Too soon?
He's sucking it up lately, as is widely reported in the local press. And it seems he just can't seem to put together a decent streak with our present line-up. Whether it's slowness, bad knees, some sort of mental disorder, or whatever, it is seeming like B-Roy is perhaps becoming a liability.
Clearly, he can still have good games. But he seems to be of the opinion that our current line-up is a hindrance and not a help. What to do?
Some feel B-Roy is still untouchable. I'm coming to be less and less of that opinion all the time. We have Matthews, Batum, and Fernandez, all of whom can platoon his position as we shed his weight with Pryzbilla or Miller's expiring contract (which are probably the only thing that would add sizzle to a B-Roy trade-steak at this point). Roy probably has substantial value somewhere; it's seeming less-and-less likely that that value is here, this year or for the next couple.
I'm coming to be of the opinion that it's time to start cutting bait and moving toward tomorrow. Today, clearly, sucks...
December 14, 2010
April 27, 2010
The 24 Lives of Jack Bauer
I'm currently watching Day 6 of 24, and it's finally getting to me. This series relies so heavily upon the willing suspension of disbelief, that at one point or another even the most willing fan has to fight through the insanity.
So many issues; where do we start?
The Inadequacy of CTU: Every episode involves CTU locking down a sector or cordoning off a grid or whatever. Every CTU lockdown is utterly ineffective. Noone has ever been caught in a CTU-secured zone.
The Interminable Legion of Dead Agents: Seriously, whenever a CTU agent's face is shown for more than a second, or (worse) whenever a CTU agent is dressed in battle gear, odds are highly in favor of them dying. It's like the Ensign who beams down with Kirk, Spock, and Bones. If you're on that away team, give up, because you're dead. If you are in CTU and you're not Jack Bauer, you might as well just give up, because you're tits up before the next commercial.
CTU Moles: CTU is one of the most techno-savvy and advanced agencies there is. So it shocks me that, in every single season, they fall prey to a mole using a cell phone in the bathroom, or else some low-browed hacker is able to completely paralyze the system.
The Continuum of Palmer Presidents: David Palmer was, by far, the best President ever to exist in all of time. That much is for sure. But, somehow, the Palmer's are like Camelot revisited. David Palmer, Wayne Palmer, and Cheri Palmer as well? At some point, you just have to call BS on this. Although one must applaud the progressive nature of the 24 Universe. Three black presidents in seven days is pretty impressive.
Jack Bauer, the Center of It All: How can one man be at the center of every disaster this country will ever face? Jack Bauer, whether leading a counter-terrorist group in LA, or serving as assistant to a cabinet secretary, or whether being confined on a container ship having his nails extracted by the Chinese, always ends up being the one person in the middle of all the action, and actually ends up being a teleological causal agent for at least half of it. When you consider the number of conspiracies aimed at Bauer or his family, it is safe to say the best move to preserve America's interests is the chemical sterilizations of all Bauers and the lynching of Jack. And how many times does Jack Bauer have to "promise" or "swear" to an expected outcome before people realize that no matter heartfelt it sounds, the mere act of being spoken to by Jack Bauer is worse than swallowing a suicide pill.
Does this all mean I'll stop watching? Negatory, good buddy. But a good cleansing breath here and there isn't a bad thing...
So many issues; where do we start?
The Inadequacy of CTU: Every episode involves CTU locking down a sector or cordoning off a grid or whatever. Every CTU lockdown is utterly ineffective. Noone has ever been caught in a CTU-secured zone.
The Interminable Legion of Dead Agents: Seriously, whenever a CTU agent's face is shown for more than a second, or (worse) whenever a CTU agent is dressed in battle gear, odds are highly in favor of them dying. It's like the Ensign who beams down with Kirk, Spock, and Bones. If you're on that away team, give up, because you're dead. If you are in CTU and you're not Jack Bauer, you might as well just give up, because you're tits up before the next commercial.
CTU Moles: CTU is one of the most techno-savvy and advanced agencies there is. So it shocks me that, in every single season, they fall prey to a mole using a cell phone in the bathroom, or else some low-browed hacker is able to completely paralyze the system.
