behind the plate
For those who may not know, I spent a couple Springs behind the plate as a Little League Umpire. With the need for something to help em unwind, I decided to get back into it this year. I had my first two games on Wednesday and Thursday this week.
It was one of the best experiences of my life. There is something "good" about the competition of baseball. Perhaps now over shadowed by the intensity of football and the flash of basketball, it remains a sport that anyone as a child can play.
The joys of being behind the plate is simply to protect that goodness. As an umpire you set the tone. There is the pre-game meet with the coaches (usually driven fathers that have forgotten the kids on the field are just that, kids). There is the chance to talk with the teams in the dugouts and go over the strike zone, and easily forgotten rules. These serve an opportunity to remind everyone why we play the game. There are no big league contracts at stake. This is a time of learning and fun.
It's good to be back.
1 comment:
Ken -
Thanks for your comment. I have also been interested in your other writings, though its apparent tone has left me uneasy.
I guess the question is how one sees the "fruit" of any given tree. Mars Hill, Nooma, and Rob Bell seem to bear good fruit (with witness from listening weekly to their podcast, watching the Nooma videos with our church, and engaging Rob at a Q&A just a couple weeks ago at Berkley). Dan Kimball and Vintage Faith (which is just over the hill from me, and a number of friends attend) bears good fruit. If these are "neo-orthodox" thinkers, then the tree does not seem all that bad to me.
This, of course, does not mean we then follow Rob or Dan or any other man or man-made way of thinking, but look to follow Jesus. Rob's book Velvet Elvis states "God spoke and the rest is commentary." I view their comments, your comments, and my comments as that, commentary. We follow Jesus as He works to redeem, renovate, reform, transform, save, sanctify . . . whatever word you like (perhaps semantically/theologically there is one you prefer) . . . humanity and the world.
While I welcome discussion and prayer on matters of theology and philosophy, it seems divisive to use such harsh rhetoric for those who would profess the name of Jesus as Lord and Savior. The challenge with the "reject the new movements" approach, is that the Southern Baptist Convention is a "new" movement in comparison with Protestantism. While Protestantism is a "new" movement when compared with the Orthodox traditions. How can we say we can make such “movements,” or corrections, and then believe that hundreds of years down the line there would not be need for more such corrections within our own movement? Isn't that exactly what Apprising is trying to do, correct wrong movements within the Southern Baptist Convention as well as the Christian world? You appeal to something “old” in the Scriptures, but so do many others.
I struggle with your logic and approach because it seems to demonize people by their associations (which in the emergent movement are loose and seem to not be binding towards any particular theological stance, which I do think is a weakness). I wonder if this approach is comparable to what happened when the Pharisees demonized Jesus (literally) because of his associations. Perhaps, this seems harsh in print. I would have you know that I often compare myself to the Pharisees because I too grew up immersed in religion and theology. I want to be sure my heart is clean before God and not just the “outside of the cup.”
Thanks for the thoughts. They did help me solidify some of my perspective on some of my favorite authors and teachers.
Post a Comment