Tactile Inspiration

I was just sitting here watching ESPN's College Gameday and they had a special spot on how most of the high profile college football programs have an inspiration object that they touch for motivation before they run onto the field. This spot chronicled teams such as Notre Dame who has touched their "Play Like a Champion" sign since the Lou Holtz era in 1986 and Texas who touches a pair of long horns before running onto the field.

During this spot the discussion approached near spiritual terms. According to the program, not only do these tactile expressions create motivation, but they also unify the team and create a sense of identity for the players.

As Christians what are we to make of these physical expression of "faith." Should we condemn the practice because these individuals are offering respect and honor to physical objects or should we just play it off as enigmatic of sports and declare that because it is not done in a religious context it has no real spiritual meaning. How do we respond if we realize that we can't dichotomize our spiritual lives from our "regular lives" because all of life is indeed spiritual? I really don't have these answers but this does prove to be an interesting issue. I wrote a bit about the issue of seemingly religious "touching" in conjunction with sports after the Super Bowl in February (here) so you can check those thoughts out if you're interested.

This topic does make me think about our own practices of tactile religious practices. Before relocating to NC I spent about three years attending St. Athanasius Orthodox Church. While I am not Orthodox, I don't think my love for Orthodoxy is any secret and I think there are many ways that we Protestants can learn from our Orthodox brothers and sisters. One of the things that we can learn is that worship, just as much as it is mental and emotional, it is also physical.

Since fully reentering the protestant world there have been many, many times where I have felt my body aching to be involved in the worship of our holy triune God. At times my arms and hands have felt cheated when I was hesitant to make the sign of the cross over my head and chest in holy reverence. My nose has been left out by not being able to smell the incense that symbolizes the prayers of the congregation as they rise to God. My knees have become soft with the lack of bowing and my eyes long to see the beauty of the Father made manifest in the images of his Son and the holy saints. I'm adjusting, and I don't mean this to sound like a complaint against the things we do at my church or against Protestantism in general. But maybe ESPN is right. Maybe we are tactile beings and touching things does inspire us and motivate us. Maybe looking upon a sign and touching a common object can create unity amongst us. And maybe this is part of the reason that the iconoclastic heresy was so detrimental to the faith and was rightfully condemned at the 7th ecumenical council.

Surely our worship practices do more than these sports practices. We do things for more reasons than to inspire, motivate, and create unity amongst ourselves. We are not "spiritual beings having a temporary physical experience" as I once read on a "Christian" bumper sticker. For if that were true then why would Christ our God become truly human and physical in order that we might be fully redeemed. Indeed we are both spiritual and physical and as such our worship must be both physical and spiritual or else by our practice we deny the truth of the incarnation and become no better than the Arian heretics of the First Council of Nicea.

May we all worship Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with body, mind, and soul.

- Ben

EDIT: Here is the link to the original video from College Gameday.

Gameday: Pregame Touch Traditions

More Football

I'm not sure why I've written so many posts on football and sports lately but here is another short one. I promise I'll get back to posts about theology and ministry soon.

While I opposed the Vikings' signing of Brett Favre on many, many levels there was one reason that seemed to rise to the top of the list. I knew that if Favre signed with the Vikings it would no longer be the team that was credited with the victory but Favre. I knew that if the Vikings make it to the Super Bowl and win it'll be Brett Favre who took them there and he will be the one upon who's shoulders the team will carried all season long.

When Favre signed I hoped that my fears would be disproved, that maybe the media would realize that the Vikings are built around Adrian Peterson, or that they would credit the defense with the marvelous work that they do. Well, I found out yesterday that my fears were correct.

I spent my weekend on a retreat with my Sr. High students and got back into town just in time for me to run home, shower, change and head back to youth group. After youth I remembered that I had a church council meeting. As I struggled to stay awake in our meeting I came to the wonderful realization that our meeting space had wireless internet and thus I could check football scores. To my dismay the first two headlines (from the ESPN and the CBS Sports applications...i think) gave headlines similar to "Favre carries Vikings in win." or "Favre and Peterson help Vikings roll over Browns."