The Continuum of Palmer Presidents: David Palmer was, by far, the best President ever to exist in all of time. That much is for sure. But, somehow, the Palmer's are like Camelot revisited. David Palmer, Wayne Palmer, and Cheri Palmer as well? At some point, you just have to call BS on this. Although one must applaud the progressive nature of the 24 Universe. Three black presidents in seven days is pretty impressive.
Jack Bauer, the Center of It All: How can one man be at the center of every disaster this country will ever face? Jack Bauer, whether leading a counter-terrorist group in LA, or serving as assistant to a cabinet secretary, or whether being confined on a container ship having his nails extracted by the Chinese, always ends up being the one person in the middle of all the action, and actually ends up being a teleological causal agent for at least half of it. When you consider the number of conspiracies aimed at Bauer or his family, it is safe to say the best move to preserve America's interests is the chemical sterilizations of all Bauers and the lynching of Jack. And how many times does Jack Bauer have to "promise" or "swear" to an expected outcome before people realize that no matter heartfelt it sounds, the mere act of being spoken to by Jack Bauer is worse than swallowing a suicide pill.
Does this all mean I'll stop watching? Negatory, good buddy. But a good cleansing breath here and there isn't a bad thing...
April 12, 2010
March 23, 2010
SOAP Notes
Tonight's reading: Joshua 15-17; 1 Cor 8
S:1 Cor 8:13 - Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.
O: Jesus is discussing how we ought not let our knowledge of right and wrong harm those who don't share it, by doing something we know to be alright though it might create strife.
A: I used to love one of Tom Baker's occasional sayings. "Jesus was a wine-bibber," He was fond of noting, to point out (I think) that Jesus was thoroughly in this world, though not of it, and didn't hold himself separate from the people that he loved. Jesus would seek out the lost, go after the tax collector, save the prostitute and the leper.
Of course, I seized on the part of that phrase that pointed out that Jesus drank wine. Of course He did; it was a cultural norm at the time, and not a matter of taboo as it is in our modern, occasionally puritanical society.
I, of course, like beer. It appealed to me that Jesus wouldn't be offended by my beer drinking.
It appeals to me, occasionally, to hear pastoral staff talking about creating a space in a brewpub setting. It appeals to me that there are groups that already do this. It appeals to me that, every once in a blue moon, I get to have a beer in this setting here.
All of this appeals to me because I like beer (mostly) and, also, because I know that Jesus doesn't mind me drinking beer (if done in moderation and so-on). And, sometimes, I assume that my knowledge is common knowledge.
This, of course, is where I'm fatally wrong. My knowledge isn't common knowledge, and my exercise of discretion based upon that knowledge is offensive to some, hurtful to some, wicked to some, and in that sense is a disservice to all.
I think of people at church, whether highly-placed or otherwise, who I am certain are opposed to drink, for whatever reason (personal, spiritual, historical, etc.) To those people, the service of wine at communion is a tremendous sin. To them, a service at a brewpub is taking us to hell in handbasket. I know they're wrong, but I have to fight the urge to judge it. In the end, apart from this difference in our knowledge, these people have great things to bring to the table. In stepping forward with the thought that they need to be challenged to grow up, and in turn offending them, I may find I'm cutting off my nose to spite my face. By driving a wedge in, by pushing them away when it is my responsibility to be sensitive, I invite discord and disfunction and I end up harming the whole by sectioning off a part.
It's a tricky balance. You certainly mustn't let cliques and factions rule; you certainly have to govern toward the health of the collective and, as such, have to be knowledgeable that some will feel left behind. You can't please everyone all the time. But with that in mind, we need to be judicious in where and how we push forward, and conscious of the challenges we present to some; where appropriate, we need to be ready to hold back until everyone is able to take certain steps together, even if that sometimes means never taking certain steps at all...
P: Lord, help me to be more sensitive to those around me. Let me understand where my behaviors, whether right or wrong in themselves, create unnecessary discord in others. Help me to put the good of the many ahead of my own selfish desires. Amen
S:1 Cor 8:13 - Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.
O: Jesus is discussing how we ought not let our knowledge of right and wrong harm those who don't share it, by doing something we know to be alright though it might create strife.
