Click here for more pictures of our campout...
www.jjgc.blogspot.com
Friday, June 22, 2007
Thursday, June 21, 2007
My Brother
My brother gets married this weekend. It's kind of crazy to think about. Needless to say, I am so happy for him and Cindy. Eight years ago, Ben was my best-man for our wedding. (Wow, he was 17 then!), and I was proud to have him as my best man. I am honored that he has asked me to be his, (although really, I don't think he had a lot of choice in the matter.) Ben is six years younger than me, which is quite a gap for brothers. We have always gotten along just fine, but as he got older, we have been able to be more on a peer level than just an older brother, younger brother thing. But, I guess during these times in our lives, we are supposed to get a little sentimental, so here it goes...
I remember:
...playing countless whiffle ball games in the front yard, each of us mimicking batter stances such as Geno Petralli, Julio Franco, and Mickey Tettleton.
...playing basketball where we "drafted players" and had to play like them during the game. For instance, if you picked Hakeem Olajuwon, you had to take the ball down low to score, but if you picked John Paxson, you could shoot from three-point range (which was behind the hibiscus plant). Also, since I was older and bigger, I wasn't allowed offensive rebounds or blocks. If we played now, the rules would definitely need to be reversed.
...drawing up football plays for the big Thanksgiving cousin football game.
Then Ben grew up. I remember:
...Spring Training in Port Charlotte.
...awesome Maverick play-off games against the Kings.
...the nervous walk to A&M graduation.
...relationship talk.
One of the biggest changes from Ben's youth to adulthood is his feeling toward public displays of affection. Jessica, Ben, and I drove home once from Galveston. We had celebrated Thanksgiving there and for some reason were leaving before everyone else. Ben said he was disgusted by Jessica and I holding hands. Cindy changed that feeling for Ben.
In our wedding program, I put Psalm 1 by Ben's name in the program. He is living up to that Psalm. I am glad Ben is my brother. We wish Cindy and Ben much happiness in marriage, and know that as they remain "trees planted by streams of water" God will strengthen their love for each other for their entire lives.
We are glad to finally be able to call Cindy, Aunt Cindy, for our kids. And we hope that we will be a good aunt and uncle to their children as well one day. Who knows - it could happen in about 9 months now.
I remember:
...playing countless whiffle ball games in the front yard, each of us mimicking batter stances such as Geno Petralli, Julio Franco, and Mickey Tettleton.
...playing basketball where we "drafted players" and had to play like them during the game. For instance, if you picked Hakeem Olajuwon, you had to take the ball down low to score, but if you picked John Paxson, you could shoot from three-point range (which was behind the hibiscus plant). Also, since I was older and bigger, I wasn't allowed offensive rebounds or blocks. If we played now, the rules would definitely need to be reversed.
...drawing up football plays for the big Thanksgiving cousin football game.
Then Ben grew up. I remember:
...Spring Training in Port Charlotte.
...awesome Maverick play-off games against the Kings.
...the nervous walk to A&M graduation.
...relationship talk.
One of the biggest changes from Ben's youth to adulthood is his feeling toward public displays of affection. Jessica, Ben, and I drove home once from Galveston. We had celebrated Thanksgiving there and for some reason were leaving before everyone else. Ben said he was disgusted by Jessica and I holding hands. Cindy changed that feeling for Ben.
In our wedding program, I put Psalm 1 by Ben's name in the program. He is living up to that Psalm. I am glad Ben is my brother. We wish Cindy and Ben much happiness in marriage, and know that as they remain "trees planted by streams of water" God will strengthen their love for each other for their entire lives.
We are glad to finally be able to call Cindy, Aunt Cindy, for our kids. And we hope that we will be a good aunt and uncle to their children as well one day. Who knows - it could happen in about 9 months now.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Camping
On Father's Day eve, Grant and I started a new tradition of camping out in our backyard. We set up the tent, built a fire in an enclosed fire grill, got our coat hangers ready, a
nd cooked hot dogs and roasted marshmallows. Then, as the sun went down, we crawled into the tent, read a book together, and went to sleep. Of course, it took a while to go to sleep. Grant began asking about a thousand questions, of which I knew only about half the answers, but I tried to answer them all. I woke up in the middle of the night to the sound of rain, but we stayed dry inside the tent. We were also bug free, which was a plus. It was one of the most fun nights of my life - even thinking about it now makes my heart fill with joy. Grant had such a fun time that he thinks we should camp out every Saturday, only he wants to get a bigger tent so the whole family can camp out too. He was concerned that Claire would be sad that she wasn't camping with us. Anyway, a new tradition began - I can't wait until next year!
nd cooked hot dogs and roasted marshmallows. Then, as the sun went down, we crawled into the tent, read a book together, and went to sleep. Of course, it took a while to go to sleep. Grant began asking about a thousand questions, of which I knew only about half the answers, but I tried to answer them all. I woke up in the middle of the night to the sound of rain, but we stayed dry inside the tent. We were also bug free, which was a plus. It was one of the most fun nights of my life - even thinking about it now makes my heart fill with joy. Grant had such a fun time that he thinks we should camp out every Saturday, only he wants to get a bigger tent so the whole family can camp out too. He was concerned that Claire would be sad that she wasn't camping with us. Anyway, a new tradition began - I can't wait until next year!
Friday, June 15, 2007
Arlington Steak House - Stop #2
A week ago, our "Arlington Iconic Dinner Society" or AIDS for short, met again on Division Street for dinner #2 - Arlington Steak House. Growing up, I feel like we went there at least twice a month. The place never changes. It is still the same, although thanks to Arlington's smoking ordinances, it is less smokey. As we perused the menu with our friends, we all knew what we had to order - the chicken fried steak - "Voted best in Arlington." (No year given, and the menus hadn't been re-printed in a while, so who knows if this is an annual award or not.) So all eight of us were set - I don't think anyone ordered anything different on the menu.
While waiting for our meal, we of course were treated to rolls and honey. This is perhaps my favorite part of Arlington Steak House, and the first batch was very good. Here's my theory though with Arlington Steak House and their rolls. The first batch are always good. When a table orders a second batch, they must have a different set of rolls made that aren't as good or fresh so that people won't request a third batch. Sure enough, our second batch of rolls were not as fresh and not nearly as good. I don't know why they do this, but it has always been this way.