After reading these headlines I clicked on the stats page and expected to see monster stats from both Favre and Peterson. As it was indicated Peterson ran all over the Browns gathering 180 yards and 3 TDs. Favre, however, was less than stellar throwing for 110 yards and 1 TD (stats from www.nfl.com).

Now, I didn't watch the game, but to me it seems like Favre was fairly average or slightly below average. So how in the world, with stats like that, does Favre get credit for carrying the Vikings to a win? Sure, he didn't throw any picks, but there is nothing in his stat line that indicates he carried the team to the win.

This is going to be one long season with this over-rated QB starting every week!

My Fantasy Football Team

Ok, here is my fantasy football team for our 12 team keeper league.

QB

Kurt Warner

Chad Pennington

RB

Maurice Jones-Drew

Derrick Ward

Reggie Bush

Felix Jones

WR

Bernard Berrian (you know I had to go with a Viking)

Marques Colston

Donald Driver

Earl Bennett

Patrick Crayton

Domenik Hixon

Bryant Johnson

Robert Meachem

K

Ryan Longwell

DST

Chargers

My keeper from last year was Michael Turner (RB) and I had the 10th pick in a serpentine draft format. I traded Turner and my 10th overall pick for Maurice Jones-Drew and the 5th overall pick. This would have worked out great except that, like I said in my last post, I over-thought the situation and ended up picking Warner 5th overall. Let me note that following people were off the board by the time I picked:

Peyton Manning

Tom Brady

Drew Brees

Steve Slaton

Matt Forte

L. Tomlison

Brian Westbrook

Michael Turner

Ronnie Brown

Clinton Portis

Deangelo Williams

Adrian Peterson

Chris Johnson

and 2 other people I can't remember

Novelty

A worship service works best when, through long familiarity, we don’t have to think about it… The perfect church service would be the one we were almost unaware of; our attention would have been on God. But every novelty prevents this. It fixes our attention on the service itself; and thinking about worship is a different thing from worshipping… Tis mad idolatry that makes the service greater than the god. A still worse thing may happen. Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant…There is really some excuse for the man who said, ‘I wish they’d remember that the chart to Peter was ‘Feed my sheep’; not ‘Try experiments on my rats’, or even ‘Teach my performing dogs new tricks.’

~ C. S. Lewis

The above quote by C. S. Lewis was introduced to me during seminary by my friend JD Walt. Although Lewis wasn't around to observe the contemporary mess that is protestant worship he hits the nail right on the head. I do believe that Novelty is the destroyer of meaningful worship services. As long as worship leaders and planners seek first creativity, uniqueness, and that which is novel, protestant worship services will continue to leave masses of Christian unfulfilled and longing for something deeper...something divine. My friend JD has been having this conversation over at his blog for as long as I've known him so if you're interested in this Protestant dialogue I'd encourage you to take a look over there because I want to take a step out of the world of worship and apply this quote to something completely different - Fantasy Football.

Just as novelty is the killer of liturgy and worship so it is also the destroyer of fantasy football drafts. In preparing for fantasy football one can find himself or herself wrapped up in an endless maze of stats and strategies. In this maze one can quickly lose sight of the practicality of it all and end up over-thinking every draft move. Sure there is advantage in having a well thought out strategy and plan for your draft but when these plans turn to trying to be sneaky, creative, and novel then one's team will quickly turn into a bag of sleeper picks that never materialize.

I speak these words from experience. About a week ago our HAG fantasy football league had our draft and at some points I succumbed to the draft death that is novelty. The desire to outthink everyone lead to me using my first round pick on a QB instead of taking a solid RB or WR. In an attempt to defend myself a little bit let me state a few things. First you should know that our league is a 12 team keeper league so all of top RBs were off the board by the time I got my first pick (#5 via trade). Secondly because of our scoring system QBs far outscore every other position in our league. For example the top QB in our league last year scored 452 fantasy points while the top RB only scored 335. Despite the difference in value the perceived value of RBs is much greater in our league and thus it was my attempt to outthink everyone that caused me to overvalue a QB and destroy my draft with novel thinking.