A: I used to love one of Tom Baker's occasional sayings. "Jesus was a wine-bibber," He was fond of noting, to point out (I think) that Jesus was thoroughly in this world, though not of it, and didn't hold himself separate from the people that he loved. Jesus would seek out the lost, go after the tax collector, save the prostitute and the leper.
Of course, I seized on the part of that phrase that pointed out that Jesus drank wine. Of course He did; it was a cultural norm at the time, and not a matter of taboo as it is in our modern, occasionally puritanical society.
I, of course, like beer. It appealed to me that Jesus wouldn't be offended by my beer drinking.
It appeals to me, occasionally, to hear pastoral staff talking about creating a space in a brewpub setting. It appeals to me that there are groups that already do this. It appeals to me that, every once in a blue moon, I get to have a beer in this setting here.
All of this appeals to me because I like beer (mostly) and, also, because I know that Jesus doesn't mind me drinking beer (if done in moderation and so-on). And, sometimes, I assume that my knowledge is common knowledge.
This, of course, is where I'm fatally wrong. My knowledge isn't common knowledge, and my exercise of discretion based upon that knowledge is offensive to some, hurtful to some, wicked to some, and in that sense is a disservice to all.
I think of people at church, whether highly-placed or otherwise, who I am certain are opposed to drink, for whatever reason (personal, spiritual, historical, etc.) To those people, the service of wine at communion is a tremendous sin. To them, a service at a brewpub is taking us to hell in handbasket. I know they're wrong, but I have to fight the urge to judge it. In the end, apart from this difference in our knowledge, these people have great things to bring to the table. In stepping forward with the thought that they need to be challenged to grow up, and in turn offending them, I may find I'm cutting off my nose to spite my face. By driving a wedge in, by pushing them away when it is my responsibility to be sensitive, I invite discord and disfunction and I end up harming the whole by sectioning off a part.
It's a tricky balance. You certainly mustn't let cliques and factions rule; you certainly have to govern toward the health of the collective and, as such, have to be knowledgeable that some will feel left behind. You can't please everyone all the time. But with that in mind, we need to be judicious in where and how we push forward, and conscious of the challenges we present to some; where appropriate, we need to be ready to hold back until everyone is able to take certain steps together, even if that sometimes means never taking certain steps at all...
P: Lord, help me to be more sensitive to those around me. Let me understand where my behaviors, whether right or wrong in themselves, create unnecessary discord in others. Help me to put the good of the many ahead of my own selfish desires. Amen
January 30, 2010
January 27, 2010
January 13, 2010
January 08, 2010
The Merits of "School of Rock"
I've ended up being engaged in an interesting Facebook discussion today, born of this tweet / status update I posted this morning:
"I've officially decided that School of Rock is one of the finer films ever made."
Never expected it to turn into an actual discussion of modern American cinema. I expected to get some guff on it, sure, but my friend Ted dropped an immediate challenge of a funny but more intense nature:
"Um, yeah just to inform you. Your judgment has been put under review by the FCAA (Film Critics Association of America). Please submit form 437b along with two essays on (1) the state of American cinema post 1977 and (2) the future of movie making. The board will be in contact with you to schedule a formal hearing after an oversight comittee has had an opportunity to review your submission."
After calling him a dick, I decided to put some thought into the questions posed. After all, I'd just had my allergy shots and was sitting around a waiting room otherwise bored, so I might as well do this, right?
Below, my responses, organized and slightly cleaned up grammatically but otherwise not adulterated:
I was then accused of being a fan of Year One, starring Jack Black and Michael Cera. This is untrue; I've never seen it and never will, but it led me to a brief discussion of the merits of Mr. Black:
"Really haven't cared for him in anything else. Nacho Libre has a couple of good points but generally tedious. That one w/ him and Gwyneth Paltrow as a fatty is schlock. Year One just looks like a bad idea; generally the only stone age comedy I'll admit to enjoying was Caveman with Ringo Starr."
Ted noted that he was good in The Holiday. I don't disagree, but I think that movie is enjoyable more for Kate Winslet and Cameron Diaz than for Black, who is essentially a prop throughout it.
