I Think I Love My Wife's Football Team

Ah, football season. You bring me so much anticipation of joy. And, as a career Vikings fan, you never fail to bring me bitter, bitter disappointment. Examples of the disappointment abound. There was the season that the Vikings started 6-0 and then missed the playoffs. Or the year that their sizzling offense was shut out 42-0 in the playoffs against a mediocre Giants team. And who could forget the debacle against the Falcons in the 1999 playoffs?

My commitment to the 'hometown' team has waxed and waned in the midst of these pratfalls. Some, my wife included, have applied the label, "bandwagon" to such tepid loyalty. And as a contrast, she has remained unwaveringly steadfast and faithful to her team through thick and thin. Like many other Packer fans, she will bleed green and gold until someone pries the myriad of Green Bay Superbowl wins from her cold, dead fingers. Even through the emotional roller coaster of Brett Favre's retirement, she remained steadfast. Granted, there was a period of mourning--3-4 months, if my memory serves me correctly. But she has ultimately moved to the 'acceptance' stage of grief and has prepared herself emotionally for the advent of the Aaron Rodgers era of Packer football.

But then a bomb was dropped yesterday. Perhaps I should let her speak for herself. This is an email that she sent to all of her Packer fan friends yesterday (edit: she sent this BEFORE Brett Favre's text message denying that he would return):

Subject Line: OMG

Hey friends,

So.....http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3471189.

Although it is completely hearsay, I have so many mixed feelings. ESPN speculated (let me repeat, speculated) about a denial from Green Bay and a Vikings team that would welcome Favre with open arms. Tim was giddy at that possibility! Although I can hardly blame him, I told him that might be really bad for our marriage.

What do you think? Are you excited, crying, unmoved, or just mad?

Jess

P.S. Is it just me, or is Brett Favre just like a stereotypical bad boyfriend? You love him, he breaks your heart, he leaves, then he calls saying he misses you.....hmmmm. I seriously don't know if I can take this all summer.

Now, granted, this email is dripping with sarcasm (and wit, I might add). But I think it illustrates rather well the differences in loyalty schemes between a Packer fan and a Viking fan. And, so does this (start listening at about the 2:45 mark).

So, what do you think, blog-reading faithful? Can our marriage survive Brett Favre in a Vikings uniform? I'd like to think it can. But, of course, I'm far more optimistic about the prospects of our marriage than I am about my football team.

What's A Month Between Friends?

As promised, German is finished and I am officially back in the saddle. Unfortunately, the horse is blind and shaped like the letter "U". Oh well, you get what you pay for, I guess. Coincidentally, today's blog is also brought to you by the letter "U". Weird...

I digress...

There really is no better way to get back into the blogging groove than with one of my patented Bits and Pieces episodes. So, for better or worse, here's what I've done/learned in the past month:

1. One of the greatest epidemics facing America today is mumbling. Mumblers can be found just about anywhere, and you can certainly find them at Ebenezer's. A word to the wise--if you insist on mumbling while placing your order, and I respond by asking you to repeat what you just said, IT MEANS I WANT YOU TO ANNUNCIATE THE SECOND TIME YOU SPEAK. Mumbling a second time will only result in me asking what you just said a second time. We could repeat this little game ad nauseum--I really do have all day--or you could put in a little effort and stop placing your order like a primate. Just a suggestion...

-and I'm just getting warmed up!-

2. The German language is crazy. And not the good kind of crazy either. Oh, German, why must your words have 32 letters? Who came up with verbs that have separable prefixes? Why must you place the verb at the very end of the sentence? And, for that matter, why must you write sentences so long they would make Charles Dickens blush?

3. 2008 has been a good hear for music so far. Death Cab for Cutie, Tapes 'n' Tapes, Sigur Ros and Coldplay all have spectacular new albums, and those are just the big names. A host of other, more obscure bands have made my ears very happy this year--amongst them are: Amber Rubarth, Liam Finn, Headlights and Ghost in the Water.

4. Jess and I like visitors. A lot. Have you come to visit us in DC yet? If not, you are running out of time! ACT NOW!! THIS OFFER CAN'T LAST FOREVER!

5. The best movie I've seen in a long time: Lars and the Real Girl. If you haven't seen it yet, put it to the top of your Netflix queue. You won't be sorry. Hopefully I'll get to post something more extensive about this excellent film in the near future.

6. Movie to skip: Prince Caspian. The film version of the C.S. Lewis's excellent book is flaccid from start to finish. It boggles my mind why the director would have departed so much from the book and created motifs that are alien to Lewis's original story telling.