Then out came our chicken fried steaks. I had forgotten to remind everyone that the gravy is yellow. It kind of looks like banana pudding. And if you ever go into the restaurant, you will notice that the walls are the same color as the gravy. I was used to this color from childhood, but it caught others off guard. But the food was good. I liked it better than Catfish Sam's.
The decor is old - again, nothing has changed in that place ever. The parking is always bad; however, we were eating late, so it was not much of a problem this time. And then there's the side door. This dirty, green, employees only door that is on the west side of the building is one of the creepiest doors in all of Arlington. I don't want to ever see the other side of that door. It freaks me out a little.
All in all, our second stop on Division Street was a great success. Good company, pretty good food. I would give Arlington Steak House an 9 out of 10. If they can just get that second batch of rolls better, I would be much happier.
While waiting for our meal, we of course were treated to rolls and honey. This is perhaps my favorite part of Arlington Steak House, and the first batch was very good. Here's my theory though with Arlington Steak House and their rolls. The first batch are always good. When a table orders a second batch, they must have a different set of rolls made that aren't as good or fresh so that people won't request a third batch. Sure enough, our second batch of rolls were not as fresh and not nearly as good. I don't know why they do this, but it has always been this way.
Then out came our chicken fried steaks. I had forgotten to remind everyone that the gravy is yellow. It kind of looks like banana pudding. And if you ever go into the restaurant, you will notice that the walls are the same color as the gravy. I was used to this color from childhood, but it caught others off guard. But the food was good. I liked it better than Catfish Sam's.
The decor is old - again, nothing has changed in that place ever. The parking is always bad; however, we were eating late, so it was not much of a problem this time. And then there's the side door. This dirty, green, employees only door that is on the west side of the building is one of the creepiest doors in all of Arlington. I don't want to ever see the other side of that door. It freaks me out a little.
All in all, our second stop on Division Street was a great success. Good company, pretty good food. I would give Arlington Steak House an 9 out of 10. If they can just get that second batch of rolls better, I would be much happier.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Time Travelling Faster?
It seems like the days are going by way too fast. I can't believe it is already May, I can't believe Tessa is 5 months old, I can't believe it is time for summer, I can't believe Grant and Claire are getting so old. I can't believe we are almost halfway through 2007. Time seems to be travelling faster and faster. As a kid, time would move slowly. Christmas and summer break always seemed so far away. Now, I am sure tomorrow will be Christmas, and I won't know where the year went. I kind of feel like Desmond on Lost sometimes.
It's not just me. The older you get, the faster time travels. I remember the lady we bought our first home from swore everything in the house was new or replaced "last year." Oftentimes, it turned out to be 10 or 15 years, but she honestly thought it was new.
Here's my theory though on why time travels faster when we get older. (Maybe everybody knows this, but sometimes these kind of things fascinate me.) When you are 1, one year is 100 percent of your life. When you are 5 years old, one year is 20 percent of your life. That's a lot. When you are 10, one year is 10 percent. Now that I am 31, one year is 3.2 percent of my life. So every year, the year equates to less of a percentage of my life than the year before, making it seem to go faster.
I guess this is why I still think of the 1990s as just being a couple of years ago. Time in percentage to my life travels much faster than when I was in the 90s looking back at the 1980s. Oh well, that's just my thought for the day. To all of you oldies out there who are reading this, don't take too long, or another year will pass for you.
It's not just me. The older you get, the faster time travels. I remember the lady we bought our first home from swore everything in the house was new or replaced "last year." Oftentimes, it turned out to be 10 or 15 years, but she honestly thought it was new.
Here's my theory though on why time travels faster when we get older. (Maybe everybody knows this, but sometimes these kind of things fascinate me.) When you are 1, one year is 100 percent of your life. When you are 5 years old, one year is 20 percent of your life. That's a lot. When you are 10, one year is 10 percent. Now that I am 31, one year is 3.2 percent of my life. So every year, the year equates to less of a percentage of my life than the year before, making it seem to go faster.
I guess this is why I still think of the 1990s as just being a couple of years ago. Time in percentage to my life travels much faster than when I was in the 90s looking back at the 1980s. Oh well, that's just my thought for the day. To all of you oldies out there who are reading this, don't take too long, or another year will pass for you.
Monday, May 21, 2007
The Historic Arlington Restaurant Tour: Part 1 - Catfish Sam's
A few weeks ago, I decided that Jessica and I, along with some of our friends, should experience historic Arlington eateries. After presenting the idea to our friends, the date was set. So Saturday evening, eight of us made our first stop on the "Division Street Restaurant Tour" at Catfish Sam's.
In my 31 years of life, 29 of which have been in Arlington, I have eaten at many Arlington locations. However, this was only my second visit to Catfish Sam's. The logo of a red, smiling catfish both on the wall of the restaurant and on the sign draws attention to this old building in west Arlington. Its location obviously leaves something to be desired. (For many years, I have said that if mayor, my first action would be to rent a bulldozer and drive it down both sides of a large portion of Division Street.) The building has no windows, so once inside, you have no clue what the weather or lighting is like outside; however, it was not too dark and the atmosphere was pleasant.
I drove by Catfish Sam's about 6:30pm on Saturday and the parking lot was packed; however, by the time we met there for dinner, it was 8:00pm and the main older crowd had already come and gone. Even so, the presence of the 8 of us around the age of 30, lowered the average age of the clients considerably while we were there. Also, the volume of laughter coming from our table raised the decibel level quite considerably. As we were finishing our meal, the place was ready to close, but the staff never rushed us, which was very nice.
Food wise, Catfish Sam's is pretty good. There is nothing like the hush puppies, I must have eaten close to a basket full. (They remind me of Bill Martin's Catfish place that used to be on the way home from Waco.) The little circular appetizer dish served confused me a little. A little dish of slaw, beans, pickles, okra, and onions is served at each table. (If you only order this, you are charged $4+ for this strange arrangement.) I ordered catfish and fries, which were pretty good. The fries were better than average; however, my catfish was just average. It was a little tough on the outside, but good on the inside. But really, we are not going to these restaurants for just the food. The ability of a place like this to have survived and thrived for over 50 years is what is most impressive to me. When a recent poll was conducted, Arlington residents listed On the Border as their favorite restaurant. One of the main criticisms of Arlington's food is its lack of original, local spots to eat. There is nothing fancy about Catfish Sam's, and yet, you can see why it has stayed in business, even without the most ideal of locations. It has never changed, the food is consistently good, and the prices are relatively reasonable. On a scale of 1 to 10, I would give Catfish Sam's an 8.