There is no real reason that anyone should really care about all of this, of course. But it was a fun enough exercise for me that I thought it merited breaking my long silence on this blog, no matter how briefly.
Happy New Year, by the way!
"I've officially decided that School of Rock is one of the finer films ever made."
Never expected it to turn into an actual discussion of modern American cinema. I expected to get some guff on it, sure, but my friend Ted dropped an immediate challenge of a funny but more intense nature:
"Um, yeah just to inform you. Your judgment has been put under review by the FCAA (Film Critics Association of America). Please submit form 437b along with two essays on (1) the state of American cinema post 1977 and (2) the future of movie making. The board will be in contact with you to schedule a formal hearing after an oversight comittee has had an opportunity to review your submission."
After calling him a dick, I decided to put some thought into the questions posed. After all, I'd just had my allergy shots and was sitting around a waiting room otherwise bored, so I might as well do this, right?
Below, my responses, organized and slightly cleaned up grammatically but otherwise not adulterated:
I understand your concern, though. It took me awhile to gather the courage to come out of that shame spiral and decide that I wasn't a bad person for having such aberrant sensibilities.I believe these points to all be legitimate, honest, and true.
Essay #1: Movies after 1977 are better than movies before. Fewer dances and musical props, more guts and blood and other visceral pleasures. The darkness and moral ambiguity of modern cinema suffers in many ways from a lack of the cup-half-full, pie-eyed optimism of the old days, but we identify more strongly with films that reflect our reality. The only down-side is the remake- and sequel-happiness of modern days, which insults us in the obvious cash-grabby greed that is demonstrated.
Essay #2: the future of movie making is bleak. The last 30 years have shown a mautration of movies and their audiences, coupled with advances in movie-making technology that added to and enhanced the story being told. Now, more often than not, stories are flimsy excuses for sensory overload by effects that are ultimately moving backwards because ... See Morethey are too-rendered and thus unbelievable. The afore-mentioned reliance on rehashing or re-tooling old stories is a crutch for the incredible shrinking aptitude of modern writers.
I realize that in essay #1 I attacked pie-eyed optimism and musical crutches, both of which are on display in School of Rock. An essential element of humanity is the ability to be (relatively) unapologetically hypocritical. Deal with it.
I was then accused of being a fan of Year One, starring Jack Black and Michael Cera. This is untrue; I've never seen it and never will, but it led me to a brief discussion of the merits of Mr. Black:
"Really haven't cared for him in anything else. Nacho Libre has a couple of good points but generally tedious. That one w/ him and Gwyneth Paltrow as a fatty is schlock. Year One just looks like a bad idea; generally the only stone age comedy I'll admit to enjoying was Caveman with Ringo Starr."
Ted noted that he was good in The Holiday. I don't disagree, but I think that movie is enjoyable more for Kate Winslet and Cameron Diaz than for Black, who is essentially a prop throughout it.
There is no real reason that anyone should really care about all of this, of course. But it was a fun enough exercise for me that I thought it merited breaking my long silence on this blog, no matter how briefly.
Happy New Year, by the way!
November 12, 2009
Mark Sanchez, "The Dirty One"
About a month ago I was listening to a naional sports personality on the radio discussing Mark Sanchez, QB for the NY Jets. He referred to Sanchez as "The Dirty One," in sort of a slip-in fashion. Almost missed it. Couldn't believe it.
Today on the radio, same guy, same nomiker. "The Dirty One," Mark Sanchez.
I was curious. Is this the only guy dropping "Dirty" Sanchez gloss, or is this a bigger issue? Googled "Mark Sanchez" "Dirty One," and, well, it's a common thing.
Is this offensive? I think it's funnÝ but, at the same time, I think it's wrong. Calling Sanchez dirty is clearly not racist. It is clearly using his name and a moniker to discuss a disgusting sexual practice. It's certainly juvenile, and in my mind it's regrettable.
Today on the radio, same guy, same nomiker. "The Dirty One," Mark Sanchez.
I was curious. Is this the only guy dropping "Dirty" Sanchez gloss, or is this a bigger issue? Googled "Mark Sanchez" "Dirty One," and, well, it's a common thing.
