I hope you guys don't judge me for this, but I'm going to admit something pretty embarrassing: I have done a lot of stupid things in my life.
At only 23, I'm sure that I have far surpassed my initial quota for stupid actions, and I have to request additional allowances on a daily basis.
A news story (that I have carefully avoided as much as possible) regarding homosexuals and some piece of legislation in Indiana has played a prominent role in my Facebook news feed recently. It seems that many people are upset because, from what I've gathered, business owners would be able to refuse service to homosexuals simply because of their sexual orientation.
Oddly, I'm not outraged. In fact, this seems perfectly reasonable. I'm more confused as to why we need any sort of legislation to back this up, and I'd like to explain why.
It seems to me that refusing service to a person or group of people is probably a stupid business decision on the whole. In general, turning away customers is a bad idea, because customers are how businesses make money. Thus, it seems to follow that turning away a whole group of customers and potential customers is an even worse idea.
Assuming that all things are equal and that moral standards and such don't exist to justify such a decision (this is the thing that my generation desperately wishes to do, so I will grant them this), there's only one word that can be used to describe such a decision: stupid.
As I said earlier, I have done a lot of stupid things in my life, but I have had the good fortune to avoid impacting anyone else's life, liberty, or property, so I haven't been arrested or sued. It seems that the poor business owner making a stupid decision has a lot in common with me, but somehow the results are supposed to be different, and this is where I get confused.
Why is it that, if I make widgets for a living and sell them to the public, my stupidity becomes punishable by law even though I remain a private citizen?
If I ever do decide to become a private business owner, I believe that I will put a sign reading I have the "right to make stupid decisions" right next to the one that says I have the "right to refuse service to anyone."
Really, though, this issue goes well beyond my right to be stupid, it morphs into a property rights issue. I own myself, my products, my time, my labor, and my business. To have any of those things taken from me without my consent is nothing short of theft. As far as I'm concerned a private business owner doesn't have to serve me, hire me, work with me, or talk to me if he doesn't like my face, my faith, my hair color, or just the way I said hello. He has that right.
Yet again I find myself confused as to why there needs to be additional legislation indicating that no one can steal from me. Apparently, however, there are people who oppose this legislation, and not because it isn't needed, but because they believe that private business owners should not have the same rights as a private citizen (or perhaps that the rights of private citizens should be taken away from them, but you have to take baby steps here).
Historically speaking, there is an unfortunate precedent for doing exactly this: the civil rights movement. In perhaps one of the darkest hours in human history, a large group of people segregated, refused service to, raped, murdered, and terrorized another group of people due solely to the color of their skin. This was absolutely wrong, and the raping, murdering, and terrorizing parts were absolutely illegal.
In an effort to fight this horrific blight, the government effectively forced private business owners to serve everyone equally. While this action probably helped the problem with racism immensely, it also took away the rights of the individual. As wrong, bigoted, and hypocritical as it is to refuse to serve someone because of their skin color, it is also within the rights of a free man.
As long as one's foolishness and sinfulness do not impede upon another's rights to life, liberty, and property, then you should be welcome to keep them. I cannot possibly support racism or hatred in any form, and I believe those things to be absolutely stupid and wrong.
But, as I've already said, everyone has the right to be stupid.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Thoughts on Ferguson
A few months ago, a tragedy occurred. Not a unique tragedy, really, but a tragedy nonetheless. In my estimation, the responses have been absurd and unmeasured. At the behest of a good friend of mine, I'm going to talk about it.
To begin with, the relevant information: A police officer by the name of Darren Wilson shot and killed a young man named Michael Brown in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson on August 9, 2014. There are two stories regarding exactly what happened.
The first: Darren Wilson drove up next to Michael Brown in the street while he was jaywalking, noted that he matched the description of the perpetrator of a recent nearby robbery, and proceeded to question him. When he tried to step out of the car, Brown attacked him and tried to take his gun. After a tussle, Brown ran, but turned around and charged again, at which point Wilson shot him repeatedly, killing him.
The second: Darren Wilson drove up next to Michael Brown in the street while he was jaywalking and then proceeded to pull away after Brown and his friends agreed to get off the street. Then Wilson backed his patrol car toward Brown again, slammed his door into the group, and got stuck as the door recoiled into him as he attempted to step out. At this point, Brown and his friends ran, but Wilson mercilessly opened fire, wounding Brown. As Brown kneeled in the street with his hands up, Wilson walked up to him and shot him again at point blank range, killing him.
In the first account, Officer Wilson is simply doing his job and Michael Brown is the unfortunate victim of his actions. In the second, Officer Wilson is an unprovoked assailant and Michael Brown is an innocent man murdered in cold blood. At this point, I must admit that I have made a point of not following this case closely, because I knew how much it would anger me. I do not have - nor do I claim to have - all of the relevant facts. Luckily, my wrath is not directed at those who believe one story or the other, but we'll get around to that.
At this point, I would like you to look over everything I have said so far. Do you notice something missing? You might, because I have excluded two words that nearly every other response to this death so far has found primary: white and black. It just so happens that Darren Wilson's skin is white and Michael Brown's was black.
But why did I exclude such important facts? The whole country has declared this a racial crime, how can I ignore the crux of the issue?
Simply put, because it is unimportant.