We had a great time on stop #1. Next time, we are going to head east on Division to one of my childhood favorites: Arlington Steak House.
In my 31 years of life, 29 of which have been in Arlington, I have eaten at many Arlington locations. However, this was only my second visit to Catfish Sam's. The logo of a red, smiling catfish both on the wall of the restaurant and on the sign draws attention to this old building in west Arlington. Its location obviously leaves something to be desired. (For many years, I have said that if mayor, my first action would be to rent a bulldozer and drive it down both sides of a large portion of Division Street.) The building has no windows, so once inside, you have no clue what the weather or lighting is like outside; however, it was not too dark and the atmosphere was pleasant.
I drove by Catfish Sam's about 6:30pm on Saturday and the parking lot was packed; however, by the time we met there for dinner, it was 8:00pm and the main older crowd had already come and gone. Even so, the presence of the 8 of us around the age of 30, lowered the average age of the clients considerably while we were there. Also, the volume of laughter coming from our table raised the decibel level quite considerably. As we were finishing our meal, the place was ready to close, but the staff never rushed us, which was very nice.
Food wise, Catfish Sam's is pretty good. There is nothing like the hush puppies, I must have eaten close to a basket full. (They remind me of Bill Martin's Catfish place that used to be on the way home from Waco.) The little circular appetizer dish served confused me a little. A little dish of slaw, beans, pickles, okra, and onions is served at each table. (If you only order this, you are charged $4+ for this strange arrangement.) I ordered catfish and fries, which were pretty good. The fries were better than average; however, my catfish was just average. It was a little tough on the outside, but good on the inside. But really, we are not going to these restaurants for just the food. The ability of a place like this to have survived and thrived for over 50 years is what is most impressive to me. When a recent poll was conducted, Arlington residents listed On the Border as their favorite restaurant. One of the main criticisms of Arlington's food is its lack of original, local spots to eat. There is nothing fancy about Catfish Sam's, and yet, you can see why it has stayed in business, even without the most ideal of locations. It has never changed, the food is consistently good, and the prices are relatively reasonable. On a scale of 1 to 10, I would give Catfish Sam's an 8.
We had a great time on stop #1. Next time, we are going to head east on Division to one of my childhood favorites: Arlington Steak House.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Falwell's Legacy...Good and Bad
With the passing of Jerry Falwell went one of the more colorful, entertaining, passionate, and maddening religious political figures in American history. There is no doubt that Falwell will have a lasting effect and influence on American politics. His Moral Majority, founded in 1979, not only is credited for helping elect Ronald Reagan, but also paved the way for others, such as Pat Robertson and the Christians Coalition, and James Dobson and the Family Research Council, to become major political figures in American politics. One could argue that without Falwell as the catalyst, the Religious Right would not be the major political player that it is today. And the Republican party would not have won so many elections without it either.
I must admit - and with no disrespect to his passing - I am no Falwell fan. It's not necessarily his political views - I agree with a great deal of them - but rather, it was his method. Falwell's political style was based less on humility and more on power, less on grace and more on legalism, less on love and more on divisiveness. Sometimes I wonder whether Falwell did more harm than good for Christianity as a whole. He politicized evangelicalism - the Good News became political mantra. While I appreciate his pro-life position, his inflammatory rhetoric caused many to turn a deaf ear to his message. Insinuating that homosexuals were the cause of 9/11 or that anyone who disagreed with him was probably a communist didn't open dialogue to discuss issues further, but rather isolated him to the fringes of society.
Earlier in his ministry, Falwell said, "Preachers are not called to be politicians… but to be soul winners." Why the change? The sexual revolution of the 60s and Roe v Wade were major ingredients in his shift. But the breaking point was the disillusionment many conservatives had with evangelical Jimmy Carter. When Carter's politics conflicted with conservative evangelicals, Falwell and others felt the need to act politically: "As a pastor, I kept waiting for someone to come to the forefront of the American religious scene to lead the way out of the wilderness. Like thousands of other preachers, I kept waiting, but no real leader appeared. Finally, I realized that we had to act ourselves."
And so Falwell began the Moral Majority - and gained much influence and power. He had access to the White House, he was interviewed by TV shows, and his face became recognizable throughout most of America and the world. And then, as it always does, the power corrupted. Every time in the world's history, when church and state mix, the church loses. Politics is about winning, which leads to compromise, which leads to abandonment of principles, which results in a political organization that once was religious. As I always warn myself and others, if your politics and your faith never conflict, then more than likely your politics is informing your faith, rather than your faith informing your politics. The Moral Majority, and subsequent organizations, lost their prophetic role and became pawns for the political parties. It happens on both sides of the aisle. Just as Falwell fell into the Republican power game, Jim Wallis is currently married to the Democratic power grab.
And so where are we in today's society? How does the world perceive Christians? As those who bring the Good News or those who wag their finger in others' faces? As those who seek to love one another, or as those who protest television shows? As those who seek to save the lost or those who judge the lost for not being responsible?
Love him or hate him, Falwell has left his mark on our American political system. But now, perhaps it is time for evangelicals to reclaim part of what has been lost and proclaim the entire Good News of Jesus Christ rather than just the contemporary partisan political hot-button issues.
I must admit - and with no disrespect to his passing - I am no Falwell fan. It's not necessarily his political views - I agree with a great deal of them - but rather, it was his method. Falwell's political style was based less on humility and more on power, less on grace and more on legalism, less on love and more on divisiveness. Sometimes I wonder whether Falwell did more harm than good for Christianity as a whole. He politicized evangelicalism - the Good News became political mantra. While I appreciate his pro-life position, his inflammatory rhetoric caused many to turn a deaf ear to his message. Insinuating that homosexuals were the cause of 9/11 or that anyone who disagreed with him was probably a communist didn't open dialogue to discuss issues further, but rather isolated him to the fringes of society.
