go take someone's 2010 Mustang if I want it, but you can't take mine either) or there are no laws but we are subject to the will of others more powerful (physically, mentally, socially) than us. I think you could also argue that social or cultural laws are just as important as written legal laws.
Yet I am an eternal optimist. I love America, I think government is important, I value society as a whole far greater than any one person. I simply think that it is fascinating to look at the idea of "government" and "freedom" from an ultra-individualistic perspective.
But what if we were never meant to be completely free? What if we are always subject to something or someone for the rest of our lives and beyond? What if the ideal of "freedom" is something that we made up because it makes us feel powerful and in control? America would have trouble coming to grasp this, but I'm just wondering, "What if..."
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Baseball's superiority
I think baseball is the best sport there is. Forget multi-million-dollar whinos, steroids, scandals, etc. I'm talking pure baseball as it is meant to be played by people who love to play it, regardless of how much they do or do not get paid for it. Here are some reasons.
It's the ultimate combination of team and individual achievement.
Baseball comes down to individual pitches. For any given pitch, you have batter versus pitcher, and that's it. But then, the ball goes in play, and all of a sudden you have fielders that need to move themselves and the ball in sync to make things happen. Or, if the hitter is successful, he needs to rely on his teammates to also find success so he can score, or else his personal success is pointless. I think of other team sports as more heavily reliant on team achievement. LeBron James was great, but he couldn't win because his team was no good. Kobe was good, but only won because of heroics from Derek Fischer and his other teammates. Examples abound in football and hockey as well. In baseball, one player can be dominant for a game, but not for a season. A pitcher can be lights out but lose if his team doesn't score. A hitter can hit three home runs, but his errors could be just as costly to his team. Sometimes a spectacular individual performance can win a game for a team, and at other times a team can beat out spectacular individual performances.
It's the ultimate combination of power and finesse.
Hitting a baseball is the hardest thing to do in sports. You have a round ball flying at you at varying speeds moving in varying directions, and you are supposed to take your round bat and make good contact, even though both the bat and the ball are only a few inches in diameter. Oh yeah, and you have about half a second to decide if you want to swing and then swing. That takes finesse. Say what you want about the 'roided hitters, they have some amazing agility even despite their hugeness. At the same time, a guy who hits weak grounders or lazy fly balls is not going to do very well, and home runs can turn a game. So power is crucial. Fielding works the same way: it takes finesse to field a grounder or fly ball, but if you can't make a strong throw you aren't going to get anyone out. All sports require both power and finesse, but baseball ultimately combines both. I would argue that hockey and basketball require more finesse (even bruisers need to be able to move around well to be where they need to be), whereas football requires more power (the game is won in the trenches, right?).
Every moment matters.
In baseball's case, we'd say that every pitch matters. Any pitch can change the game completely. And even pitches that seem meaningless, because nothing significant happens, influences every other pitch from every player's perspective. I think you can make the same argument in football, in that even if a play doesn't lead to a score, field position makes a huge difference. But in basketball and hockey, if one team has a great offensive set and comes up empty, most of that time is lost and they have to just start from scratch the next time down.
It is a great equalizer.
Baseball is not a game that is fair. One player can come up, crush a ball, and if the outfield makes a spectacular catch, it's just an out. While another player might barely tip the ball, and if it happens to roll to where no one can get to it in time, he'll be safe. Pitching works the same way. Sometimes the perfect pitch will end up in the seats, while a mistake will get a strikeout. And sometimes it won't. But over the course of a season, trends emerge. The hitters who do hit the ball harder will be safe slightly more often than those who don't. It's crazy that even the best hitters of all time failed 3 out of every 5 times. An MVP (say, hitting .350) might only get 1 more hit per 10 at-bats than any schmuck out there (hitting .250). And all pitchers will get beat every once in a while, but the best ones trend to more success and failure. Baseball is a game where everyone has a chance. Every team in the league will win a third of its games (even the Nats) and lose a third of its games. Teams can get hot or cold. Anything is possible.
Baseball playoffs rule.
The only thing that comes close is the NCAA tournament. But to win 11 games against the best teams in the league after already playing 162 is just a huge feat. There's so much tension on every pitch, and especially as you get in to Game 7s and into the World Series. The best team in the league is not the one that wins, but the hottest team that made the playoffs. To get out of a slump and get energized for playoff games must be such a challenge. But it's a lot of fun to watch.
So that's probably enough on that. I do love football and basketball and hockey and other sports. But none compares to baseball. From tee ball to beer softball to the major leagues, it is just a beautiful game.
