Austin Says...

There are two conspiracies you need to know about before it's too late. 

First is the NBA.  I've been telling people it's fixed since the 1992 Finals when the Bulls went six games with the Blazers.  The Bulls had only lost 15 games the whole entire season, but all of the sudden it's difficult to beat Portland?  I don't think so.

Then with the referee scandal last off-season, it became obvious how the NBA was fixing games.  The refs were orchestrating games to make series last as long as possible--maximizing revenues for the NBA.  So with all the scandal of the last season, the low ratings caused by a small market dynasty (Go Spurs Go!), and the ever-nagging issues of off-court player antics, the NBA decided they needed a boost.  Hence, a Lakers/Celtics classic rematch.  Unprecedented trades, unlikely turns of events, and horrible officiating has put us at a game 6 once again.  It's fun to watch, but remember, the NBA is literally fantastic.

Rocky4

Second, you should know that Tiger Woods is a robot. For decades we've been fantasizing about robot cops, robot friends, robot cars, etc.  Meanwhile, we've put real robots on Mars, assembly lines, and Rocky movies.  What they don't want you to know is that Tiger Woods is a robot.  If they can make a computer the best chess player in the world, they can obviously program all possible golf scenarios into a robot.  Just make the robot appear and sound human a little bit and people will fall for it.  Well, everyone but me.  Next time you hear a Tiger Woods interview, you'll think to yourself, "he's right!"

Believe before it's too late!

I've mentioned before a young man I have been teaching for the last few years.  He has continued to waver between faith and doubt, and last week he decided to not get baptized (after having the date already set).  He told me at the time that he had been lying to himself about his belief in the gospel, and that he couldn't go through with the dunking knowing he didn't really believe Christ died for his sins. 

Since this was just the latest of many conversations like this with the young man, I simply told him, "That's okay.  I love you no matter what, and if you like being around Christians you should keep coming to church." 

Fast forward to yesterday.  He came to me at lunch and said, "I've got some good news.  I may or may not get baptized."  I responded, "That's not good news.  Good news would be if you said, 'I am getting baptized.'"  So he ran upstairs to talk to the pastor.  Less than a minute later he came back down to the cafe, puffing, "Okay, I'm getting baptized today." 

I asked him what had changed his mind, and his answer was simple--something to the effect of realizing he doesn't have to have it all figured out.  I encouraged him, "Faith is a simple decision to do what God wants you to do, and it's okay if you doubt." 

So yesterday we went to the pond and baptized my friend and student.  I read his testimony to the crowd (of around 50) and then joined him in the frigid spring water as my pastor, Nate and I gave him a Holy Swirley.  I'll always remember that experience, the icy pond, the dead fish I almost stepped on, the fish hooks in the sand, and my timid friend barely hanging on to a faith that can move mountains.

I was flabbergasted by a conversation that happened at lunch the other day.  It began with a colleague saying, "Do you mind if I say something controversial?"  "It's about time," I thought to myself.  He began to express his disbelief and disgust about the 60 Minutes interview with Antonin Scalia, one of our Supreme Court Justices.  Apparently Scalia justified torturing suspected terrorists with the "punishment" clause of the 8th Amendment, saying torture is not technically punishment. 

I didn't see the interview so I had to concede that torture is usually given as punishment for not saying something the authorities want them to--at least that's what I know from watching every episode of 24.  But that's not what my colleague was really discombobulated about.  He believes Scalia is a raving lunatic on the level of George W. Bush, and can't begin to understand where conservative, constructionist philosophy is coming from.  He is also deathly afraid that Bush and his evil dictatorial regime can't be stopped. 

I tried to communicate to my friend that School House Rock says that in our system we don't have to worry about that.  His two elected senators, for example, (Kennedy and Kerry) are supposed to check and balance lunatic presidents.  I sensed a passionate frustration with something more than just Republicans.  On a deeper level, my friend fears the human propensity for evil, especially when humans have extraordinary political power.  Moreover, I sensed a fear that evil would be taking over the world rather than just being a nuisance like a mosquito.  His understanding of evil is that those with little power or money aren't to be feared, but those with lots are (because their evil can affect so many "innocent" people).

It's hard to find common ground with someone who has this world view.  I believe evil is already much more prevalent than mosquitoes, and the hope we have is not in any politician or wave of political change.  But law and order are good things, and in most cases punishment is a deterrent to crimes.  Bad guys should be punished and good guys should be rewarded.  I think justice is a lot simpler than my friend does.

As far as my friend's fears, I guess they are justified--perhaps even too minor.  If the world is already being run by "the prince of this world," (John 12, 14, 16) then my friend should be afraid beyond afraid.  His hope against the pervasive evil that goes around killing innocent children and raping women is in a more democratic government?  Woe is he.  I've got good news for him, though.  The "prince of this world now stands condemned."  (John 16:11)  There is hope.

A busy February prevented me from writing about some amazing studies in Ephesians, but I'm back with some more.  I'm in chapter 3 now, and this week I'm studying about Paul's calling to reveal the mystery of Christ to the Gentiles.

What struck me as I read the first part of ch. 3 is how certain Paul was of his specific calling.  In verse 8 he says he was given the grace to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.  Nobody else had ever had this calling before.  This was a new job in the church.  Prophets long ago were summoned to prophesy to foreign lands (e.g., Jonah), but Paul was the first Christian ever to receive that calling.  In other words, it wasn't a job listing in the apostolic want-ads.