Either Darren Wilson did his job admirably and was forced to shoot Michael Brown, or Darren Wilson is a crooked cop who chose to attack and kill an innocent man. If the first is true, then Officer Wilson ought not be charged with any heinous crime. If the latter is true, then Officer Wilson ought to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. This is true if Darren Wilson is white, black, yellow, orange, green, blue, red, or purple. This is true if Michael Brown is black, white, persimmon, apricot, chartreuse, beige, cobalt, or aquamarine.
"But Darren Wilson is a racist pig who hates black people!!!" you scream. So what? Either he did his job the way he was supposed to or he did not. What goes on in his head is irrelevant. What if Darren Wilson didn't like blondes? If he did his duty and was in a situation where he had to shoot a blonde, would that make it a crime based on the color of the victim's hair? No, because it first has to be a crime. If it is a crime, then his motive is irrelevant.
I could discuss the grand jury's decision, the foolishness of rioting and looting, and the inanity of the majority of responses at length, but I don't want to because it's ultimately an unimportant and fleeting event.
Instead, I want to end with this: my heart is broken. It is broken because a man died, regardless of whether that death is justified or not. But my heart is also broken because every time someone classifies a human being by the color of their skin, he encourages segregation. Every time a man with dark skin identifies himself as part of a black "culture", he encourages segregation; and every time a man with light skin identifies himself as culturally different from those with dark skin, he encourages segregation.
You were not born as a color; you were born as a human being. Racism will not end until we stop identifying the officer as white and the deceased as black, and instead identify them both as human beings. I hope that change comes soon.
To begin with, the relevant information: A police officer by the name of Darren Wilson shot and killed a young man named Michael Brown in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson on August 9, 2014. There are two stories regarding exactly what happened.
The first: Darren Wilson drove up next to Michael Brown in the street while he was jaywalking, noted that he matched the description of the perpetrator of a recent nearby robbery, and proceeded to question him. When he tried to step out of the car, Brown attacked him and tried to take his gun. After a tussle, Brown ran, but turned around and charged again, at which point Wilson shot him repeatedly, killing him.
The second: Darren Wilson drove up next to Michael Brown in the street while he was jaywalking and then proceeded to pull away after Brown and his friends agreed to get off the street. Then Wilson backed his patrol car toward Brown again, slammed his door into the group, and got stuck as the door recoiled into him as he attempted to step out. At this point, Brown and his friends ran, but Wilson mercilessly opened fire, wounding Brown. As Brown kneeled in the street with his hands up, Wilson walked up to him and shot him again at point blank range, killing him.
In the first account, Officer Wilson is simply doing his job and Michael Brown is the unfortunate victim of his actions. In the second, Officer Wilson is an unprovoked assailant and Michael Brown is an innocent man murdered in cold blood. At this point, I must admit that I have made a point of not following this case closely, because I knew how much it would anger me. I do not have - nor do I claim to have - all of the relevant facts. Luckily, my wrath is not directed at those who believe one story or the other, but we'll get around to that.
At this point, I would like you to look over everything I have said so far. Do you notice something missing? You might, because I have excluded two words that nearly every other response to this death so far has found primary: white and black. It just so happens that Darren Wilson's skin is white and Michael Brown's was black.
But why did I exclude such important facts? The whole country has declared this a racial crime, how can I ignore the crux of the issue?
Simply put, because it is unimportant.
Either Darren Wilson did his job admirably and was forced to shoot Michael Brown, or Darren Wilson is a crooked cop who chose to attack and kill an innocent man. If the first is true, then Officer Wilson ought not be charged with any heinous crime. If the latter is true, then Officer Wilson ought to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. This is true if Darren Wilson is white, black, yellow, orange, green, blue, red, or purple. This is true if Michael Brown is black, white, persimmon, apricot, chartreuse, beige, cobalt, or aquamarine.
"But Darren Wilson is a racist pig who hates black people!!!" you scream. So what? Either he did his job the way he was supposed to or he did not. What goes on in his head is irrelevant. What if Darren Wilson didn't like blondes? If he did his duty and was in a situation where he had to shoot a blonde, would that make it a crime based on the color of the victim's hair? No, because it first has to be a crime. If it is a crime, then his motive is irrelevant.
I could discuss the grand jury's decision, the foolishness of rioting and looting, and the inanity of the majority of responses at length, but I don't want to because it's ultimately an unimportant and fleeting event.
Instead, I want to end with this: my heart is broken. It is broken because a man died, regardless of whether that death is justified or not. But my heart is also broken because every time someone classifies a human being by the color of their skin, he encourages segregation. Every time a man with dark skin identifies himself as part of a black "culture", he encourages segregation; and every time a man with light skin identifies himself as culturally different from those with dark skin, he encourages segregation.
You were not born as a color; you were born as a human being. Racism will not end until we stop identifying the officer as white and the deceased as black, and instead identify them both as human beings. I hope that change comes soon.
Friday, March 1, 2013
A Formal Defense of Jon Jay
With all due respect to Bernie Miklasz, I have to disagree with him about one thing: Jon Jay. As a regular reader of Mr. Miklasz’s generally fantastic “Bernie’s Bytes,” I have noticed a continual disdain for the Cardinal’s center fielder that I fail to understand.