Is this offensive? I think it's funnÝ but, at the same time, I think it's wrong. Calling Sanchez dirty is clearly not racist. It is clearly using his name and a moniker to discuss a disgusting sexual practice. It's certainly juvenile, and in my mind it's regrettable.
October 06, 2009
Back again
The necessary evil of blogging is voicing your opinion.
That may seem weird. But the only time blogs ever come up in non-blogger conversation is when they come across something interesting, or when there's a story about a blogger's opinion landing them in some deep poo.
I've been essentially underground for about a year. Why? I didn't want my opinion biting me in the ass. But, today, with a couple of beers in me, I don't care.
So we're back. Today's opinions are in comments over at Jack Bogdanski's website, here and here.
Nothing super-fantastic or blow-your-dress-up-awesome, but it is what it is.
That's all for today.
That may seem weird. But the only time blogs ever come up in non-blogger conversation is when they come across something interesting, or when there's a story about a blogger's opinion landing them in some deep poo.
I've been essentially underground for about a year. Why? I didn't want my opinion biting me in the ass. But, today, with a couple of beers in me, I don't care.
So we're back. Today's opinions are in comments over at Jack Bogdanski's website, here and here.
Nothing super-fantastic or blow-your-dress-up-awesome, but it is what it is.
That's all for today.
December 03, 2008
WTF is going on at UO?
So University of Oregon President Dave Frohnmayer announced yesterday that Mike Bellotti is Oregon's new AD, and Chip Kelly (the current offensive coordinator for the football team) is the new head coach for the Ducks.
Except for one thing.
The moves will take place in an indisclosed time. John Canzano showed up on today's MSP to discuss, and said that Bellotti's identified the timeframe for the transition as being within the next 10 years.
Canzano expressed exasperation at the move, saying that it doesn't make sense for Oregon to enter into this sort of agreement if the move is not goin gto happen soon. The only rationale he could identify would be to ease the minds of recruits, since Chip's been identified as a head coach candidate by other schools and appeared ready to move. MSP host Gavin Dawson pointed out that a solid timeline raised the danger of a lame-duck scenario.
So what is going on? I think this move automatically raises a lame-duck scenario, with or without a set timeline. Much like the situation in Dallas with the Cowboys coaching situation, people will start looking at Bellotti as a caretaker and a head coach in name only. Sure, as the next AD he'll always be Chip's boss and Chip needs to toe the line, but when the players know that Bellotti's heading out (whenever that happens) and that Chip's the guy they have to suck up to, it creates issues in leading the team.
Besides, I don't think the team does this to keep recruits interested. The teams been through several offensive coordinators in the last 5 years, and has been consistently great. That indicates a solid program and solid leadership at the top, and so as long as Bellotti is there running the program, changing coordinators isn't the issue.
I don't think Chip Kelly signs this contract (and I'm sure there's a contract here) without some pretty specific assurances. I don't think he rides backseat to Mike for an indetermined amount of time when he could be a head coach now. And I don't think he signs a deal for a short term, either. The upside of this deal is that UO is a BCS power-program and has developed into a juggernaut; it's not likely he'd get a better shot anywhere else for a while. The downside is that (as Canzano said today) his offense will lose its luster and his stock will drop -- he must know football well enough to know that he needs to make his power play now.
I think we'll find out in the next few weeks (translation: after the impending bowl game) that Bellotti will coach one more season. Pat Kilkenny, who gets the credit for getting the new basketball arena built, will stick long enough to see the project through and, perhaps, bring on a new basketball coach (like Mark Few from Gonzaga), and then the transition takes place to a new sports regime with a new AD, football, and hoops coach rising (or falling) together. Meanwhile, I'm sure Chip is getting a nice Christmas bonus and, I'd guess, will play a pretty huge role in recruiting once the situation has gelled in the press.
Time will tell. I think it's a good move as long as it plays out in the near-term. If this transition takes more than a year, I think a lot of people will regret yesterday's announcement.
Except for one thing.