7. I had the privilege of attending Tim Russert's wake last week; Jess and I met his son and wife while we were there. So incredibly sad... He was one of the good guys in a world filled with blathering pundits. NBC won't be the same without him--he was the best in the business and an irreplaceable voice of reason amid the white noise.

8. Has anyone else noticed that the Twins are only 1 1/2 games out of first place? They're far exceeding my expectations for the year. I can't wait until they open the new stadium in 2010.

9. Speaking of sports, I'm happy for Kevin Garnett. It was good to see him get the monkey off his back; though he was well compensated while in the Twin Cities, dealing with Kevin McHale on a daily basis is its own special kind of hell. Congrats, Big Ticket.

10. (HT: Jessica Banti) Be sure to read this excellent and scathing op-ed piece by Thomas Friedman of the NY Times about the insanity of the Bush administration's current energy policy.

11. I confess that I have been regularly listening to NPR's "This American Life" lately. I'm officially an elitist. God have mercy on me...

12. Two of my favorite people came together in one place last week. Click here to see N.T. Wright's appearance on the Colbert Report.

Well, I best be getting to bed. I'm sure there's more to be said, but it will have to wait another day.

In Which My Old Man Calls Me Out...

I got an email from my dad this morning:

Tim-
So, the Colorado church shootings deal: Was one of the big questions for you- Why was there an armed guard at the church...what does the church need an armed guard that considers killing as OK- and where are you in this non-violent discussion?
DAD

Some of you may recall the non-violence discussion my dad was referencing from a blog I posted last month. It's a good question, and I definitely appreciate that my dad is trying to keep me honest to the real world as I work through the issue of the Christian's duty to be nonviolent in a violent world. So, a few thoughts on this issue.

First, it should be said that this was a terrible situation for all involved. We lament the passing of all the deceased, including the antagonist in this situation.

Second, I would love to hear some more background (as my dad alluded to in his email)--what led to the decision to have a guard on the church's campus? What led to having an ARMED guard on the church's campus? Etc., etc., etc. I want to hear a full explanation of the church's rationale for feeling that they needed that kind of protection. Then, I would be interested to find out if these issues arose as a product of managing a church as large as New Life. After all, I've never heard of a church of 200 - 500 people having an armed guard. My suspicion is that the factors leading to the church having an armed guard were not directly related to the gospel of Christ or the Kingdom of God but had a lot to do with managing the realities of a church of 10,000 people. It's just a hunch.

Third, in terms of a discussion about nonviolence as a Christian norm, we must not allow this issue to be framed as a 'lesser of two evils' quandary. Our only options here should not have been 1) Shoot the gunman so that he doesn't kill any more church members; or 2) Refrain from a violent response and allow the gunman to kill more church members. Such binary reductionist thinking does not take into consideration any of the questions listed above. Such thinking is also fatalistic in the extreme because it does not consider what could have been done to prevent such a situation in the first place. It's a bit like three men getting lost in the wilderness because they didn't bring a map for their journey, burning all of their food to stay warm and then having the audacity to assume that their only options are 1) to starve; or 2) to draw straws to see which of them will be killed and eaten. The decisions made further upstream must occupy the thrust of our attention with regard to the ethics of the situation.

So, with all of these things in mind, I think it's wise to turn to scripture. Two passages came to mind immediately. First, Luke 19: 41 - 44:

41As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you."

I could spend ten pages on the exegesis of these verses, but I think only a few things bear specific mention. First, Jesus is clearly referring to the impending destruction of both the temple and Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD. He wept because he knew that the Zealots would incite violence against the Romans, trusting that God would protect them and His holy city. However, their confidence was sorely misplaced, as both Jesus' prophecy and history clearly show. Second, Jesus weeps not because of the judgment about to fall on Jerusalem, but because she had ample opportunity to embrace 'the things that make for peace' but instead chose her own way and trusted God to bless that way instead of the way that truly brought His kingdom on earth.

The application is obvious--there were very likely things that could have led to peace in the situation at New Life Church, but they instead chose the false either/or of 1) helplessness against an armed assailant or 2) violence as a constant, ever-ready option to be used. I think Jesus wept over the meeting in which New Life church leadership discussed this absurd duo of violence-laden choices.

The second passage that came to mind was Matthew 26: 47 - 52:

47While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people. 48Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him." 49Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him.

50Jesus replied, "Friend, do what you came for."

Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." [italics mine]

Again, much to be said. First, we must not deny the particularity of this passage. Obviously Jesus was speaking a specific message to a specific person and was not giving some sort of timeless truth in verse 52. Also, although all four gospels record this account, only Matthew preserved the saying in this verse. That being said, I think Jesus was speaking (in some regard) about the cyclical nature of violence. As both past history and current events illustrate, violence tends to beget violence...which, in turn, begets further violence. This is why 'just war' theory (or a 'just violence' theory) never quite rings true for me--it is not on a trajectory toward the good future God has in mind in which (Isaiah 2: 4),

He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples.
They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.