It's the ultimate combination of team and individual achievement.
Baseball comes down to individual pitches. For any given pitch, you have batter versus pitcher, and that's it. But then, the ball goes in play, and all of a sudden you have fielders that need to move themselves and the ball in sync to make things happen. Or, if the hitter is successful, he needs to rely on his teammates to also find success so he can score, or else his personal success is pointless. I think of other team sports as more heavily reliant on team achievement. LeBron James was great, but he couldn't win because his team was no good. Kobe was good, but only won because of heroics from Derek Fischer and his other teammates. Examples abound in football and hockey as well. In baseball, one player can be dominant for a game, but not for a season. A pitcher can be lights out but lose if his team doesn't score. A hitter can hit three home runs, but his errors could be just as costly to his team. Sometimes a spectacular individual performance can win a game for a team, and at other times a team can beat out spectacular individual performances.
It's the ultimate combination of power and finesse.
Hitting a baseball is the hardest thing to do in sports. You have a round ball flying at you at varying speeds moving in varying directions, and you are supposed to take your round bat and make good contact, even though both the bat and the ball are only a few inches in diameter. Oh yeah, and you have about half a second to decide if you want to swing and then swing. That takes finesse. Say what you want about the 'roided hitters, they have some amazing agility even despite their hugeness. At the same time, a guy who hits weak grounders or lazy fly balls is not going to do very well, and home runs can turn a game. So power is crucial. Fielding works the same way: it takes finesse to field a grounder or fly ball, but if you can't make a strong throw you aren't going to get anyone out. All sports require both power and finesse, but baseball ultimately combines both. I would argue that hockey and basketball require more finesse (even bruisers need to be able to move around well to be where they need to be), whereas football requires more power (the game is won in the trenches, right?).
Every moment matters.
In baseball's case, we'd say that every pitch matters. Any pitch can change the game completely. And even pitches that seem meaningless, because nothing significant happens, influences every other pitch from every player's perspective. I think you can make the same argument in football, in that even if a play doesn't lead to a score, field position makes a huge difference. But in basketball and hockey, if one team has a great offensive set and comes up empty, most of that time is lost and they have to just start from scratch the next time down.
It is a great equalizer.
Baseball is not a game that is fair. One player can come up, crush a ball, and if the outfield makes a spectacular catch, it's just an out. While another player might barely tip the ball, and if it happens to roll to where no one can get to it in time, he'll be safe. Pitching works the same way. Sometimes the perfect pitch will end up in the seats, while a mistake will get a strikeout. And sometimes it won't. But over the course of a season, trends emerge. The hitters who do hit the ball harder will be safe slightly more often than those who don't. It's crazy that even the best hitters of all time failed 3 out of every 5 times. An MVP (say, hitting .350) might only get 1 more hit per 10 at-bats than any schmuck out there (hitting .250). And all pitchers will get beat every once in a while, but the best ones trend to more success and failure. Baseball is a game where everyone has a chance. Every team in the league will win a third of its games (even the Nats) and lose a third of its games. Teams can get hot or cold. Anything is possible.
Baseball playoffs rule.
The only thing that comes close is the NCAA tournament. But to win 11 games against the best teams in the league after already playing 162 is just a huge feat. There's so much tension on every pitch, and especially as you get in to Game 7s and into the World Series. The best team in the league is not the one that wins, but the hottest team that made the playoffs. To get out of a slump and get energized for playoff games must be such a challenge. But it's a lot of fun to watch.
So that's probably enough on that. I do love football and basketball and hockey and other sports. But none compares to baseball. From tee ball to beer softball to the major leagues, it is just a beautiful game.
Friday, August 7, 2009
"Chronological snobbery"
In Surprised by Joy, C.S. Lewis coins the term "chronological snobbery", defining it as "the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited." In other words, what is old and has been replaced by some modern facet of culture is inferior to the novelty of the new concept. Or even simpler, it is the preference of the new to the old with the all-too-common assumption that newer is better. I'd like to think about that for a minute, and look at both sides of the argument for chronological snobbery in life.
Pro-chronological snobbery
This assumes that newer is, in fact, better. You could make a pretty good case for this. New medicine is better than old medicine. New cars are better than old cars. I'd even say that new science is better than old science. It is pretty logical to say that things that are new are improvements over things that are old. We've taken an idea and made it better. If it wasn't better, we'd still be using the old one.