His latest beef is with Jay’s home/road splits last season. By comparing Jay statistically with ten of baseball’s most prolific center fielders, I hope to legitimize him as the Cardinals best option for many years to come (and perhaps even sway Mr. Miklasz . . . perhaps). Here are some preliminary 2012 statistics for all eleven players (taken from 2012):
WAR BA OBP Fld% Runs Games
Mike Trout 10.7 .326 .399 .993 129 139
Andrew McCutchen 7.0 .327 .400 .997 107 157
Michael Bourn 6.0 .274 .348 .995 96 155
Bryce Harper 5.0 .270 .340 .981 98 139
Adam Jones 3.4 .287 .334 .982 103 162
Jon Jay 3.2 .305 .373 1.000 70 117
Curtis Granderson 2.7 .232 .319 1.000 102 160
Matt Kemp 2.3 .303 .367 .995 74 106
B.J. Upton 2.6 .246 .298 .990 79 146
Shane Victorino 1.1 .245 .316 .992 72 154
Jacoby Ellsbury 0.8 .271 .313 .982 43 74
I intentionally left out power numbers such as home runs, RBIs, and slugging percentage because Jay isn't a power hitter. His strength comes from his ability to get on base, not drive in runs. It's also important to note how many games each player played and how that affects statistics such as runs
Now, let’s take a look at the problem that Bernie noticed: Jay’s low batting average on the road.
Road BA Road OBP
Mike Trout .332 .407
Andrew McCutchen .326 .397
Matt Kemp .301 .362
Adam Jones .277 .317
Bryce Harper .266 .333
Michael Bourn .262 .336
Shane Victorino .240 .307
Jacoby Ellsbury .240 .299
B.J. Upton .234 .280
Jon Jay .224 .289
Curtis Granderson .223 .310
Jay is nearly the worst in both batting average and on-base percentage. But he’s not the worst in either category: Jay hit better than Granderson on the road (just barely) and got on base more often than Upton. It’s not much, but it is something. What about at home?
Home BA Home OBP
Jon Jay .384 .453
Andrew McCutchen .329 .402
Mike Trout .318 .390
Jacoby Ellsbury .315 .333
Matt Kemp .304 .372
Adam Jones .297 .352
Michael Bourn .287 .361
Bryce Harper .275 .347
Shane Victorino .268 .335
B.J. Upton .258 .316
Curtis Granderson .241 .329
There is no doubt that Jay under performed on the road, but for the 61 games he played at home, he’s beyond comparison. No one is within fifty points of him in either on-base percentage or average. That level of play is incredible. At least in Busch Stadium, there is no bat any team would rather have in their lineup.
Mr. Miklasz did suggest that perhaps Jay’s disappointing road statistics were a fluke and would level themselves out with time, and a quick glance at his career splits seem to show exactly that:
Career Road BA Career Road OBP
Mike Trout .312 .382
Matt Kemp .296 .354
Jacoby Ellsbury .285 .338
Andrew McCutchen .279 .362
Shane Victorino .272 .331
Jon Jay .272 .328
Adam Jones .268 .310
Michael Bourn .266 .331
Bryce Harper .266 .333
Curtis Granderson .266 .345
B.J. Upton .258 .335
Jay’s career batting average on the road is far from amazing, but he puts himself in the middle of the pack, and while his on-base percentage is a little bit lower than everybody else’s, he’s still comparable. Given the small sample size available for Jay, it seems likely that his splits will fix themselves before long.
Now I want to look closely at Jay’s fielding statistics:
Fld% UZR Assists
Michael Bourn .995 22.4 3
Mike Trout .988 11.4 3
Bryce Harper .979 9.9 8
Jon Jay 1.000 4.0 1
Shane Victorino .994 4.0 9
Jacoby Ellsbury .982 2.9 2
B.J. Upton .990 -2.4 10
Adam Jones .982 -6.7 7
Andrew McCutchen .997 -6.9 3
Matt Kemp .995 -8.8 7
Curtis Granderson 1.000 -17.8 3
Jay isn’t at the top of the list, it’s true, but his UZR places him decidedly in the upper half amongst these elite center fielders. He isn’t outstanding defensively, but he’s more than adequate.
Jon Jay is also in the middle of the pack as far as WAR is concerned. He’s good, but not great:
WAR
Mike Trout 10.7
Andrew McCutchen 7.0
Michael Bourn 6.0
Bryce Harper 5.0
Adam Jones 3.4
Jon Jay 3.2
Curtis Granderson 2.7
B.J. Upton 2.6
Matt Kemp 2.3
Shane Victorino 1.1
Jacoby Ellsbury 0.8
Jay's statistics make him a decidedly decent player. He's an above average fielder and an above average hitter who excels at getting on base. But that's not the end of the story. The really interesting thing about these players is their price tags. These are the 2013 salaries for each player:
2013 Salary
Matt Kemp $20,000,000
Curtis Granderson $15,000,000
Shane Victorino $13,000,000
B.J. Upton $12,450,000
Jacoby Ellsbury $9,000,000
Adam Jones $8,500,000
Michael Bourn $7,000,000
Andrew McCutchen $4,500,000
Bryce Harper $2,000,000
Jon Jay $504,000 (2012)
Mike Trout $480,000 (2012)
Players such as B.J. Upton and Shane Victorino, who underperformed Jay both in terms of UZR and WAR (Upton also had a worse on-base percentage on the road than Jay), will make eight figures in 2013. Jon Jay will likely make six. For that matter, every player other than Jay and Trout will make at least two million dollars a year. And these aren't players failing to deliver on huge contracts that their respective teams now regret; they're being paid for how well they play right now. Bourn, Victorino, Upton, and McCutchen all have brand new multi-year contracts ranging in value from 39 million to 72.5 million. The market is saying that a center fielder of Jay’s caliber is set to make somewhere between 7 and 20 million dollars a year. The Cardinals are paying him half a million.