There is one thing that I neglected to take into account on draft day that would have saved me from succumbing to this novelty - ADP. ADP or average draft position helps people like me, who arrogantly think they can outwit everyone in their league, stay grounded and know when they should draft certain players according to the general consensus value. Sure you'll always have that person who doesn't follow the plan and takes a Defense or Kicker in the 6th round, but if I would have utilized ADP I think it would have checked my novel thinking and enabled me to get a better second string RB (aside from my keeper) and still have a great starting QB. All in all my team isn't totally destroyed but it's surely not as good as it could have been.

So there you have my thoughts on why novelty is not only a killer of worship but also a plague upon fantasy football drafts. Hopefully if you haven't drafted yet you can learn from my mistakes and use average draft position states to help you truly out-draft your opponents.

- Ben

Morality and Sports Part II: The Part where Morality is Thrown Out of the Window

First off I want to thank many of your for your kind words and your condolences. Yesterday was indeed a dark, dark day in my life as Brett Favre signed a contract with the Minnesota Vikings. Honestly even typing those words makes my heart sink a little.

Since this has happened I've gone through a couple stages of grief (denial and anger) but I think I might stop there. It is at this point that all of my moral reasoning within sports flies out the window. Even though I know in my heart this is reality, I still want nothing more for him than to have his arms fall off and be eaten by wolves. I want his partially torn rotator cuff to finish itself off with his first pass and his "enjoying the game so much smile" to be ground into the dirt by a fat defensive lineman. I hope when he plays GB that they destroy him and leave him crumpled up beneath a pile of behemoth defensive lineman. This list could continue, I'm sure with a bit of time this wound will heal, but Brett Favre has now destroyed part of my early adulthood like Jeffrey Maier destroyed parts of my childhood.

Now obviously as a Christian I don't really desire these things for Favre. We are, after all, called to love our enemies. But my sports angst knows no limits in a situation like this. I have grown up having great sports disdain for Favre and his overrated quarterback play. I've argued for years that he's not as good as everyone thinks and that he really is a detriment to a team. I've rejoiced in his failure on the field (and regrettably sometimes off the field) and now I'm told that I, as a die-hard Minnesota Vikings fan since the beginning of my life, am supposed throw all of that aside and support the man 100%. There is no way in the world this is happening.

I'm not sure what my course of action will be. I've mulled over just ignoring the fact that the Vikings are even playing this season (like my friend Fous did last year when Favre was traded to the Jets). I've thought about just watching the games and hoping he keeps building upon his all-time interception record (the one bright spot in his continued play) but I'm not certain what I'll do. All I know is that the football season just became a whole lot less enjoyable. I probably won't watch as many games and my desire to go see the Vikings when they come to Charlotte to play the Panthers just went from "I need to find the money" to "meh, maybe if someone gave me a ticket and paid for my gas I'd go."

So there you have it. I feel a little bit better having ranted about this but I still feel that sick vomit inducing reaction every single time I think about Favre donning a purple helmet and jersey. If you want some real logical commentary on this scenario then you need to go elsewhere because you won't find it here. I am biased and I will never cease to be a Favre hater when it comes to football.

If you're interested in more of this check out what Joe Fischer has to say about the logic of signing Favre over at Pacifist Viking. Some of his particularly good insights are:

Against Favre

Favre Does not Push the Vikings Over the Edge

The Risk of Favre

On Cheering for Favre

Brett Favre: Pros

My Stages of Grief

Morality and Sports

One of my favorite blogs on the net is a blog called Pacifist Viking. Not only is this blog incredibly well written (the author is a college English prof) and full of solid logic, but it also combines a love for the football (especially the Minnesota Vikings - a love I share) with interesting philosophical discussions. The reason I bring this up is that I just finished reading an interesting article in which Joe Fischer (the author) discusses the relationship between morality and sport especially in light of the recent signing of Michael Vick.

