The score from last night's matchup in the storied rivalry is good news, right? Well, I don't particularly care. Why? Because it was the women's game. No offense to the ladies out there. All week long, since I first saw the date and time for the upcoming Tar Heels/Duke game while running on the treadmill at the Y last Weds, I had geared up for the game. My wife had been reminded countless times to remind me not to forget that the two teams were playing on Sunday night at 7 pm on ESPN 2. I had structured my day around the game, in fact (next to Church, of course). So imagine my shock and horror when at 7 pm promptly I switched over to the channel only to find women taking the floor (at first I thought that some of the players were letting their hair grow long). (Thankfully, our cool friends, C. and R. and A., saved my evening when the invited us over to watch Cinderella Man; thanks, guys!)
I ask myself: what is it that is so unappealing about the women's game? It used to be that I harbored the attitude that the women were just not good athletes. They couldn't run , dribble, pass, and, most importantly, shoot. I no longer believe this to be true. When I forced myself to watch a few minutes of play (and I stress, a few), I was compelled to acknowledge that both the Dukies and the Heel women actually performed these functions rather well. I witnessed long bombs, several nifty crossovers, and thread-the-needle passes that hitherto would have seemed impossible for the sweeter gender to pull off. However, last night I believe that I came face to face for the first time with the real cause of my aversion for women's basketball; I saw it with perfect clarity.
The Heels had the ball on a fast break that left the Carolina guard all alone save for one meaty Duke defender guarding the basket. Crossing midcourt, she peformed a nice cross-over, tried to look off her defender by pretending to pass to the wing, and then drove hard to rim. From her point near the free throw line, the Carolina player took three steps before launching into the air for a power dunk that left the defender stunned. Ok, it was really a power layup. Or a glinding layup. Fine, a fading short jumper. Nothing of the kind. Truth be told, it was a little hop, two inches off the ground, that sent her plowing into the Duke center. They just can't jump. And this is what detracts from the women's game.
I know, I shouldn't be so hard on them. Has biology determined that women won't be able to jump hight? But why can there be women long jumpers that leap great distances--much farther than I ever could--and women basketball players can't jump high? There are women high jumpers even, and they do pretty well. I've even watched with enjoyment, yes, enjoyment, a number of women volleyball games; there are some impressive jumpers in that sport. But I've yet to see a woman basketball player who can jump. Ok, there was one. In high school a rival woman's (girls?) team came to play our school, and while I didn't see her, there was rumored to be a player on the other team who could actually dunk. And she wasn't a giant--you know, 7 feet tall. She went on to play college sports, of course. What sport? You guessed it, volleyball.
1.30.2006
1.23.2006
Colossians Prayer (Part 1)
Back when I used to pray more frequently than I do now--a sad statement--I would read through the prayers of Paul and direct them as my own prayers toward individuals I know. Paul's prayer is Colossians 1 was one of those, and it seems a good place to begin blogging through Colossians.
Paul's prayer emanates from his thankfulness to God for the work already begun in his audience. In fact, he says "We give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you." The content of his prayer that follows several verses later, then, is inspired by his recognition that those for whom he prays are the projects of God. (The "word of truth, the gospel which has come to you, . . . is constantly bearing fruit and increasing.") In essence, Paul is praying that God direct and bring to completion the project he has begun. That this is indeed God's project is indicated by the God-like behavior, exemplified in Christ, that has become characteristic of the believers as well: "love in the Spirit."
Here's a question for contemplation:
How does our recognition that we, our believing friends, and perhaps those we are mentoring are God's projects influence how we pray? How we give advice? How we encourage and build up?
Paul's prayer emanates from his thankfulness to God for the work already begun in his audience. In fact, he says "We give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you." The content of his prayer that follows several verses later, then, is inspired by his recognition that those for whom he prays are the projects of God. (The "word of truth, the gospel which has come to you, . . . is constantly bearing fruit and increasing.") In essence, Paul is praying that God direct and bring to completion the project he has begun. That this is indeed God's project is indicated by the God-like behavior, exemplified in Christ, that has become characteristic of the believers as well: "love in the Spirit."
Here's a question for contemplation:
How does our recognition that we, our believing friends, and perhaps those we are mentoring are God's projects influence how we pray? How we give advice? How we encourage and build up?