The moves will take place in an indisclosed time. John Canzano showed up on today's MSP to discuss, and said that Bellotti's identified the timeframe for the transition as being within the next 10 years.
Canzano expressed exasperation at the move, saying that it doesn't make sense for Oregon to enter into this sort of agreement if the move is not goin gto happen soon. The only rationale he could identify would be to ease the minds of recruits, since Chip's been identified as a head coach candidate by other schools and appeared ready to move. MSP host Gavin Dawson pointed out that a solid timeline raised the danger of a lame-duck scenario.
So what is going on? I think this move automatically raises a lame-duck scenario, with or without a set timeline. Much like the situation in Dallas with the Cowboys coaching situation, people will start looking at Bellotti as a caretaker and a head coach in name only. Sure, as the next AD he'll always be Chip's boss and Chip needs to toe the line, but when the players know that Bellotti's heading out (whenever that happens) and that Chip's the guy they have to suck up to, it creates issues in leading the team.
Besides, I don't think the team does this to keep recruits interested. The teams been through several offensive coordinators in the last 5 years, and has been consistently great. That indicates a solid program and solid leadership at the top, and so as long as Bellotti is there running the program, changing coordinators isn't the issue.
I don't think Chip Kelly signs this contract (and I'm sure there's a contract here) without some pretty specific assurances. I don't think he rides backseat to Mike for an indetermined amount of time when he could be a head coach now. And I don't think he signs a deal for a short term, either. The upside of this deal is that UO is a BCS power-program and has developed into a juggernaut; it's not likely he'd get a better shot anywhere else for a while. The downside is that (as Canzano said today) his offense will lose its luster and his stock will drop -- he must know football well enough to know that he needs to make his power play now.
I think we'll find out in the next few weeks (translation: after the impending bowl game) that Bellotti will coach one more season. Pat Kilkenny, who gets the credit for getting the new basketball arena built, will stick long enough to see the project through and, perhaps, bring on a new basketball coach (like Mark Few from Gonzaga), and then the transition takes place to a new sports regime with a new AD, football, and hoops coach rising (or falling) together. Meanwhile, I'm sure Chip is getting a nice Christmas bonus and, I'd guess, will play a pretty huge role in recruiting once the situation has gelled in the press.
Time will tell. I think it's a good move as long as it plays out in the near-term. If this transition takes more than a year, I think a lot of people will regret yesterday's announcement.
November 27, 2008
Happy Thanksgiving (2008 Edition)
So much to be thankful for...
Already had a beautiful wife, a fantastic daughter, a nice house and a great job. And this was all on top of a great group of family and friends. But I have to admit I've been blessed despite all of that.
This year, a new daughter (Ruby Jane, born Oct. 1), a bigger house to match, and positive developments professionally as well. Yes, there's much to give thanks for.
The only down-side is far less blogging. It's just getting too hard to find the time. But, in truth, that's not really that bad a thing, all things considered.
Anyway, for the many blessings I give my thanks to my God, my family, and my friends. And to you, I wish many thank-worthy moments whereever you are and whereever you go.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Already had a beautiful wife, a fantastic daughter, a nice house and a great job. And this was all on top of a great group of family and friends. But I have to admit I've been blessed despite all of that.
This year, a new daughter (Ruby Jane, born Oct. 1), a bigger house to match, and positive developments professionally as well. Yes, there's much to give thanks for.
The only down-side is far less blogging. It's just getting too hard to find the time. But, in truth, that's not really that bad a thing, all things considered.
Anyway, for the many blessings I give my thanks to my God, my family, and my friends. And to you, I wish many thank-worthy moments whereever you are and whereever you go.
Happy Thanksgiving.
November 25, 2008
SOAP Notes
November 25, 2008
Matthew 20-22
S: Matthew 20:1-16
A: I recall a night in college, sitting and conversing with a group of peers in a Bible study-type group. We were discussing heaven and degrees of reward. There was talk of jewels in the crown and mansions in heaven and such, and I took umbrage. Why wasn’t salvation enough? In that group and in many others I’ve been in, there’s the ongoing search for the icing on the cake of Christianity. Much, I suspect, is geared toward trying to puff oneself up over our Christian peers. A thought of “sure we’re both saved, but mine’s better because…” Or, perhaps a matter of fulfilling the human need to find justification and reward to make sense of greater sacrifice. Or whatever.