I concede that there are better center fielders out there, but I deny that there are any who can perform as well as Jay offensively or defensively for as little as St. Louis pays him. The player with the most comparable stats is Bryce Harper: he has a Rookie of the Year Award and is destined for stardom (and a huge contract to boot). Jon Jay has never won a league wide award and will probably never be up for a big payday. He’s an inexpensive center fielder who consistently outperforms expectations. He at least deserves a little recognition from the Cardinal Nation.
His latest beef is with Jay’s home/road splits last season. By comparing Jay statistically with ten of baseball’s most prolific center fielders, I hope to legitimize him as the Cardinals best option for many years to come (and perhaps even sway Mr. Miklasz . . . perhaps). Here are some preliminary 2012 statistics for all eleven players (taken from 2012):
WAR BA OBP Fld% Runs Games
Mike Trout 10.7 .326 .399 .993 129 139
Andrew McCutchen 7.0 .327 .400 .997 107 157
Michael Bourn 6.0 .274 .348 .995 96 155
Bryce Harper 5.0 .270 .340 .981 98 139
Adam Jones 3.4 .287 .334 .982 103 162
Jon Jay 3.2 .305 .373 1.000 70 117
Curtis Granderson 2.7 .232 .319 1.000 102 160
Matt Kemp 2.3 .303 .367 .995 74 106
B.J. Upton 2.6 .246 .298 .990 79 146
Shane Victorino 1.1 .245 .316 .992 72 154
Jacoby Ellsbury 0.8 .271 .313 .982 43 74
I intentionally left out power numbers such as home runs, RBIs, and slugging percentage because Jay isn't a power hitter. His strength comes from his ability to get on base, not drive in runs. It's also important to note how many games each player played and how that affects statistics such as runs
Now, let’s take a look at the problem that Bernie noticed: Jay’s low batting average on the road.
Road BA Road OBP
Mike Trout .332 .407
Andrew McCutchen .326 .397
Matt Kemp .301 .362
Adam Jones .277 .317
Bryce Harper .266 .333
Michael Bourn .262 .336
Shane Victorino .240 .307
Jacoby Ellsbury .240 .299
B.J. Upton .234 .280
Jon Jay .224 .289
Curtis Granderson .223 .310
Jay is nearly the worst in both batting average and on-base percentage. But he’s not the worst in either category: Jay hit better than Granderson on the road (just barely) and got on base more often than Upton. It’s not much, but it is something. What about at home?
Home BA Home OBP
Jon Jay .384 .453
Andrew McCutchen .329 .402
Mike Trout .318 .390
Jacoby Ellsbury .315 .333
Matt Kemp .304 .372
Adam Jones .297 .352
Michael Bourn .287 .361
Bryce Harper .275 .347
Shane Victorino .268 .335
B.J. Upton .258 .316
Curtis Granderson .241 .329
There is no doubt that Jay under performed on the road, but for the 61 games he played at home, he’s beyond comparison. No one is within fifty points of him in either on-base percentage or average. That level of play is incredible. At least in Busch Stadium, there is no bat any team would rather have in their lineup.
Mr. Miklasz did suggest that perhaps Jay’s disappointing road statistics were a fluke and would level themselves out with time, and a quick glance at his career splits seem to show exactly that:
Career Road BA Career Road OBP
Mike Trout .312 .382
Matt Kemp .296 .354
Jacoby Ellsbury .285 .338
Andrew McCutchen .279 .362
Shane Victorino .272 .331
Jon Jay .272 .328
Adam Jones .268 .310
Michael Bourn .266 .331
Bryce Harper .266 .333
Curtis Granderson .266 .345
B.J. Upton .258 .335
Jay’s career batting average on the road is far from amazing, but he puts himself in the middle of the pack, and while his on-base percentage is a little bit lower than everybody else’s, he’s still comparable. Given the small sample size available for Jay, it seems likely that his splits will fix themselves before long.
Now I want to look closely at Jay’s fielding statistics:
Fld% UZR Assists
Michael Bourn .995 22.4 3
Mike Trout .988 11.4 3
Bryce Harper .979 9.9 8
Jon Jay 1.000 4.0 1
Shane Victorino .994 4.0 9
Jacoby Ellsbury .982 2.9 2
B.J. Upton .990 -2.4 10
Adam Jones .982 -6.7 7
Andrew McCutchen .997 -6.9 3
Matt Kemp .995 -8.8 7
Curtis Granderson 1.000 -17.8 3
Jay isn’t at the top of the list, it’s true, but his UZR places him decidedly in the upper half amongst these elite center fielders. He isn’t outstanding defensively, but he’s more than adequate.