Anti-chronological snobbery
But I'm not sure that's exactly what Lewis was talking about. The term does not judge based on the effectiveness of the idea, but just the order of it. I think it is more applicable to theology and philosophy and literature and art and culture, where the modern is assumed better than the ancient. In fact, it seems that "modern" is no longer good enough, and now we're talking about "post-modern" as the new thing. (In my mind, "post-modern" means "after now", or "future", which doesn't seem to fit its colloquial meaning. Irrelevant now.)
Examples
The most significant example that comes to mind regarding chronological snobbery is church. I happen to attend a church that is steeped in tradition dating arguably back to the time of Christ Himself. Meanwhile, others outrightly reject these traditions, often claiming to get back to the "Acts model" of church. (Another paradox: we liturgists claim to be following the ancient church model, and so do the more "modern" non-liturgical churches. Hmmm.) So is one type doing church better? Can you even compare them?
Another striking example is literature. How great does our culture consider the Harry Potter series, or even Twilight? Do these blockbusters even compare to classics like Homer's Odyssey, Shakespeare's Hamlet, or Tolstoy's War and Peace? Maybe they do.
Conclusion
I'm going to have do side with Lewis on this one, that chronological snobbery is an issue to address today. While we have to be careful to not go the other way and favor the old to the new, our culture tends to focus on the latest and greatest. So if that's where our attention is naturally drawn, our forced or focused attention ought to seek the dated and traditional. We ought to consciously examine why certain things have been done and celebrated by so many people for so long, rather than just follow the hype. If we can add to that, or reform it based on new information, great. But let's be mindful of jumping from one marginal idea to another, forsaking the roots in which they're grounded. There's something to be said for what stands the test of time. I, for one, want to be more associated with what is good and solid and lasting than flashy and new and unproven.
And I end with a quote that is awesome:
Pro-chronological snobbery
This assumes that newer is, in fact, better. You could make a pretty good case for this. New medicine is better than old medicine. New cars are better than old cars. I'd even say that new science is better than old science. It is pretty logical to say that things that are new are improvements over things that are old. We've taken an idea and made it better. If it wasn't better, we'd still be using the old one.
Anti-chronological snobbery
But I'm not sure that's exactly what Lewis was talking about. The term does not judge based on the effectiveness of the idea, but just the order of it. I think it is more applicable to theology and philosophy and literature and art and culture, where the modern is assumed better than the ancient. In fact, it seems that "modern" is no longer good enough, and now we're talking about "post-modern" as the new thing. (In my mind, "post-modern" means "after now", or "future", which doesn't seem to fit its colloquial meaning. Irrelevant now.)
Examples
The most significant example that comes to mind regarding chronological snobbery is church. I happen to attend a church that is steeped in tradition dating arguably back to the time of Christ Himself. Meanwhile, others outrightly reject these traditions, often claiming to get back to the "Acts model" of church. (Another paradox: we liturgists claim to be following the ancient church model, and so do the more "modern" non-liturgical churches. Hmmm.) So is one type doing church better? Can you even compare them?
Another striking example is literature. How great does our culture consider the Harry Potter series, or even Twilight? Do these blockbusters even compare to classics like Homer's Odyssey, Shakespeare's Hamlet, or Tolstoy's War and Peace? Maybe they do.
Conclusion
I'm going to have do side with Lewis on this one, that chronological snobbery is an issue to address today. While we have to be careful to not go the other way and favor the old to the new, our culture tends to focus on the latest and greatest. So if that's where our attention is naturally drawn, our forced or focused attention ought to seek the dated and traditional. We ought to consciously examine why certain things have been done and celebrated by so many people for so long, rather than just follow the hype. If we can add to that, or reform it based on new information, great. But let's be mindful of jumping from one marginal idea to another, forsaking the roots in which they're grounded. There's something to be said for what stands the test of time. I, for one, want to be more associated with what is good and solid and lasting than flashy and new and unproven.
And I end with a quote that is awesome:
“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.” - G.K. Chesterton
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Jesus' sex drive
The Bible is pretty clear about 2 things (among others):
1. Jesus was perfectly divine, as evidenced by His healing, prophecies, and, most notably, rising from the dead.
2. Jesus was perfectly human, as evidenced by His sleeping on a boat during a storm, asking for food when He was hungry, and crying in a sad situation.
How these really fit together, I have no idea, but I'd like to ponder about point #2 for a minute, if I may. And I may because this is my blog. So if we believe that Jesus really was a "normal" man and had normal cravings and desires (i.e. food, water, sleep, warmth, etc.), then it logically follows that He also had a desire for sex, just like any normal man would. If we stop thinking of sex as inherently sinful and start thinking of it as great in its proper place, I think this is easier to swallow. So we assume that Jesus had a sex drive normal for any young man.