You can find the article here

One reason I find this article particularly interesting is that the topic of morality and sports was one of the many reoccurring topics of discussion in our house during seminary. While our seminary discussions were mainly concerning moral actions on the playing field (i.e. is sliding hard into the second baseman to prevent him from turning a double play a morally acceptable action?) and not discussion the morality of sports personalities like this article I still think almost all intersections between sport and morality are interesting.

I'll take Potporri for 300, Alex

I'm striving to be a little more consistent with my blogging. I don't know how that will work itself out in the coming weeks as the due dates for papers seems to approach at light speed, but nevertheless I will try. In an attempt to not fail in this right after my quite long winded return (see "about time eh?" below) I offer up a short mess of random and somewhat unconnected topics.

Topic #1: Sexist language in sports.

As you all should know (and if you don't I'm wondering how well you really know me) I'm a huge Minnesota Vikings fan (that's an American Football team for those of you not in the US). Part of my rabid fandom consists of spending my free time (or time I spend procrastinating) surfing the internet for any sort of Vikings comments. In my recent internet travels I came across a Vikings blog entitled "Pacifist Viking" - how crazy of a title is that, since vikings are known for raping, pilaging, and burning.

All that to say that while I was on this site the other day I read an interesting take on sexist language in sports. I think that Pacifist Viking (I don't know his name) makes some good points. Although I don't remember using the phrase "man up" in recent years (specifically analagous to "suck it up") he causes me to think about sports cliches. This example made me think of the common basketball phrase "man up" as in play "man to man" coverage (I'm not a basketball expert and except for the Houghton Globetrotters, I loathe the sport - so if i'm using the phrasing wrong I aplogize). Thinking on this I am wondering how we proceed. I am all about gender inclusive language (unless it messes with God language) but it wasn't until now that I realized my double standard when using sports terminology. Does this mean that I have to start using comberson phrases like playing a "person defense" or he's in "person to person coverage"? Can I use man when the sports participants are only men, but must I use woman if the sport consists of women? Although, I doubt I'll really run into the latter case as I don't know if I've watched an all women's sporting event since high school. How does this practically work itself out?

One thing that I thought was very interesting was the experiment that he offers at the end of his post. Thinking about the TAG commercials in this light makes me dislike the product even more than I already do.

Either way I pass this site's article on to you for a short intersting take on sports language. There is also another post here that I found to be an amusing take on sports, total depravity and the prosperity gospel.

In fact, I just realized that I refered to the author of the blog as "he" throughout my whole post. I have no reason to believe it is a he aside from typical gender stereotypes and so I confess I am still working on my gender reconciliation.

Part 2: On Ted Haggard

By now I assume you all have heard about the scandal concerning Ted Haggard, and if you haven't then I feel truly honored that you are visiting my blog prior to visiting the websites of CNN, BBC, or Fox News.

Earlier tonight I was informed about this by a friend over IM and we were talking about it for a bit and here are some of my thoughts.

Sadly I don't know what my first reaction was. It was one of two things. 1) Poor Ted Haggard - Lord be with him. or 2) Oh no, now look at the black eye for christendom. I am truly ashamed that I don't know which was my reaction and am even more ashamed that it may very well have been the second. How heartless and unchristlike can I be?

I want to yell and scream and condem the pastor who allows herself or himself to be in this kind of mess, but then I realize the clique holds true: "there, but for the grace of God, go I" now to be fair I mean that in the general way - not the gay sex or meth way. But seriously I realize my weaknesses and I feel great pain for Haggard despite that fact that I undoubtedly dissagree with him on various theological things like ecclesioloyg, missiology, and sacrametology.

In fact from what little I do know I probably would have listed this man as representing a Christian paradigm that was the complete antithesis of mine. He pastored a large church and was a quasi-church growth guy (if not completley church growth), he was a vocal and popular Christian media voice, and he represented the religious right and was hyper-conservative political in its agenda. Despite all this I feel for Haggard, and pray that he finds healing in the Lord through this situation, whether he did anything or not, and I pray that the christians that looked strongly to him would refocus their faith from leadership to the Christ who leads.