Jon Jay is also in the middle of the pack as far as WAR is concerned. He’s good, but not great:
WAR
Mike Trout 10.7
Andrew McCutchen 7.0
Michael Bourn 6.0
Bryce Harper 5.0
Adam Jones 3.4
Jon Jay 3.2
Curtis Granderson 2.7
B.J. Upton 2.6
Matt Kemp 2.3
Shane Victorino 1.1
Jacoby Ellsbury 0.8
Jay's statistics make him a decidedly decent player. He's an above average fielder and an above average hitter who excels at getting on base. But that's not the end of the story. The really interesting thing about these players is their price tags. These are the 2013 salaries for each player:
2013 Salary
Matt Kemp $20,000,000
Curtis Granderson $15,000,000
Shane Victorino $13,000,000
B.J. Upton $12,450,000
Jacoby Ellsbury $9,000,000
Adam Jones $8,500,000
Michael Bourn $7,000,000
Andrew McCutchen $4,500,000
Bryce Harper $2,000,000
Jon Jay $504,000 (2012)
Mike Trout $480,000 (2012)
Players such as B.J. Upton and Shane Victorino, who underperformed Jay both in terms of UZR and WAR (Upton also had a worse on-base percentage on the road than Jay), will make eight figures in 2013. Jon Jay will likely make six. For that matter, every player other than Jay and Trout will make at least two million dollars a year. And these aren't players failing to deliver on huge contracts that their respective teams now regret; they're being paid for how well they play right now. Bourn, Victorino, Upton, and McCutchen all have brand new multi-year contracts ranging in value from 39 million to 72.5 million. The market is saying that a center fielder of Jay’s caliber is set to make somewhere between 7 and 20 million dollars a year. The Cardinals are paying him half a million.
I concede that there are better center fielders out there, but I deny that there are any who can perform as well as Jay offensively or defensively for as little as St. Louis pays him. The player with the most comparable stats is Bryce Harper: he has a Rookie of the Year Award and is destined for stardom (and a huge contract to boot). Jon Jay has never won a league wide award and will probably never be up for a big payday. He’s an inexpensive center fielder who consistently outperforms expectations. He at least deserves a little recognition from the Cardinal Nation.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Redeeming Persephone
Augustine said that "A person who is a good and true Christian should realize that truth belongs to his Lord, wherever it is found, gathering and acknowledging it even in pagan literature." Walking this morning/afternoon, I had the joy of seeing nature coming back to life, and I thought of the story of Persephone. The truth in the story is stunningly profound for a pagan culture without any knowledge of Christ and only a very limited knowledge of Israel and their God. The myth's truth is triune (obviously; isn't everything Christian triune?): the redemption of mankind, the life of Christ, and the individual struggle of each Christian with sin. We'll look at these in reverse order.
To start, a brief overview of the myth: Persephone is the daughter of Demeter, the goddess of the harvest and vitality. One day, as she's wandering the earth, Hades (god of the underworld) catches sight of her and falls madly in love with her. So he does what every man who's in love with a woman does (not), he kidnaps her and takes her to the underworld. In the underworld, Persephone is married to Hades and unwisely eats the fruit there, thereby preventing her from ever leaving her new home. Demeter, having had her joy taken from her, allows every living plant on earth to die. When everybody starts to starve Zeus decides that this cannot happen and demands that Demeter bring the plants back to life. Demeter refuses to do so until her daughter is returned to her. So Zeus sends Hermes to Hades and tells him to fix it. Hades, Hermes, and Demeter finally work out a deal: Persephone will spend six months in the underworld, and the other six months will be spent with her mother who, while her daughter remains on earth, will graciously provide life (and thus food for humanity). These six months are spring and summer, and the other six are fall and winter.
Now, how does this apply to Christianity and the Christian faith? Let's take a look. Firstly, it is the story of each individual man and his sin. We are in a perpetual cycle: we began in communion with God, yet sin snatches us and tears us away, and now we are married to sin and death. It will (and does) kill us. Yet God redeems us, bringing us back to him and returning his life to us! But we, like unfaithful Israel, constantly return to our sin, never managing to escape it. Just as Persephone is perpetually returned to her mother, however, we, the prodigal sons, are also returned to our Heavenly Father and life is granted again.
Secondly, in the life of Christ. As part of the trinity, Christ lives in perfect community with the Father and the Spirit. Our sin forces him to go below (first to earth, and ultimately to hell) just as Persephone did, and he is killed. Death overtakes him for a moment. But he does not remain there, he lives, and ascends, and serves the role of High Priest, essentially causing God to grant life to humanity! Reunited with his Son, life happens again. In the same way, Persephone's reunion with her mother causes her joy enough to provide life to the world for six months.
Finally, in the story of redemption as a whole. Again, man begins his life in perfect communion with God, but is torn away from his grace by sin, and the world falls (ha!) into the darkness and death that is winter. But in the depths of humanity's spiritual winter, Christ comes. This is the beauty of celebrating Christmas on December twenty-fifth (even though it isn't the actual date of Christ's birth): in the darkness of sin, and in the darkest hour of winter, Christ comes to redeem a fallen mankind. And in the spring, Christ is crucified and resurrected! Life comes to mankind, just as it comes to the world in the spring. Persephone serves as a Christ-figure in this tale, suffering death in the underworld before returning, bearing with her life for the world.
So I think Augustine might be right (might be). Even in the pagan myth of Persephone, the glory of God shines: inescapable, unavoidable, and absolute. And spring is freaking awesome.