Earlier in his ministry, Falwell said, "Preachers are not called to be politicians… but to be soul winners." Why the change? The sexual revolution of the 60s and Roe v Wade were major ingredients in his shift. But the breaking point was the disillusionment many conservatives had with evangelical Jimmy Carter. When Carter's politics conflicted with conservative evangelicals, Falwell and others felt the need to act politically: "As a pastor, I kept waiting for someone to come to the forefront of the American religious scene to lead the way out of the wilderness. Like thousands of other preachers, I kept waiting, but no real leader appeared. Finally, I realized that we had to act ourselves."
And so Falwell began the Moral Majority - and gained much influence and power. He had access to the White House, he was interviewed by TV shows, and his face became recognizable throughout most of America and the world. And then, as it always does, the power corrupted. Every time in the world's history, when church and state mix, the church loses. Politics is about winning, which leads to compromise, which leads to abandonment of principles, which results in a political organization that once was religious. As I always warn myself and others, if your politics and your faith never conflict, then more than likely your politics is informing your faith, rather than your faith informing your politics. The Moral Majority, and subsequent organizations, lost their prophetic role and became pawns for the political parties. It happens on both sides of the aisle. Just as Falwell fell into the Republican power game, Jim Wallis is currently married to the Democratic power grab.
And so where are we in today's society? How does the world perceive Christians? As those who bring the Good News or those who wag their finger in others' faces? As those who seek to love one another, or as those who protest television shows? As those who seek to save the lost or those who judge the lost for not being responsible?
Love him or hate him, Falwell has left his mark on our American political system. But now, perhaps it is time for evangelicals to reclaim part of what has been lost and proclaim the entire Good News of Jesus Christ rather than just the contemporary partisan political hot-button issues.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Another Grantism
Grant: "I'm hungry."
Jessica: "OK, we are about to eat dinner."
Grant: "But I'm hungry for unhealthy food!"
Jessica: "OK, we are about to eat dinner."
Grant: "But I'm hungry for unhealthy food!"
Claire-ism
Today, Jessica was driving with the kids when a Garbage Truck went by. Claire got really excited and said, "Look Mommy - a trash can bus!"
Monday, April 30, 2007
Mavs Fan For Life?
I have been a mavs fan my entire life. When I was in the 5th grade, I was an honorary ball boy for the Mavs (a great birthday present from my parents). I had my picture taken with Brad Davis, handed Mark Aguirre a towel to wipe spilled beer off of himself, and I pushed a broom around the key to wipe up sweat throughout the game. It was tons of fun to be so close.
I was a Mavs fan through the Quinn Buckner fiasco, the 13-69 season. I even had a Mavs clock on my wall during these dreadful years.
When Mark Cuban bought the team, I was ecstatic. He has done a lot to make Maverick basketball so good. Last year, beating the Spurs and making it to the finals was so great. It was terrible when they lost 4 in a row, but even with that debacle, I thought we always had this year.
We win 67 games this season.
And then, we get Golden State - a 42 win team. This has been the most painful Maverick basketball to ever watch. They have shown no heart, have played horribly, and have allowed some of the most annoying players to beat them.
If Dirk wins MVP tomorrow, this will only be more embarrassing. Jim Reeves said it best this morning in his column when he imagined phones ringing off the hook at the NBA office of people asking for their MVP votes back. I think back to Jordan, Olajuwon, Duncan, Kobe, Shaq, Wade - all those guys stepped up their game in the playoffs. Dirk, with the Spurs series an exception, has not. He has failed.
People give Arod a hard time for meaningless stats. He puts up huge numbers every year, but when it comes to a clutch hit, Arod disappears. Dirk is the new Arod. In last night's game, Dirk hit two threes at the end of the game, after the Mavs had lost. That is much like an Arod solo HR when the Yankees are down 10-0 in the 9th. "Meaningless offense" as my brother would say.
While my Maverick fandom has survived coaching from Buckner, Clemons, Adubato, and Gar Herr, with players like Bradley, English, Blab, Laettner, etc. stinking it up, I am not sure that my love for the Mavs will survive a loss to the Golden State Warriors in Round 1.
I know there are many more important things in the world to be upset about and that it is just a game, but I was looking forward to spending every other night for the next two months watching NBA basketball, talking about rules for watching sporting events, going to bed way too late, wearing my Mavs shirt 20 times in two months. But, when the Mavericks are gone, so is my viewership. And I am not sure it will be back next season. But at least this year, the Mavs cannot complain about the refs. There is no doubt who has played harder and better during this series. Maybe the Mavs will put it together and win three straight. But thus far, they haven't played 3 good quarters this series, so how will they play 12?
I was a Mavs fan through the Quinn Buckner fiasco, the 13-69 season. I even had a Mavs clock on my wall during these dreadful years.
When Mark Cuban bought the team, I was ecstatic. He has done a lot to make Maverick basketball so good. Last year, beating the Spurs and making it to the finals was so great. It was terrible when they lost 4 in a row, but even with that debacle, I thought we always had this year.
We win 67 games this season.
And then, we get Golden State - a 42 win team. This has been the most painful Maverick basketball to ever watch. They have shown no heart, have played horribly, and have allowed some of the most annoying players to beat them.
If Dirk wins MVP tomorrow, this will only be more embarrassing. Jim Reeves said it best this morning in his column when he imagined phones ringing off the hook at the NBA office of people asking for their MVP votes back. I think back to Jordan, Olajuwon, Duncan, Kobe, Shaq, Wade - all those guys stepped up their game in the playoffs. Dirk, with the Spurs series an exception, has not. He has failed.
People give Arod a hard time for meaningless stats. He puts up huge numbers every year, but when it comes to a clutch hit, Arod disappears. Dirk is the new Arod. In last night's game, Dirk hit two threes at the end of the game, after the Mavs had lost. That is much like an Arod solo HR when the Yankees are down 10-0 in the 9th. "Meaningless offense" as my brother would say.