While my heart and prayers go out I cannot help but to look at this situation as an observer and offer some thoughts.

1.) This is obviously not the first time a person in the church has fallen and regretably it will not be the last, however, it is clear that these fallouts become more and more problematic for the church in society as ministers feel the increasing need to become well known in the media. Yes, there will be fallout when ministers fail, but this fallout grows exponentially when are ministers and leaders are media icons. As my friend Greg Sigountos aptly said:

---------------------
"[this scenario is] a great case study. See what happens when you intertwine yourselves too closely with the world? Bang, you're ripe for being picked off, and we have a hypocrite bonfire. This is why pastors need to avoid celebrity at all costs... If there wasn't enough evidence against the celebrity pastor already, and how few, if any, can pull it off, maybe this adds one extra bit of incentive. Stay out of the spotlight- the Spirit worked just fine before the TV cameras existed."
---------------------

or as St. John Chrysostom says in his treatise On the Priesthood

---------------------
if a preacher "is a slave to the sound of applause, again an equal damage threatens both him and the people, because through his passion for praise he aims to speak more for the pleasure than the proft of his hearers...The man who is carried away with the desire for eulogies may have the ability to improve the people, but chooses instead to provide nothing but entertainment. That is the price he pays for thunders of applause....For in fact, if he has already been overtaken by the desire for unmerited praise, neither his great efforts nor his powers of speech will be any use....So a preacher must train himself above all else to despise praise...But if if he has not shaken himself free of it [love of esteem], he involves his soul in an intricate struggle, in unrelieved turmoil, and in the hurly-burly of desperation and every other passion."
---------------------

I quote Chyrsostom here not to make accusations against Haggard, as if he was quilty of violating Chrysostom's exhortations, but because these comments seem to apply to the problem of christian leaders becoming media whores. Ministers may indeed fall as has happened throughout church history. This is not the ideal, nor is it desireable, and the issues that arise around a fallen ministry should primarily be reconciliation, forgiveness, and restoration. As American ecclesiology has shifted from small local bodies to large mega-churches so has the focus shifted from quiet locally known pastors to massive media darling pastors. In fact I think one could make a case that the rise of the media star pastor is directly proportional to the number and growth of mega-churches. Now, because of our media-driven or at best media-recognized pastors our primariy concerns as a church is no longer reconciliation, forgiveness, and restoration, but rather how do we deal with the PR nightmare which this causes. Yes try to focus on the others, but we cannot help but deal with and be consumed with the PR fiasco that arises. Chrysostom's quote is just as aplicable to the churches of today as it is to the ministers of yesterday and today. To the church this quote speaks caution of seeking the approval of the masses. Should we be concerned with how they view us? Only insofar as they see our love for God, them and each other. Our hyper concern with putting a good face forward and offering solid entertainment is unbiblical and certainly uncharacteristic of true church for any age. We will never be able to fully ministry to the world if we are overly concerned with getting the right publicity or being seen in a favorably light. Churches as well as ministers should avoid the the rank of celebrity at all costs so that the message and the witness of the people of God can remain uncomprimised.

2.) One of the articles I read concerning this made the comment that Haggard has confessed his sins to the "overseers" of his church. I have to give Haggard tons of credit for this. He is following the biblical model and submitting himself to the biblical authorities. The question this raises has to do with confidentiality. What happens if for some reason this goes to court and his "overseers" are called into court to testify? We are all aware of Patient-Doctor confidentiality and Patient-Counselor, but what about Clergy-laity? Are his overseers obligated to divulge information that he shared to them in a confessional manner? What about if this was in a high church tradition like Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican? Would the confidentiality issue be different if the confession was done in a confessional, or by ordained members? It seems to me that the possible legal precedent that may be set concerning ecclesial confession has huge ramifications. If they allow these "overseers" to claim a specific confidentiality then what is to stop someone from confessing to any generic religious figure and claiming confessor confidentiality. Let us suppose that these overseers are not officiallly ordained and thus they force them to testify, what does this do for the low church independent church down the street - can the pastor of this church not hear confessions or do counseling without knowing he will have a legal obligation to testify? Does this mean that only ordained people can have this special relationship? If so what about those denomination that ordain elders - do they get this privelage? I dont think these thoughts are too clear, but it seems to me that this Haggard situation has huge legal ramifications if it goes to court for the confessional and counseling ministry of the church - especially in low-ecclesiological protestant churches.