To start, a brief overview of the myth: Persephone is the daughter of Demeter, the goddess of the harvest and vitality. One day, as she's wandering the earth, Hades (god of the underworld) catches sight of her and falls madly in love with her. So he does what every man who's in love with a woman does (not), he kidnaps her and takes her to the underworld. In the underworld, Persephone is married to Hades and unwisely eats the fruit there, thereby preventing her from ever leaving her new home. Demeter, having had her joy taken from her, allows every living plant on earth to die. When everybody starts to starve Zeus decides that this cannot happen and demands that Demeter bring the plants back to life. Demeter refuses to do so until her daughter is returned to her. So Zeus sends Hermes to Hades and tells him to fix it. Hades, Hermes, and Demeter finally work out a deal: Persephone will spend six months in the underworld, and the other six months will be spent with her mother who, while her daughter remains on earth, will graciously provide life (and thus food for humanity). These six months are spring and summer, and the other six are fall and winter.
Now, how does this apply to Christianity and the Christian faith? Let's take a look. Firstly, it is the story of each individual man and his sin. We are in a perpetual cycle: we began in communion with God, yet sin snatches us and tears us away, and now we are married to sin and death. It will (and does) kill us. Yet God redeems us, bringing us back to him and returning his life to us! But we, like unfaithful Israel, constantly return to our sin, never managing to escape it. Just as Persephone is perpetually returned to her mother, however, we, the prodigal sons, are also returned to our Heavenly Father and life is granted again.
Secondly, in the life of Christ. As part of the trinity, Christ lives in perfect community with the Father and the Spirit. Our sin forces him to go below (first to earth, and ultimately to hell) just as Persephone did, and he is killed. Death overtakes him for a moment. But he does not remain there, he lives, and ascends, and serves the role of High Priest, essentially causing God to grant life to humanity! Reunited with his Son, life happens again. In the same way, Persephone's reunion with her mother causes her joy enough to provide life to the world for six months.
Finally, in the story of redemption as a whole. Again, man begins his life in perfect communion with God, but is torn away from his grace by sin, and the world falls (ha!) into the darkness and death that is winter. But in the depths of humanity's spiritual winter, Christ comes. This is the beauty of celebrating Christmas on December twenty-fifth (even though it isn't the actual date of Christ's birth): in the darkness of sin, and in the darkest hour of winter, Christ comes to redeem a fallen mankind. And in the spring, Christ is crucified and resurrected! Life comes to mankind, just as it comes to the world in the spring. Persephone serves as a Christ-figure in this tale, suffering death in the underworld before returning, bearing with her life for the world.
So I think Augustine might be right (might be). Even in the pagan myth of Persephone, the glory of God shines: inescapable, unavoidable, and absolute. And spring is freaking awesome.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Revelation and (Perhaps) Peace
As a few of you know, I've had some pretty rough theological problems over the past six or seven months, and while I'm not sure that this entirely addresses my problems, I think these thoughts have at least thrust me back into the process of sanctification, and have granted me a modicum of satisfaction in the answer.
To quickly cover my problem, it is very simple: why does what we do matter? If my theology is correct (that of Calvin, Edwards, Piper, etc.)(and I believe it to be correct based on Scripture), then I have little to no will. Yet I can sin and be punished for this sin. But why would I try not to sin? What is the point behind my efforts? I cannot do good without the strength of God, and my sin is always a perfect part of God's plan, meaning I'm screwed, right? So why try?
Reading this morning, I came across Revelation 19:8 - "the fine linen [of the bride of Christ] is the righteous deeds of the saints." But I thought that my righteousness was Christ's? Right? I mean, Romans 3:11 - "No one is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God." This is true, but I think that this must be pre-justification, because Paul goes on to say in Romans 8 that we are "predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son," and again in chapter 12, that we should "be transformed by the renewal of [our] mind." This suggests that as we are sanctified, it is a process of becoming more and more Christ-like, which is true.
Now I do weird theological things: beyond merely becoming more like Christ, we are becoming more Christ. We are becoming God. "Uh-oh," you say, "Chris Greene just became a heretic. We can't be God, Chris, please don't go there . . . " Ah! but I have proof! Please open your Bibles to Ephesians chapter 5 verses 31 and 32: "'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church." So, according to Paul and his divine revelation, Christ and the church will become one flesh. I see this process as a lessening of each individual to the point of nonexistence as God grows and becomes more and more to the point of being the only life left in us. When we are fully sanctified, we will be God. We will think his thoughts as he thinks them, act his actions as he wills them, and truly "live and move and have our being" in him. It is not that Chris Greene is a God, but that Chris Greene no longer exists, and God is all that's left. The ultimate selflessness comes from God's full and final conquering of self. Of course, our participation in God is limited, we do not become part of the trinity, nor may we participate in God's divinity. But we are still one flesh with Christ. I think this is why the mystery is "profound" (even to Paul, who's an absolute beast). We cannot understand how we become one flesh with God, yet do not fully participate in his essence, but it remains paradoxically true. Of course, Genesis 1: 27 ("So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.") has to fit into this as well. The image of God must be more than merely a reflection or representation (which is one possible definition of the word), and rather the form of God within us. When God breathed his life into mankind, it was truly his breath that grants life. We are not merely some reflection of God, but rather "a thing or person in which some quality is vividly exhibited, so as to make it or the person a natural representative of the quality; a type, typical example, [or] embodiment."
Ultimately, this is why our actions here on earth matter; this is why we should pursue good: our good actions are God's. I once stated that when we appear before the throne of judgement that we would not hear our own actions presented before the court, but rather Christ's. This is wrong. We will hear Christ's good works listed as ours, but we shall also hear our own good works (the works of God in us) presented in our favor. Our sins will not be mentioned, but our good deeds will be. And they are our good works. They belong to the part of us that is God.