While my Maverick fandom has survived coaching from Buckner, Clemons, Adubato, and Gar Herr, with players like Bradley, English, Blab, Laettner, etc. stinking it up, I am not sure that my love for the Mavs will survive a loss to the Golden State Warriors in Round 1.
I know there are many more important things in the world to be upset about and that it is just a game, but I was looking forward to spending every other night for the next two months watching NBA basketball, talking about rules for watching sporting events, going to bed way too late, wearing my Mavs shirt 20 times in two months. But, when the Mavericks are gone, so is my viewership. And I am not sure it will be back next season. But at least this year, the Mavs cannot complain about the refs. There is no doubt who has played harder and better during this series. Maybe the Mavs will put it together and win three straight. But thus far, they haven't played 3 good quarters this series, so how will they play 12?
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Partial-Birth Abortion Ruling
Today, in a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court upheld a law banning partial birth abortion (Gonzales v Carhart). Finally, after years of being thwarted by the courts, today is a victory for pre-born life. As I read the Supreme Court decision, I was sickened by the description and acceptance by some people of the procedure described as follows (quoting in Justice Kennedy's majority opinion from the Court's testimony):
" 'At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetus and "hooks" the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down).
" 'While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.
" '[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.
" 'The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.' " H. R. Rep. No. 108-58, p. 3 (2003).
This is an abortion doctor's clinical description. Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
" 'Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms--everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus... .
" 'The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.
" 'The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp... .
" 'He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.' "
It is hard to imagine that our culture has accepted partial birth abortion for so long. It is also hard to imagine how people do not consider the aborted babies human lives. Clinton vetoed a ban of the above procedure while in office, and the Supreme Court ruled a similar ban unconstitutional a couple of years ago. But this is a more conservative court - and a more humane one. This ruling shows the power of appointment granted to the President; the addition of Roberts and Alito by Bush have swung the Court, at least temporarily, to a more pro-life bent. And it shows why the presidential race and the congressional races of 2008 are so critical as well. More than likely, the next president will nominate judges to replace Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg - the two most liberal judges on the bench. And the next Congress will have to approve or deny those appointments.
There is still a long way to go. This ban only prohibits the partial-birth of the baby followed by the removal of his or her brain. This ban does not prohibit the following description also described in the Court's ruling:
After sufficient dilation the surgical operation can commence. The woman is placed under general anesthesia or conscious sedation. The doctor, often guided by ultrasound, inserts grasping forceps through the woman's cervix and into the uterus to grab the fetus. The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed. A doctor may make 10 to 15 passes with the forceps to evacuate the fetus in its entirety, though sometimes removal is completed with fewer passes. Once the fetus has been evacuated, the placenta and any remaining fetal material are suctioned or scraped out of the uterus. The doctor examines the different parts to ensure the entire fetal body has been removed.
The procedure just described is still permitted. Moreover, 90 percent of the 1.3 million abortions a year take place in the first trimester, unaffected by the ban.
Today's ruling is a victory for the unborn, albeit a small one. But with continued pressure and education, hopefully this will mark the beginning of a major movement to cease the killing of 1,300,000 lives each year in this country.
" 'At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetus and "hooks" the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down).
" 'While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.
" '[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.
" 'The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.' " H. R. Rep. No. 108-58, p. 3 (2003).
This is an abortion doctor's clinical description. Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
" 'Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms--everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus... .
" 'The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.
" 'The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp... .
" 'He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.' "
It is hard to imagine that our culture has accepted partial birth abortion for so long. It is also hard to imagine how people do not consider the aborted babies human lives. Clinton vetoed a ban of the above procedure while in office, and the Supreme Court ruled a similar ban unconstitutional a couple of years ago. But this is a more conservative court - and a more humane one. This ruling shows the power of appointment granted to the President; the addition of Roberts and Alito by Bush have swung the Court, at least temporarily, to a more pro-life bent. And it shows why the presidential race and the congressional races of 2008 are so critical as well. More than likely, the next president will nominate judges to replace Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg - the two most liberal judges on the bench. And the next Congress will have to approve or deny those appointments.
There is still a long way to go. This ban only prohibits the partial-birth of the baby followed by the removal of his or her brain. This ban does not prohibit the following description also described in the Court's ruling:
After sufficient dilation the surgical operation can commence. The woman is placed under general anesthesia or conscious sedation. The doctor, often guided by ultrasound, inserts grasping forceps through the woman's cervix and into the uterus to grab the fetus. The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed. A doctor may make 10 to 15 passes with the forceps to evacuate the fetus in its entirety, though sometimes removal is completed with fewer passes. Once the fetus has been evacuated, the placenta and any remaining fetal material are suctioned or scraped out of the uterus. The doctor examines the different parts to ensure the entire fetal body has been removed.
The procedure just described is still permitted. Moreover, 90 percent of the 1.3 million abortions a year take place in the first trimester, unaffected by the ban.
Today's ruling is a victory for the unborn, albeit a small one. But with continued pressure and education, hopefully this will mark the beginning of a major movement to cease the killing of 1,300,000 lives each year in this country.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Virginia Tech and What We Learn
The obvious question is, "Why?" Why did this happen? Why did Cho Seung-Hui feel the need to kill 32 people yesterday? Why wasn't he stopped? Why didn't the administration do more? These are all questions we will be asking in the coming days. At least until we who weren't directly affected resume our normal lives and forget about what happened.
It was hard to watch via the internet yesterday as the death toll rose throughout the day. It was hard to try to put myself in the shoes of the students in the classroom, or the professors - what would I have done? No one expects that to happen. The administration thought the first shooting was purely a domestic affair and was over, so the decision to shut down a campus of 26,000 students wasn't made. It's hard to fault the administration - again nothing like this had ever happened before. But I can only guess that internally the administration is second guessing themselves severely.
I can't imagine the terror in the classroom. I can't imagine the loss that families are feeling today. I can't imagine the horror witnessed by some. I can't imagine what the students who skipped class yesterday are thinking. I can't imagine what the girl who went to the building only to find the doors chained must be thinking. Was she upset that she was running late to class that day?
The media is describing Cho Seung-Hui as a loner. It seems like they are always loners. We talk about it. We hear stories of how we must include the loners. And then, we go back to our old ways of excluding or at least not trying hard to include the loner. Why do we so quickly slip back into our old habits?