Even if the disturbed young man from Colorado took aim at New Life members because he loathed their genuine love and faithful adherence to the gospel (which I doubt), I still don't think the armed guard's violent response was the right answer. For, then the church's duty should have been to, with the New Testament apostles, consider suffering for the name of Christ to be an honor and a delight.

Of course, I'm not under the illusion that such a course of action is easy. Nor do I recall our Lord claiming it would be. Quite the opposite, in fact. Yet, the difficult, imaginative, humbling, frustrating and wrath-absorbing way of non-violence is the way of Jesus to which each of us has been called. The path that leads to violence is wide and easy. May we all seek the more narrow way.

Woe

Upon arriving at work and flipping on the coffee house TV's, I saw a blurb about this story on CNN. The short version, for those who don't have time to read it, is as follows:

In 2006, a Saudi woman was kidnapped from a mall and gang raped by a group of 7 men. The court which heard the case against the men convicted them and gave them a relatively light prison sentence (considering that they could have been beheaded under the law for their crime). Along with the conviction of these men was a sentence of 90 lashes for the rape victim. This sentence was said to be 'just' because she broke the Saudi law which prohibits a woman from being in the company of a man who is not her direct relative. The woman appealed her sentence and the court, rather than declaring her original sentence unjust, doubled the number of lashes and sentenced her to six months in prison.

The atrocities in this story are self-evident, and they need little elucidation. This is a serious perversion of human rights--one which we would expect President Bush to staunchly condemn. We would expect him, as the leader of the free world, to call King Abdullah out and demand that the fallacious charges against the woman be dropped. So...how did the US government's rhetoric live up to our expectations?

"This is a part of a judicial procedure overseas in the court of a sovereign country..."

"Most would find this relatively astonishing that something like this happens."

"It is within the power of the Saudi government to take a look at the verdict and change it."

"I don't have anything else to offer."

Way to go, USA. If this government had any ethical fortitude to begin with, it has long been left by the wayside of political utilitarianism. It should not matter that we 'need' Saudi Arabia in one way or another. Wrong is wrong. And the Saudi court's sentence is certainly wrong, as is our president's apprehension to condemn it.

After seeing the story, this was the first thing that came to mind:

20 Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.

21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
and clever in their own sight...

23 who acquit the guilty for a bribe,
but deny justice to the innocent.

Woe to our government, and woe to us all. Lord be merciful to that woman.

Sports Tidbits

For those of you who chastise me every time I post something sports related--do yourself a favor and just stop reading right now. I like sports. Many people who read this blog regularly also like sports. If you don't like sports, repent. There, I said it.

1. In case you just landed on this planet and haven't been watching the NFL, the Patriots are freaking ridiculous. I have never, EVER seen anything like this in professional football. I honestly can't believe there are still people who think the Patriots will lose a game this season. They WILL go 16-0. They will win the Superbowl. Count on it.
2. I'm getting anxious and frustrated by the relative inaction of the Twins so far this off-season. Detroit goes out and signs Edgar Renteria right away. Then today, the White Sox trade for Orlando Cabrera. Meanwhile, it's unlikely we'll be able to sign Torii Hunter or even Carlos Silva. Though, for the money Silva's sure to get, I'm not sure we want him. One way or another, I have a very bad feeling about this off-season for my favorite squad.
3. As a related note to number one--not bad being a fan of Boston sports lately, eh? Kevin Garnett looks pretty good in green.
4. Lay off Barry Bonds. He took steroids during a period when HGH was not illegal in the game. Besides--how many of the pitchers throwing to him were also juicing? It seems ridiculous to make him the whipping boy for a bad era of baseball.
5. Enjoy jail, Michael Vick.
6. Oh, and the Packers are a pretty good football team (just don't tell my wife I said it...)
   

War and Peace

I have to work at 6:30 am most weak days. I'm not complaining. I actually really like my new job. Working at 6:30 means I arrive at the Metro Station at about 6:00. Part of the ritual is that I get my free Washington Post Express paper right outside of the Van Ness Metro and read it on the way to Union Station.

This morning, something in the paper hit me like a sledge hammer. The headline read:

Report: War Costs Total $1.6 Trillion

That is an astonishing figure. The article put it in perspective--that's about $21,000 for every family of four in the US.