So life does matter, and we do have a purpose. To glorify the part of ourselves that is God through the good actions of that same part. As God, the will of God is our best interest. What is best for God is best for us, and the process of sanctification is merely the process of replacing self with God.
To quickly cover my problem, it is very simple: why does what we do matter? If my theology is correct (that of Calvin, Edwards, Piper, etc.)(and I believe it to be correct based on Scripture), then I have little to no will. Yet I can sin and be punished for this sin. But why would I try not to sin? What is the point behind my efforts? I cannot do good without the strength of God, and my sin is always a perfect part of God's plan, meaning I'm screwed, right? So why try?
Reading this morning, I came across Revelation 19:8 - "the fine linen [of the bride of Christ] is the righteous deeds of the saints." But I thought that my righteousness was Christ's? Right? I mean, Romans 3:11 - "No one is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God." This is true, but I think that this must be pre-justification, because Paul goes on to say in Romans 8 that we are "predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son," and again in chapter 12, that we should "be transformed by the renewal of [our] mind." This suggests that as we are sanctified, it is a process of becoming more and more Christ-like, which is true.
Now I do weird theological things: beyond merely becoming more like Christ, we are becoming more Christ. We are becoming God. "Uh-oh," you say, "Chris Greene just became a heretic. We can't be God, Chris, please don't go there . . . " Ah! but I have proof! Please open your Bibles to Ephesians chapter 5 verses 31 and 32: "'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church." So, according to Paul and his divine revelation, Christ and the church will become one flesh. I see this process as a lessening of each individual to the point of nonexistence as God grows and becomes more and more to the point of being the only life left in us. When we are fully sanctified, we will be God. We will think his thoughts as he thinks them, act his actions as he wills them, and truly "live and move and have our being" in him. It is not that Chris Greene is a God, but that Chris Greene no longer exists, and God is all that's left. The ultimate selflessness comes from God's full and final conquering of self. Of course, our participation in God is limited, we do not become part of the trinity, nor may we participate in God's divinity. But we are still one flesh with Christ. I think this is why the mystery is "profound" (even to Paul, who's an absolute beast). We cannot understand how we become one flesh with God, yet do not fully participate in his essence, but it remains paradoxically true. Of course, Genesis 1: 27 ("So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.") has to fit into this as well. The image of God must be more than merely a reflection or representation (which is one possible definition of the word), and rather the form of God within us. When God breathed his life into mankind, it was truly his breath that grants life. We are not merely some reflection of God, but rather "a thing or person in which some quality is vividly exhibited, so as to make it or the person a natural representative of the quality; a type, typical example, [or] embodiment."
Ultimately, this is why our actions here on earth matter; this is why we should pursue good: our good actions are God's. I once stated that when we appear before the throne of judgement that we would not hear our own actions presented before the court, but rather Christ's. This is wrong. We will hear Christ's good works listed as ours, but we shall also hear our own good works (the works of God in us) presented in our favor. Our sins will not be mentioned, but our good deeds will be. And they are our good works. They belong to the part of us that is God.
So life does matter, and we do have a purpose. To glorify the part of ourselves that is God through the good actions of that same part. As God, the will of God is our best interest. What is best for God is best for us, and the process of sanctification is merely the process of replacing self with God.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Forgiveness
Maybe I'm insane, and maybe I'm the only person who does this, but I've managed to cheapen the concept of forgiveness. In my infinite human wisdom, I've taken what is far and away the most beautiful part of faith, the part that saves, and the part that best demonstrates the love of God, and I've made it weak and inconsequential. It most certainly is not.
I suppose that I have come to imagine my sin as gone and passed, forgiven as soon as it is done (which is true), and therefore irrelevant, almost as if God never even sees it. Jesus takes my sin immediately, the sin is punished immediately, and the event is over and I am on right-standing with God immediately. All of this is true, but it's missing something: forgiveness. There is grace and mercy, but not forgiveness. Before the Just God deals with the problem that sin creates (he must destroy it, because he is holy), he forgives us, and there is nothing more beautiful.
The moment where the eternal, just, holy, perfect, and indescribable Adonai Elohim sabaoth (Lord God of hosts) sees our sin in all of its grotesqueness, truly grasping what an offense it is (something we can never quite get a hold of), and forgives us is indescribably beautiful and absolutely crucial to being moved by the gospel. It is the moment of shame that I often forget to have, where God knows me for who and what I am: a sinner deserving of judgement. It is the moment where I must prostrate myself before my judge and beg for something I know that I don't deserve, something I never could deserve. It is the moment before Christ takes my sin, and is punished for it, and I walk off scott-free. In this moment, fully aware of my sin and my ugliness, God looks upon me and says:
"I forgive you; I love you more."
Read that again, and think about what that means. "I love you more." As the bride of Christ, I think this is a good example. Imagine that you have a wife, and she commits adultery. She runs away from you and the oath that binds you. And when she comes home, no matter how many times she goes out or how impenitent she is, aware of the fact that she will do it again, you forgive her. You know what she did, but you forgive her, because you love her more than the sin she commits, even though it causes you enormous amounts of pain every single time.
As Christians we commit adultery every single day, and I can always remember that I have been forgiven, that my sin was paid for by Christ, and that I may stand before God blameless. But I always manage to skip over that moment, before my sin is taken and paid for (if such a moment exists) where God looks upon me and my sin, and forgives. That moment where He loves me more than he hates the sin I commit. That blows me away.