Part 3: Book Excerpt

In preparation for one of my mid-term exams the other day I decided to do some reading. One of our books is: Religion and American Culture by George M. Marsden. I'm not done with the book yet because we only had to read half of it for the exam, but so far I would recommend it. The book is a good outlook on the development of religion in America. It reads much better than a dry account of facts which is most likely due to Marsden's asides that describe how the topic at hand has lead to a current phenomenon or other asides that seem a little preachy in nature. Below is one of the asides that I really liked and found to be the most though provoking.
------------------------
"The United States was the first modern nation systematically to shift public veneration of the government from veneration of persons to veneration of the nation and its principles. Soon the United States developed a set of rituals and symbols that bore a striking resemblance to traditional Christian rites and symbols but in which the nation itself was the object of worship. The flag, like the cross in Catholic churches, was a sacred object. Elaborate rules developed as to when and how it could be handled. Pledges to the flag arguably played the role of crossing oneself in a church. One pledged to a creed. The nation developed holidays (holy days) and its own brand of saints. George Washington, for instance, soon took on mythical qualities. National architecture and shrines provied centers for pilgrimages and worship. Some people have pointed out that three of the most popular shrines in Washington D.C. - those to Washington, Lincoln, and Kennedy - have designs that would be appropriate symbols for each of the three members of the Christian Trinity (the transcendent obelisk for the father, the personal presence of the martyred champion of national reconciliation and charity, and the eternal flame, for the spirit of service to country).... The United States, like all modern nations, demands unswerving allegiance from its citizens. It is to the nation in which one is expected to make the supreme sacrifice. Therefore in American wars, national loyalty has always been demanded above church loyalty." (pg 53)

and one that seems to relate to our celebrity ministers as metioned above

"[George] Whitefield's triumphant journey up and down the East Coast, preaching to large gatherings wherever he went, was one of teh first truly intercolonial events. Whitefield was the first "media star" in Ameican history. His medium was the pulpit, and he had immense skill with the spoken word. His tour anticipated a patter in American culture: Lacking long-established traditions and rituals, American have been susceptible to waves of popular enthusiasm for 'stars.' This pattern had its beginings in revivalism and remains a prominent dimension of American cultural and religious life." (pg 32)
--------------------------

I don't agree with the first quote 100% and I think the thought of the triune nature of the American monuments is a little bit of a stretch but nevertheless it does illustrate a good point. This is a good example of how Marsden gets a little preachy in his book, but I think his assertions are right on target. Personally I have not been able to say the pledge of allegiance for about 4 or 5 years. Once I really began to think of what I was doing I couldn't in good conscience continue to swear my allegiace to a country. My loyalty alone belongs to Christ and to his kingdom. I belong to the US insofar as I live here and they do not forcably violate my religious beliefs. I will not fight for them in a war and I will not pledge my allegiance to any earthly kingdom until the new heavens and the new earth appear and the Kingdom of God is revealed in its fullness on the earth.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, I think that's all that I have to write. I guess the post wasn't as short as I wanted it to be...oh well. Like I said I'll try to be more consistent in posting, but with the impending papers I may have to allow blogging to take a back seat for a month or two. Just incase you were wondering I am writing two major research papers for this semester. The topics for these papers are:

1. Sacramentology in the 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings
2. The eternal subordination of Christ - looking through the lens of the early church fathers.

Blessings to you all and as usual thanks for bearing with my incoherent rambling.

~ Ben