It's just sad. What do we learn? I don't know. And where was God? It's a question that has been asked for thousands of years - from at least the time of Job. I remember when the Wedgwood shooting happened many years ago, the pastor, Al Meredith, said that God was in the same place He was when Jesus was hanging on the cross - on His throne and in control.
It was hard to watch via the internet yesterday as the death toll rose throughout the day. It was hard to try to put myself in the shoes of the students in the classroom, or the professors - what would I have done? No one expects that to happen. The administration thought the first shooting was purely a domestic affair and was over, so the decision to shut down a campus of 26,000 students wasn't made. It's hard to fault the administration - again nothing like this had ever happened before. But I can only guess that internally the administration is second guessing themselves severely.
I can't imagine the terror in the classroom. I can't imagine the loss that families are feeling today. I can't imagine the horror witnessed by some. I can't imagine what the students who skipped class yesterday are thinking. I can't imagine what the girl who went to the building only to find the doors chained must be thinking. Was she upset that she was running late to class that day?
The media is describing Cho Seung-Hui as a loner. It seems like they are always loners. We talk about it. We hear stories of how we must include the loners. And then, we go back to our old ways of excluding or at least not trying hard to include the loner. Why do we so quickly slip back into our old habits?
It's just sad. What do we learn? I don't know. And where was God? It's a question that has been asked for thousands of years - from at least the time of Job. I remember when the Wedgwood shooting happened many years ago, the pastor, Al Meredith, said that God was in the same place He was when Jesus was hanging on the cross - on His throne and in control.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
The Great Game of Baseball
So life truly began again yesterday. Spring is here. And now I have a reason to read the Sports Page every day. To me, there is no sport that even compares to baseball. Baseball engages all your senses. Sight - freshly chalked foul lines, green grass mowed so evenly, freshly watered dirt, the list could go on. Sound - the crack of the bat, the smack in the catcher's glove of a fastball, the strike call of a really good umpire. Smell - freshly mowed grass, leather of a glove, spring air. Taste - cotton candy, ballpark hot dog, bag of peanuts. Touch - the grip of a baseball, the way a bat feels, the passing of concessions down the row. One's whole person gets involved in baseball. I am glad it's back again. And I'm glad there are 161 games left after the way the Rangers disappointed in game 1.
One of my favorite things about the great game of baseball is talking about former players. During last night's broadcast, Tom Grieve and Josh Lewin, in the span of an inning, made reference to five centerfielders connected to the Rangers. First is the current centerfielder, Kenny Lofton. Next, a catch by last year's centerfielder Gary Matthews, Jr., a camera shot of the Rangers' firstbase coach Gary Pettis, and a reference to the speed of Damon Buford and Tom Goodwin. (I hadn't heard their names in a long time!) So, I began to think of all the Ranger CFs I could remember: Greer, Hulse, Brower, Nixon, Nix, etc, etc., etc. In college, we used to try to come up with the most obscure Ranger names we could think of. No one ever does that with football or basketball, do they? Well, anyway, I'm glad the season has started.
One of my favorite things about the great game of baseball is talking about former players. During last night's broadcast, Tom Grieve and Josh Lewin, in the span of an inning, made reference to five centerfielders connected to the Rangers. First is the current centerfielder, Kenny Lofton. Next, a catch by last year's centerfielder Gary Matthews, Jr., a camera shot of the Rangers' firstbase coach Gary Pettis, and a reference to the speed of Damon Buford and Tom Goodwin. (I hadn't heard their names in a long time!) So, I began to think of all the Ranger CFs I could remember: Greer, Hulse, Brower, Nixon, Nix, etc, etc., etc. In college, we used to try to come up with the most obscure Ranger names we could think of. No one ever does that with football or basketball, do they? Well, anyway, I'm glad the season has started.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Haircuts
Grant and I went to get haircuts today. Mondays are always "boy days." We eat breakfast together before school, then I take him to and pick him up from school and we spend some time together. Today, we got haircuts. It is pretty amazing how far Grant has come from the boy who would scream through an entire haircut to the one who really enjoys it and laughs pretty much through it because it tickles him so much. So after our haircut, we were going out to the car and it started raining. Grant said, "Uh-oh, the rain is going to make my hair grow!"
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Another Grantism
I am a fan of Grape Nuts cereal. Don't know why, I just seem to crave it at times. So we have the Kroger off brand of "Nutty Nuggets." As I was pouring a bowl of "Nutty Nuggets" this morning, Grant asked me what I was eating. I said, "Nutty Nuggets cereal." He got up from the table and walked over to look into my bowl. After taking a couple of seconds to examine the contents, Grant said, "I do not see any chicken in there."
Monday, March 12, 2007
Disillusioned by Conservatives
The past 10 days or so have been very bad for conservatives politically. Rising to power as the voice of "family values," three stories caught my eye this past week which have solidified the fact that no government, no political ideology or leadership is worthy of claiming any kind of moral high ground. Politics is and will always be a hypocritical bunch of power hungry dirt bags, who will spin anything and compromise any amount of integrity to make themselves look good and the opposition look evil. Here are the three issues that reaffirmed to me the fall of the "family values" politician.
1. Scooter Libby. Scooter Libby lied. He lied to FBI officials, he lied to investigators, he lied to a court. That is against the law. It doesn't matter how big, small, or unimportant an issue is, Scooter Libby lied and is guilty. He can't blame anybody but himself. If he tells the truth, he is a free man today. What made my blood boil is listening to talk radio last week excusing his lies as silly and unimportant. The talk shows said since there was no crime charged for the original investigation, Libby shouldn't be found guilty here. Hmmm. Seems to me that I remember during the Whitewater investigation that Clinton lied under oath about an affair, which had nothing to do with the original investigation. But he lied, and he was impeached. At the time, I remember the talk shows claiming that it didn't matter that is was Clinton - that even if it were a conservative, they would feel the same way, because the law is the law. Well here we are, and those same talk shows are using the Clinton playbook to call these findings nothing. Remember the Rose Garden ceremony after the impeachment? Conservatives have staged their own Rose Gardens on the airwaves for the past week and I have had it. What happened to principle and abiding by the law.