1.19.2006
To Come: Blogging Colossians
I've been reading Colossians these last few days and have been challenged by the interaction; I plan, therefore, to post intermittent thoughts as I read through the letter, with the hope that readers will interact with me, each other, and God as we engage one another. So drop in from time to time and encourage others to do so if you get a chance.
Star Wars in Historical Perspective
This post is from a while back, but I ran across it today and found it interesting. I have to admit that I didn't much care for the three latest editions to the Star Wars saga. Hayden Christensen's acting was stilted, I thought, and much of the dialogue in the movies was drab. Of course I wasn't viewing it with the historical sensibilities in mind that the Libertas blog crew bring to the table. As a uniformed fan of old movies, I enjoyed reading this commentary on "the romantic bridge to Hollywood's past."
1.18.2006
Help! Caffeine Withdrawl
Ok, I am soooo tired. Once again I'm trying to cut down on my caffeine intake. Typically I begin my morning (post-shower, of course) with a cup of coffee. This cup, I reason, is to wake me up and help me get through the tortuous train ride to work. At work I fix myself a cup of tea or another cup of coffee so that I can make it through to lunch. Then, quite reasonably I think, I have yet another cup of coffee or tea in the afternoon to enable me to finish work on a strong note. It recently dawned on me that this might be too much of the good stuff in one day. So here I am now suffering through some serious withdrawl. Someone please tell me (perhaps from personal experience) 1) an effective way to cut back without killing onself or 2) that 3 cups a day is not really that much, and that, therefore, I can go back to my old ways . . . awake and happy. You will be my friend for life if you can help me.
1.17.2006
The Persian War
Michelle Malkin has a good roundup of commentary on the coming war with Iran. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross contributes to the discussion at the counterrorism blog, and ShrinkWrapped chimes in over at the Pajama's Media site. Always a good source of late-breaking news and neglected details regarding Iran is Regime Change Iran. Please understand, I'm not endorsing any position vis-a-vis Iran, but given the current admistration's policies, it's difficult to see how at least how some sort of confrontation (i.e., military) will be avoided. Victor Davis Hanson points out that there is not an ideal solution, any way you look at it. A bleak thought.
1.13.2006
Fever Pitch
Ok, I just watched Fever Pitch. I have to say, I'm not a fan. Not only do I not like what's his name from SNL, but I'm starting to get annoyed at Drew. Believing that she worked in that job was a tough sell. Anybody else watch this atrocity? Please no one tell me that you liked the movie.
A Beneficial Model?
Ok, I've been out of it for a while. Not that anyone cares, but I at least miss posting; it's therapeutic. There's so much to blog on: politics, the brewing war with Iran, Al-Qaeda's #2 reportedly killed, a rumor that Al-Qaeda's #1 was killed, etc. To get myself up and running again, however, I'm going to cross-post here my latest entry on my other blog. This may seem like a self-indulgent rant, but it's really a reflection on some ideas propounded by Kevin Vanhoozer in his book, The Drama of Doctrine. Most of you probably don't read the other blog (though you're welcomed and encouraged to do so, even if you haven't read the book; we want reponses to the ideas), so here's a flavor of what we're discussing. To set the stage (so to speak):Vanhoozer argues that we should envision theology (and doctrine) as a dramatic endeavor. Chapter three rounds out Part 1 on "The Drama" (Part 2 is about "The Script"). My post below is the second in a three part response to some of his ideas. Specifically, I'm referring here to the benefits Vanhoozer associates with his model. Hope you enjoy or have thoughtful insights or critiques to offer up.
The benefits V suggests accompany his dramatic model are insightful. Others have touched on the first, at least related to art—reinvigoration of the Christian imagination. I don’t have much to add at this point, mostly because I myself need such renewal or rebirth, as it were. I will say, however, that we as a Christian community in the West have shut ourselves off from creative endeavors. Unless a Christian singer, for instance, sings in a Christian band, for a Christian label, and to a Christian audience, we won’t have anything to do with him or her. If a claimed Christian artist performs in a “secular” band and writes and sings lyrics not overtly about God, we look at her with great suspicion if not disapproval.