Let's also consider that the Bible is pretty strict on sexual immorality and declares that, under God's Law, sex is reserved only for a marriage relationship. We also know that Jesus adhered to God's Law perfectly, which means, since He never married (go away, DaVinci Code conspirators), that He remained celibate His entire life. Now we have to reconcile this with his natural sex drive, and we have some interesting ideas.
I wish the Bible was more explicit about how Jesus addressed this issue. I mean, hanging around 12 guys in their teens and twenties, surely it came up. And probably fairly regularly. Granted the culture was very different (probably more closed) than modern America, but men are men and some things go beyond culture, if you know what I'm sayin'.
The only specific instance where Jesus talks about sex in the Bible that I can recall (yet I'm no Bible scholar) is Matthew 5:27-30. He first says that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart, which, according to the Law, is punishable by death. That's kind of a scary accusation then. He then goes to say that it is better to gouge your eye out than commit this sin. Then (and this is interesting), He says the same thing about cutting off your hand if it causes you to sin. Now how could your hand have anything to do with lust? Think about it. (Answer: I think He's talking about masturbation.)
So where does that leave us about Jesus teaching about sex from His experienced desire and restraint? First, even lust is sinful, but thankfully He has experienced the temptation to lust so is aware that we need forgiveness for that. Secondly, and more importantly, He understood, and wants us to understand, that sex is so much more than the physical act. For sexual sins we deserve the death of our souls, not just our bodies, and therefore are to do whatever it takes to prevent this. Sex has eternal consequences. Maybe that's His advice: think of sex as so much more than a one-time act. Even though He had sexual desire, Jesus understood its place in the eternal scheme of life and that enabled Him to be free from its bondage. I have a feeling that if we really took that perspective, sexual temptation wouldn't hold as much power over us either.
Something to pray about, for now, I guess. My view of God and how He made life is so small and limited. Open my eyes to Your fullness, Jesus.
1. Jesus was perfectly divine, as evidenced by His healing, prophecies, and, most notably, rising from the dead.
2. Jesus was perfectly human, as evidenced by His sleeping on a boat during a storm, asking for food when He was hungry, and crying in a sad situation.
How these really fit together, I have no idea, but I'd like to ponder about point #2 for a minute, if I may. And I may because this is my blog. So if we believe that Jesus really was a "normal" man and had normal cravings and desires (i.e. food, water, sleep, warmth, etc.), then it logically follows that He also had a desire for sex, just like any normal man would. If we stop thinking of sex as inherently sinful and start thinking of it as great in its proper place, I think this is easier to swallow. So we assume that Jesus had a sex drive normal for any young man.
Let's also consider that the Bible is pretty strict on sexual immorality and declares that, under God's Law, sex is reserved only for a marriage relationship. We also know that Jesus adhered to God's Law perfectly, which means, since He never married (go away, DaVinci Code conspirators), that He remained celibate His entire life. Now we have to reconcile this with his natural sex drive, and we have some interesting ideas.
I wish the Bible was more explicit about how Jesus addressed this issue. I mean, hanging around 12 guys in their teens and twenties, surely it came up. And probably fairly regularly. Granted the culture was very different (probably more closed) than modern America, but men are men and some things go beyond culture, if you know what I'm sayin'.
The only specific instance where Jesus talks about sex in the Bible that I can recall (yet I'm no Bible scholar) is Matthew 5:27-30. He first says that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart, which, according to the Law, is punishable by death. That's kind of a scary accusation then. He then goes to say that it is better to gouge your eye out than commit this sin. Then (and this is interesting), He says the same thing about cutting off your hand if it causes you to sin. Now how could your hand have anything to do with lust? Think about it. (Answer: I think He's talking about masturbation.)
So where does that leave us about Jesus teaching about sex from His experienced desire and restraint? First, even lust is sinful, but thankfully He has experienced the temptation to lust so is aware that we need forgiveness for that. Secondly, and more importantly, He understood, and wants us to understand, that sex is so much more than the physical act. For sexual sins we deserve the death of our souls, not just our bodies, and therefore are to do whatever it takes to prevent this. Sex has eternal consequences. Maybe that's His advice: think of sex as so much more than a one-time act. Even though He had sexual desire, Jesus understood its place in the eternal scheme of life and that enabled Him to be free from its bondage. I have a feeling that if we really took that perspective, sexual temptation wouldn't hold as much power over us either.
Something to pray about, for now, I guess. My view of God and how He made life is so small and limited. Open my eyes to Your fullness, Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