But this parable as I read it confirms my suspicion that salvation is absolute and the same for everyone. And, at least to me, it highlights the danger of expecting anything more (and missing the fact that there can be nothing greater). There is no pride in salvation; it isn’t earned and can’t be improved-upon or adorned. To worry about trying to put icing on the cake is to miss the substance of it and to risk losing the reward in our jealousy.
P: Lord, help me not to take pride in my salvation and help me not to compare my walk with that of another. Simply help me to accept Your gift and to treasure it, and let my life and my actions reflect what You have done for me. Amen.
Matthew 20-22
S: Matthew 20:1-16
"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. When he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius for the day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the market place; and to those he said, 'You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.' And so they went. Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did the same thing. And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing around; and he said to them, 'Why have you been standing here idle all day long?' They said to him, 'Because no one hired us.' He said to them, 'You go into the vineyard too.' When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last group to the first.' When those hired about the eleventh hour came, each one received a denarius. When those hired first came, they thought that they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they grumbled at the landowner, saying, 'These last men have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day.' But he answered and said to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous? So the last shall be first, and the first last."O: A parable explaining the absolute nature of salvation and showing that we are not to envy those who seem to have attained it more cheaply.
A: I recall a night in college, sitting and conversing with a group of peers in a Bible study-type group. We were discussing heaven and degrees of reward. There was talk of jewels in the crown and mansions in heaven and such, and I took umbrage. Why wasn’t salvation enough? In that group and in many others I’ve been in, there’s the ongoing search for the icing on the cake of Christianity. Much, I suspect, is geared toward trying to puff oneself up over our Christian peers. A thought of “sure we’re both saved, but mine’s better because…” Or, perhaps a matter of fulfilling the human need to find justification and reward to make sense of greater sacrifice. Or whatever.
But this parable as I read it confirms my suspicion that salvation is absolute and the same for everyone. And, at least to me, it highlights the danger of expecting anything more (and missing the fact that there can be nothing greater). There is no pride in salvation; it isn’t earned and can’t be improved-upon or adorned. To worry about trying to put icing on the cake is to miss the substance of it and to risk losing the reward in our jealousy.
P: Lord, help me not to take pride in my salvation and help me not to compare my walk with that of another. Simply help me to accept Your gift and to treasure it, and let my life and my actions reflect what You have done for me. Amen.
November 04, 2008
CONGRATULATIONS TO BARACK OBABA
And thanks to John McCain for being first-class in accepting defeat. Though I didn't vote for you, you are a great American.
September 30, 2008
Now, This IS A Scary Thought
From a Newsweek commentator, interviewed by CNN...
CNN: Does [the selection of Sarah Palin as VP candidate] make you concerned about Sen. McCain as a president?
Zakaria: Yes, and I say this with sadness because I greatly admire John McCain, a man of intelligence, honor and enormous personal and political courage. However, for him to choose Sara Palin to be his running mate is fundamentally irresponsible. He did not put the country first with this decision. Whether it is appropriate or not, considering Sen. McCain's age most people expected to have a vice presidential candidate who would be ready to step in at a moment's notice. The actuarial odds of that happening are significant, something like a one-in-five chance.
Here's a link to Zakaria's artical at Newsweek, "Palin is Ready? Please." Frankly, a better title, there isn't.
CNN: Does [the selection of Sarah Palin as VP candidate] make you concerned about Sen. McCain as a president?
Zakaria: Yes, and I say this with sadness because I greatly admire John McCain, a man of intelligence, honor and enormous personal and political courage. However, for him to choose Sara Palin to be his running mate is fundamentally irresponsible. He did not put the country first with this decision. Whether it is appropriate or not, considering Sen. McCain's age most people expected to have a vice presidential candidate who would be ready to step in at a moment's notice. The actuarial odds of that happening are significant, something like a one-in-five chance.
Here's a link to Zakaria's artical at Newsweek, "Palin is Ready? Please." Frankly, a better title, there isn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