2. Ann Coulter. If a Democrat used the word to describe a Republican that Coulter used to describe Edwards, what would the reaction be? Conservatives would be up in arms, calling for an apology. Why can't those same conservatives practice what they preach and condemn Coulter and stop hailing her as a hero? Hannity said that he isn't going to condemn her remarks until Democrats condemn remarks that their leaders have made. That's really standing on principle isn't it? It is such a childish and ridiculous excuse it drives me crazy. "I'm not going to apologize until you do!" That is not taking the moral high ground. I've had it.
3. Newt Gingrich. Newt came out and admitted that while he was pushing for Clinton's impeachment, he was having an affair. But that he was not being hypocritical, because the issue for Clinton was about lying under oath, not because of an affair. This gets us back to my first gripe about Libby. (By the way, Gingrich ended his first marriage by placing divorce papers on the hospital bed of his first wife while she was overcoming cancer. )
So what to do? How are we supposed to vote for a bunch of cheating, lying, hypocrites? Neither party has the high ground. Power corrupts, and no matter how pure one's intentions may be when entering the political game, the seduction of power and the political culture in this country darkens the hearts and blinds the eyes of every person caught within its grasp.
I think it is time for evangelicals to cease blindly supporting one party or the other. Being a Republican or a Democrat doesn't make one a better or worse Christian. But allowing a political party to corrupt one's theology and compromise one's standards weakens one's faith. It's time to take a deep breath, take a step back and re-evaluate evangelical politics in this country. It pains me to write much of this. I am reminded about what Rich Mullins said in an interview. He said that he wanted government to work, but that he thanked God for Richard Nixon because he shattered Rich's hope that government could work. Well, in the same way, I thank God for Scooter Libby, Ann Coulter, and Newt Gingrich. They have helped re-emphasize the fact that government does not work and never will...until we get to heaven.
1. Scooter Libby. Scooter Libby lied. He lied to FBI officials, he lied to investigators, he lied to a court. That is against the law. It doesn't matter how big, small, or unimportant an issue is, Scooter Libby lied and is guilty. He can't blame anybody but himself. If he tells the truth, he is a free man today. What made my blood boil is listening to talk radio last week excusing his lies as silly and unimportant. The talk shows said since there was no crime charged for the original investigation, Libby shouldn't be found guilty here. Hmmm. Seems to me that I remember during the Whitewater investigation that Clinton lied under oath about an affair, which had nothing to do with the original investigation. But he lied, and he was impeached. At the time, I remember the talk shows claiming that it didn't matter that is was Clinton - that even if it were a conservative, they would feel the same way, because the law is the law. Well here we are, and those same talk shows are using the Clinton playbook to call these findings nothing. Remember the Rose Garden ceremony after the impeachment? Conservatives have staged their own Rose Gardens on the airwaves for the past week and I have had it. What happened to principle and abiding by the law.
2. Ann Coulter. If a Democrat used the word to describe a Republican that Coulter used to describe Edwards, what would the reaction be? Conservatives would be up in arms, calling for an apology. Why can't those same conservatives practice what they preach and condemn Coulter and stop hailing her as a hero? Hannity said that he isn't going to condemn her remarks until Democrats condemn remarks that their leaders have made. That's really standing on principle isn't it? It is such a childish and ridiculous excuse it drives me crazy. "I'm not going to apologize until you do!" That is not taking the moral high ground. I've had it.
3. Newt Gingrich. Newt came out and admitted that while he was pushing for Clinton's impeachment, he was having an affair. But that he was not being hypocritical, because the issue for Clinton was about lying under oath, not because of an affair. This gets us back to my first gripe about Libby. (By the way, Gingrich ended his first marriage by placing divorce papers on the hospital bed of his first wife while she was overcoming cancer. )
So what to do? How are we supposed to vote for a bunch of cheating, lying, hypocrites? Neither party has the high ground. Power corrupts, and no matter how pure one's intentions may be when entering the political game, the seduction of power and the political culture in this country darkens the hearts and blinds the eyes of every person caught within its grasp.
I think it is time for evangelicals to cease blindly supporting one party or the other. Being a Republican or a Democrat doesn't make one a better or worse Christian. But allowing a political party to corrupt one's theology and compromise one's standards weakens one's faith. It's time to take a deep breath, take a step back and re-evaluate evangelical politics in this country. It pains me to write much of this. I am reminded about what Rich Mullins said in an interview. He said that he wanted government to work, but that he thanked God for Richard Nixon because he shattered Rich's hope that government could work. Well, in the same way, I thank God for Scooter Libby, Ann Coulter, and Newt Gingrich. They have helped re-emphasize the fact that government does not work and never will...until we get to heaven.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Bono at the NAACP Awards
I stumbled across this last night right as the award was being presented. He pretty much sums up my moral values post from a couple of days ago, especially at the end of his speech. Again, Bono is the coolest.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Bono
"If you could go to lunch with one celebrity, who would it be?" I would answer Bono. He is the coolest person alive. This is a speech he gave at the prayer breakfast in DC last year. I am posting this because it is a great speech, and also, so I can practice posting videos.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Moral Issues
What is a moral issue? In his acceptance speech for his Oscar winning documentary, Al Gore claimed global warming as a moral issue. I would be willing to bet many conservative Christians scoffed at such a suggestion; however, Gore is echoing what many evangelicals are beginning to realize - that our definition of moral issues is too small. Recently in American political life, what constitutes a "moral" issue has been questioned. Since the rise of the Religious Right and the political campaign for "Family Values," morality has played a key role in our elections. Unfortunately, the Religious Right has restricted values to include only beliefs about abortion, homosexual marriage, and Hollywood. This narrow focus has rendered the evangelical political voice mute on many other important moral issues facing our nation and world.
How we treat our environment is a moral issue. Whether or not one buys into Global Warming shouldn't preclude one from understanding our moral role as Christians concerning our environment. Pollution, conservation, air quality, water quality, treatment of life in our world, etc, are all examples of environmental concerns that we as Christians must address. Not from a Republican or Democrat opinion, but from a moral and ethical one.