The Iraq war's unpopularity is not new--many people probably saw that figure today and weren't a bit surprised. I guess the whole issue of war has become a bit more pertinent for me lately. I'm taking a Christian Ethics class in which we've been considering the viability of a 'just war' philosophy under the lordship of Jesus. One of our texts for the class, Richard Hays' The Moral Vision of the New Testament, argues that there is no such thing as a 'just' act of violence for those who are part of Jesus' new creation. Stanly Hauerwas argues similarly in his text The Peaceable Kingdom.

I have to say I'm becoming convinced. Both texts make a strong case that an ethic of nonviolence is a mandatory part of the Christian life. Jesus way, as both Hauerwas and Hays suggest is that of 'turning the other cheek and going the second mile.'

Hays mentioned that he often gets asked by his students, "What if none of the Christians in America had stood up to fight against Hitler?" It's easily the most frequent question that advocates of nonviolence get asked. After all, is it really 'Christian' to stand idly by in the face of obvious injustice when the only route to peace is some kind of armed conflict? In response to the question Hays, like a good rabbi, answers the question with a question of his own:

"What if none of the Christians in Germany had agreed to fight for Hitler?"

Now, that may seem like the easy way out, but I don't think it is. In fact, I think Hays is deconstructing the false either-or the original question presupposes: Violent Resistance or Doing Nothing. Bono (as cliche as it has become to invoke his name in a blog post) hit on a similar theme in the most recent issue of Rolling Stone:

"Isn't it cheaper and smarter to make friends out of potential enemies than to defend yourself against them later?"

To me, that sounds more like the way of Jesus. And, I think I'll have an easier time in the future explaining to my kids why I'm a pacifist than explaining why our family has paid $21,000 for a senseless, ill-conceived war.

Pope My Ride?

Is it a sin to go 10 mph over the speed limit while driving on a freeway? How about 7? How about 2? Does it matter if you're passing someone?

Well, just in case you've ever wondered about this and other such driving related moral predicaments, fear not. The pope has spoken.

Below you will find the list of the Vatican's "Driver's Ten Commandments."

1. You shall not kill.

2. The road shall be for you a means of communion between people and not of mortal harm.

3. Courtesy, uprightness and prudence will help you deal with unforeseen events.

4. Be charitable and help your neighbor in need, especially victims of accidents.

5. Cars shall not be for you an expression of power and domination, and an occasion of sin.

6. Charitably convince the young and not so young not to drive when they are not in a fitting condition to do so.

7. Support the families of accident victims.

8. Bring guilty motorists and their victims together, at the appropriate time, so that they can undergo the liberating experience of forgiveness.

9. On the road, protect the more vulnerable party.

10. Feel responsible toward others.

So...what do we think? Necessary correction or unfettered legalism? And what exactly is commandment #2 supposed to mean?

Word to Your Mother

In case you were wondering, "plutoed" was voted as the word of the year for 2006. So...if you ever get demoted from...say, a planet to some lesser heavenly body, you can say that you've officially been 'plutoed'. This is a big step forward from last year's winner--"Truthiness".

I just hope astronomers never downgrade Uranus.

I Demand A Recount

As much as I would like to let my most work intensive blog of the year dwell at the top of the Speckled Mind, I couldn't go another minute without blogging about this.

Time Magazine has been naming a 'Person of the Year' for decades now. (Disclaimer: I realize that it used to be 'Man' of the year) Figures as different as Adolf Hitler, Bono and George W. Bush have graced the front page under that prestigious heading. Not because we necessarily like them or respect them, but simply because the planet was formed in a profound way by them in a given calendar year.

The winner this year?

You. And me. And everyone we know. Now, I should give the writers of Time their fair due. The article is pretty well written and reasoned. But do we really deserve this? So we make the most of Facebook, MySpace and Blogger. Does that really qualify any of us for 'person of the year' status? Time magazine thinks so, and many have called it a clever move on their part.

But something strikes me as terribly wrong about all of this. Admittedly, I could be worrying over nothing. But isn't this award just an illustration of how self-focused and "I'm Ok, You're Ok" our culture has gotten? The cover of that magazine brings up thoughts of those children's soccer tournaments in which every kid gets a trophy regardless of his/her place in the competition. Is this kind of pandering really helping the kids? Or could it be that Dash (from The Incredibles) was right: "Saying that everyone is special is just another way of saying that no one is."

So...I've decided not to accept this award. And I hope you won't either.

Let's face it, as proud as I am of this little corner of cyberspace, it's just a blog. I'm just a guy with a couple of ideas in my head, a decent English writing class under my belt, a bit too much free time on my hands, and an unscratchable itch for an audience. In my opinion that doesn't make me remarkable, though I fear it is starting to define what makes an American.

Time Magazine is attempting to enchant us with its Siren call of middle class American narcissism. Cover your ears, friends, and let your voice be heard. If not me, if not you--then who? Who do you nominate for person of the year in 2006?