Beautiful.
I suppose that I have come to imagine my sin as gone and passed, forgiven as soon as it is done (which is true), and therefore irrelevant, almost as if God never even sees it. Jesus takes my sin immediately, the sin is punished immediately, and the event is over and I am on right-standing with God immediately. All of this is true, but it's missing something: forgiveness. There is grace and mercy, but not forgiveness. Before the Just God deals with the problem that sin creates (he must destroy it, because he is holy), he forgives us, and there is nothing more beautiful.
The moment where the eternal, just, holy, perfect, and indescribable Adonai Elohim sabaoth (Lord God of hosts) sees our sin in all of its grotesqueness, truly grasping what an offense it is (something we can never quite get a hold of), and forgives us is indescribably beautiful and absolutely crucial to being moved by the gospel. It is the moment of shame that I often forget to have, where God knows me for who and what I am: a sinner deserving of judgement. It is the moment where I must prostrate myself before my judge and beg for something I know that I don't deserve, something I never could deserve. It is the moment before Christ takes my sin, and is punished for it, and I walk off scott-free. In this moment, fully aware of my sin and my ugliness, God looks upon me and says:
"I forgive you; I love you more."
Read that again, and think about what that means. "I love you more." As the bride of Christ, I think this is a good example. Imagine that you have a wife, and she commits adultery. She runs away from you and the oath that binds you. And when she comes home, no matter how many times she goes out or how impenitent she is, aware of the fact that she will do it again, you forgive her. You know what she did, but you forgive her, because you love her more than the sin she commits, even though it causes you enormous amounts of pain every single time.
As Christians we commit adultery every single day, and I can always remember that I have been forgiven, that my sin was paid for by Christ, and that I may stand before God blameless. But I always manage to skip over that moment, before my sin is taken and paid for (if such a moment exists) where God looks upon me and my sin, and forgives. That moment where He loves me more than he hates the sin I commit. That blows me away.
Beautiful.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Hallelujah (An Objective Review)
Lecrae has a new single, “Hallelujah.” I have listened to it, and (at the risk of being banished from the Christian rap world for eternity) I don’t like it. Not only don’t I like it, I think it was objectively bad. Before you all burn me in effigy, give me an opportunity to defend my view (without criticizing all that God has done through Lecrae).
Firstly – the song is a direct rip off of Rick Ross’ “Blowin’ Money Fast.” Ross’ chorus can be rapped over Lecrae’s and there’s hardly a note off. I am not a fan of Rick Ross as a rapper because his flow is the epitome of repetition and musical stagnation, so when Lecrae follows the same pattern, I start to get worried. That said, there is a legitimate case for trying to bring “hallelujah” back to Christianity, but that case was made for the song “Overdose,” which suffers similarly repetitive lyrical structure. I was willing to buy it then, I’m not anymore; at some point the repetition of a theme (musical or otherwise) merely promotes that theme, rather than productively reclaiming it. Imitation is the highest form of flattery.
Secondly – Lecrae started using accents. When I first heard the second verse, I had to do a double take to make sure it was him and not some featured artist. The last prominent artist to distort his voice that way (that immediately comes to mind) was Eminem. In the song “Not Afraid” he effectively apologizes for his overuse of accents: “Perhaps I ran them accents into the ground, / Relax I ain’t goin’ back to that now.” Now, if Eminem (who used his accents for humor, generally, not the spread of a serious message) had to publically recant his use of them, then why, pray tell, does Lecrae think this is a valuable addition to his arsenal?
Finally, and most egregiously, I don’t find Lecrae’s lyrics edifying and convicting. I have never been in love with his flow, and his rhymes have periodically bothered me since he rhymed “done it” with “Mohammed” (“Death Story”), but I’ve always been challenged, convicted, and moved by the words he says (whether they rhyme or not). If you need a refresher on this, listen to the third verse of “Don’t Waste Your Life”: “Suffer, yeah, do it for Christ.” I am newly and freshly inspired to live my life entirely for my Lord and Savior, and Lecrae has done that with almost every song I’ve heard from him. Expect “Hallelujah.” Now, please, don’t misunderstand me, his song has a redemptive message, and is undoubtedly Christian, and some of his lines do have edification (specifically two lines in the middle of the first verse: “Shame on me, ‘cause the blame’s on me, / But hallelujah the Lord showed his grace on me!”). But it lacks the consistency that has always drawn me to Lecrae. While I think that Trip Lee, Tedashii, and others have outshone Lecrae as technical rappers for a while now, Lecrae always had an indescribable appeal, and I’ve pinpointed that as his incredibly convicting lyrics. That conviction seems to be lacking in “Hallelujah,” and I don’t find his rapping powerful enough to make up for this loss.
In closing, I want to say that I do not mean to bash Lecrae. I love him as much as anyone, but somewhere in the last two years, he has become the favorite stepchild of Christian rap who can do no wrong, and I don’t think that’s true. So do I love Lecrae? You know it. Will I support him and his mission? Until he stops making records. But will I accept everything he produces as pure gold merely because he’s Lecrae? Not a chance; and if we want Christian rap to grow and better itself, I don’t think we should. Critique is an incredibly important part of growth, and I think that “Hallelujah” is the direct product of a lack of criticism. So Lecrae, God bless you, keep doing what you do, but keep getting better while you’re at it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)