How we treat those in poverty is a moral issue. In a country that was built by rugged individualism, we often assume that those who are wealthy must be good people, while those who are poor must not be. In fact, many religious groups, ie the "health and wealth" gospel, teach this very thing. The Religious Right views poverty as simply an issue for the individual - "pull yourself up by the bootstraps...stop being lazy... get saved." But I believe Christ approaches poverty differently and holistically. As Christians, we must approach the issue of poverty as a community rather than as individuals. What in our society (racism, sexism, education) is causing poverty? In the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world, the fact that 20 percent of children go to bed hungry is a moral issue, and one that we as Christians must address not just privately, but politically.
How we approach materialism is a moral issue. Politicians blab about needing to be for the poor, but then they build 29,000 sq ft houses or have electric bills that are twice the average American. We talk about the need to conserve and pass out awards for documentaries that address these issues and then see the celebrities wearing expensive clothing ride away in their gas guzzling limos to go to lavish parties where food will be wasted. Oil company execs make billions while their employees barely see any increase. The list can go on. Materialism is a moral issue that not even I want to address(because I too am a hypocrite), but it needs to be part of our political discussion.
How we fight the war on terrorism is a moral issue. While I am one of the remaining few who support the Iraq War, although many mistakes have been made, I believe our strategy against terrorism is a moral issue that we must consistently question and answer. How we treat prisoners or suspects is a moral issue. Secret prisons and torture of inmates are troubling moral issues that must be discussed.
These are a few of the moral issues we face. Abortion (and how we treat all life), homosexual marriage (and the divorce rate among heterosexuals), child abuse, poverty, materialism, war, etc, are all important moral issues and Family Values that we as evangelicals must address. This is beyond party politics. Neither party has all the answers. But as Christians, we can influence public policy by not being corrupted by either party. Hopefully, we can continue to find our prophetic voice in American life before it is completely drowned out by politics.
How we treat our environment is a moral issue. Whether or not one buys into Global Warming shouldn't preclude one from understanding our moral role as Christians concerning our environment. Pollution, conservation, air quality, water quality, treatment of life in our world, etc, are all examples of environmental concerns that we as Christians must address. Not from a Republican or Democrat opinion, but from a moral and ethical one.
How we treat those in poverty is a moral issue. In a country that was built by rugged individualism, we often assume that those who are wealthy must be good people, while those who are poor must not be. In fact, many religious groups, ie the "health and wealth" gospel, teach this very thing. The Religious Right views poverty as simply an issue for the individual - "pull yourself up by the bootstraps...stop being lazy... get saved." But I believe Christ approaches poverty differently and holistically. As Christians, we must approach the issue of poverty as a community rather than as individuals. What in our society (racism, sexism, education) is causing poverty? In the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world, the fact that 20 percent of children go to bed hungry is a moral issue, and one that we as Christians must address not just privately, but politically.
How we approach materialism is a moral issue. Politicians blab about needing to be for the poor, but then they build 29,000 sq ft houses or have electric bills that are twice the average American. We talk about the need to conserve and pass out awards for documentaries that address these issues and then see the celebrities wearing expensive clothing ride away in their gas guzzling limos to go to lavish parties where food will be wasted. Oil company execs make billions while their employees barely see any increase. The list can go on. Materialism is a moral issue that not even I want to address(because I too am a hypocrite), but it needs to be part of our political discussion.
How we fight the war on terrorism is a moral issue. While I am one of the remaining few who support the Iraq War, although many mistakes have been made, I believe our strategy against terrorism is a moral issue that we must consistently question and answer. How we treat prisoners or suspects is a moral issue. Secret prisons and torture of inmates are troubling moral issues that must be discussed.
These are a few of the moral issues we face. Abortion (and how we treat all life), homosexual marriage (and the divorce rate among heterosexuals), child abuse, poverty, materialism, war, etc, are all important moral issues and Family Values that we as evangelicals must address. This is beyond party politics. Neither party has all the answers. But as Christians, we can influence public policy by not being corrupted by either party. Hopefully, we can continue to find our prophetic voice in American life before it is completely drowned out by politics.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Dungy Did It!
I am a fan of Tony Dungy. We lived in Tampa for a couple of years, rooting for the Bucs. Dungy was the coach our first year in Tampa. He had taken an organization and completely turned it around. Unfortunately, the owners didn't see him as capable of winning the big one. So he was fired, Gruden was hired and the Bucs promptly won the next Super Bowl. So the criticism of Dungy escalated more as one who couldn't win the big one. He was hired by Indy, where again his team failed each year to reach expectations... until this year. Dungy won last night. Nice guys finished first. And he was gracious in the victory.
Much had been made about the race of the two coaches last night. Dungy commented that more important than race was that two Christian coaches were in the Super Bowl: "I think it's great that we're able to show the world not only that African-American coaches can do it, but Christian coaches can do it in a way that we can still win." Dungy doesn't yell, he doesn't cuss, he doesn't put down the press or his players. He coaches, and he cares about his players. And his players love him.
I don't think God takes sides in football games. I don't think God favored the Colts over the Bears. But Dungy did give God the glory last night. Not in a pretentious way like others, but in a very humble and authentic way. Dungy lives out his faith in all he does, whether he wins or loses. Finally, last night, he was able to walk off the field as Champion - but he remained the same authentic and humble follower of Christ that he has always been. In the world of sports, it is good to have two role models like Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy that others can aspire to be like - maintaining the competitive edge in their professions while living the Christian life to its fullest.
Much had been made about the race of the two coaches last night. Dungy commented that more important than race was that two Christian coaches were in the Super Bowl: "I think it's great that we're able to show the world not only that African-American coaches can do it, but Christian coaches can do it in a way that we can still win." Dungy doesn't yell, he doesn't cuss, he doesn't put down the press or his players. He coaches, and he cares about his players. And his players love him.
I don't think God takes sides in football games. I don't think God favored the Colts over the Bears. But Dungy did give God the glory last night. Not in a pretentious way like others, but in a very humble and authentic way. Dungy lives out his faith in all he does, whether he wins or loses. Finally, last night, he was able to walk off the field as Champion - but he remained the same authentic and humble follower of Christ that he has always been. In the world of sports, it is good to have two role models like Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy that others can aspire to be like - maintaining the competitive edge in their professions while living the Christian life to its fullest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)