[I remember at an earlier point in my life, having heard that Bono of U2 was a Christian, being disappointed that more of his lyrics weren’t as distinctly Christian as I imagined they should be. More and more, though, whether I always “agree” with what he sings, I find myself impressed by the way in which “spiritual” themes permeate his “secular” songs, sometimes to the point that it’s difficult to ascertain whether he’s talking about life here (e.g., love relationships) or there. The point is that in much of his music life “there” is really here, and life here—all of life (see benefit #2)—looks different when conceived of as part of a larger stage.]
Benefit two is huge for me (See the inaugural post on my other blog). Knowing that life here and now is not only consequential but involves interacting with God “in new and complex situations in a way that corresponds to the gospel” imbues life with a more lasting significance than often appears the case in our formulations of the Christian life—and, more important, such a picture of life would seem to be reflective of the God we know.
[Watts’ reminder to us of the way God acts within our culture, as seen in the creative composition of Genesis, demonstrates this point, I think. This is not to say just that God is accommodating our limitations in speaking to us in our own cultural language, but much more significantly he is disclosing his life by living it out through us. As seen in Genesis, sometimes this involves affirming cultural forms and assumptions; sometimes it involves transforming them; and sometimes it involves radically circumventing those assumptions. The point is that our day-to-day life in this cultural environment is an existence into which, in which, and through which God speaks. Attempting to escape these realities through a cloistered existence won’t do.]
Benefit three promises much. Perhaps most challenged—in appearance if not in reality—by this dramatic rendering of “doing theology” is biblical authority. By this I do not mean that V’s ideas violate biblical authority, but rather that they involve a reconsideration of the nature and locus of authority. Performance is presented as cementing the relationship between text and interpretation. Conceptually I can begin to imagine what this looks like, but I have yet to understand how in practice this looks different from our current application of biblical precepts. I look forward to seeing this fleshed out in subsequent chapters.
Part 3 to come.
The benefits V suggests accompany his dramatic model are insightful. Others have touched on the first, at least related to art—reinvigoration of the Christian imagination. I don’t have much to add at this point, mostly because I myself need such renewal or rebirth, as it were. I will say, however, that we as a Christian community in the West have shut ourselves off from creative endeavors. Unless a Christian singer, for instance, sings in a Christian band, for a Christian label, and to a Christian audience, we won’t have anything to do with him or her. If a claimed Christian artist performs in a “secular” band and writes and sings lyrics not overtly about God, we look at her with great suspicion if not disapproval.
[I remember at an earlier point in my life, having heard that Bono of U2 was a Christian, being disappointed that more of his lyrics weren’t as distinctly Christian as I imagined they should be. More and more, though, whether I always “agree” with what he sings, I find myself impressed by the way in which “spiritual” themes permeate his “secular” songs, sometimes to the point that it’s difficult to ascertain whether he’s talking about life here (e.g., love relationships) or there. The point is that in much of his music life “there” is really here, and life here—all of life (see benefit #2)—looks different when conceived of as part of a larger stage.]
Benefit two is huge for me (See the inaugural post on my other blog). Knowing that life here and now is not only consequential but involves interacting with God “in new and complex situations in a way that corresponds to the gospel” imbues life with a more lasting significance than often appears the case in our formulations of the Christian life—and, more important, such a picture of life would seem to be reflective of the God we know.
[Watts’ reminder to us of the way God acts within our culture, as seen in the creative composition of Genesis, demonstrates this point, I think. This is not to say just that God is accommodating our limitations in speaking to us in our own cultural language, but much more significantly he is disclosing his life by living it out through us. As seen in Genesis, sometimes this involves affirming cultural forms and assumptions; sometimes it involves transforming them; and sometimes it involves radically circumventing those assumptions. The point is that our day-to-day life in this cultural environment is an existence into which, in which, and through which God speaks. Attempting to escape these realities through a cloistered existence won’t do.]
Benefit three promises much. Perhaps most challenged—in appearance if not in reality—by this dramatic rendering of “doing theology” is biblical authority. By this I do not mean that V’s ideas violate biblical authority, but rather that they involve a reconsideration of the nature and locus of authority. Performance is presented as cementing the relationship between text and interpretation. Conceptually I can begin to imagine what this looks like, but I have yet to understand how in practice this looks different from our current application of biblical precepts. I look forward to seeing this fleshed out in subsequent chapters.
Part 3 to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