For Paul, this calling was so clear because he had such a clear conversion experience.  He was blinded by a great light and visited by the Lord himself.  He went from a blood-thirsty celebrity pharisee to a rogue gospel missionary in a matter of days.  His conversion was his calling and his calling was his conversion.  Christ asked him at his conversion, "Why do you persecute me?" (Acts 9:4)  Not long after that Paul would become the persecuted. 

Many of us, myself included, struggle to even remember our conversion experiences.  Who were we before Christ, and how did the rebirth happen?  Even if we piece a story together, very rarely do we associate our conversion with a specific calling.  On the other hand, I know someone who had been a self-mutilating alcoholic who is now pursuing his vocation to minister to those who have similar struggles.  I also know a woman who had been in an abusive relationship who is now working out her calling to show compassion to women in these types of relationships. 

But what about the less extreme cases?  What if you grew up in church and got more of a nudge in the right direction than a blinding light? 

I say that your conversion is just as majestic even if it's internal.  What I mean is that God has always had a plan for you.  Your old life, although hopeless and hell-bent, is being transformed into his missionary tool.  If you were passionate about sports instead of Jesus, then maybe you've been called to reach out to athletes.  If your passion was music, then maybe your calling is to musicians.  If you had urges and cravings that you look back on with embarassment, then maybe your calling is to bring those sins into the light and offer hope to those who have struggles now.

I challenge you to look back on your old life and what it was that used to define you before you were redefined by Christ.  Then the challenge is to discern your calling from that.  Peter wrote in his second letter, "Be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall." (2 Pet 1:10)  There is a connection between your calling and your election, and once you work that out you will never doubt your conversion again.

If you go to a foreign place and stay there a while, you very likely might accept their customs and possibly even their beliefs.  How hard it is to maintain your own set of beliefs and customs when the world around you is so different!  Even more, it's nearly implausible that you would move to a foreign place, keep your own customs and beliefs, but also have such an impact on the people that they begin to take up your customs and beliefs.  Have you ever even seen it happen?  It happened at least once, because that is what the Apostle Paul did when he moved to Ephesus. 

Master Splinter

I used to laugh at this professor who was as Californian as Gene Autry, but he identified himself as Japanese.  He taught Tea 1, 2 and 3 (for those really advanced in the art of tea).  He wore a kimono and talked like Master Splinter from the Ninja Turtles.  Apparently he lived in Japan for a while and REALLY liked it there.  The reason I laughed at him was that he stood out like a sore thumb.  Here was a guy who should have been bleaching his hair and wearing shades indoors, but he held steadfastly to this foreign custom.

I think of Paul like that professor.  He was as Jewish as Abraham himself, but he was telling people circumcision wasn't a big deal and that you had to have a ghost living inside of you to be a real follower of Christ.  He dunked (or sprinkled) people in water and took a serious beating almost everywhere he went because he held so strongly to his beliefs.  So strongly that he changed the world forever.

When I read the letter to the Ephesians, I see not just how deep Paul's beliefs were, but how powerful his beliefs were.  Each sentence is filled with amazement at who he worshipped and a wild hope that he could actually live in such a way that pleased God.  It's infecting, and the impact he had on the Ephesians was only a small thing compared to the effect it has had on the entire world for the last couple millenia. 

More to come...

I'm back from my own personal writer's strike.  This time it's because I want to shout to the world about the ancient book of the Bible called Ephesians.  It will be what we study as a church this spring at Mercyhouse.  I've read this book about a hundred times, but I've never really studied it as a whole before.  There are tons of powerful quotations in the 6 chapter book, like "It's by grace you have been saved ..." and "Wives, submit to your husbands..." but the whole book really is worth a look.

I used to skip past the first section because it seemed like it wasn't really practical to my life.  It's all about how great God is and all he's done.  But the rest of the book means nothing unless God means that much to each and every one of us.  Everything is rooted in our understanding of who God is and what he has done.  If I don't worship and love Him over everything else, my wife submitting to me is worthless. 

So I invite you to read this book along with me and comment freely.  Paul, the author, was able to cram just about every aspect of the Christian life into a short book, and I have broken it up artificially into these topics (I may or may not blog on each of these):

1. Praises to God (1:1-10)
2. Chosen (1:11-14)
3. Prayers for us (1:15-23)
4. Our Salvation (2:1-10)
5. Included (2:11-22)
6. Mystery Revealed (3:1-13)
7. Power (3:14-21)
8. The Church (4:1-16)
9. Godly Behavior (4:17-32)
10. How to Behave (5:1-22)
11. Marriage (5:22-33)
12. Submission (6:1-9)
13. Battle (10-24)

Each morning at 7:45 I have a choice to either read the school announcements myself or give them to a student to read.  Today I chose the former in the interest of saving time.  Glad I did because announcement #9 was yet another announcement for the February performance of the "Vagina Monologues", which is a feminist stage performance by Eve Ensler.  This time the announcement read,

VAGINA!  Vagina. Va. Gi. Na.  Get used to saying it, because The Vagina Monologues is coming to the high school stage, Friday, February 15th!  Mark your calendars, and get ready to become part of the worldwide phenomenon.

When I saw the announcement I couldn't help but chuckle out of modesty, and I skipped what I found to be offensive.  Then a student who is involved in the production got upset and read the entire announcement aloud herself.  You should know that this kind of thing happens all the time at the school where I teach, and you should also know that students are only allowed to submit announcements through a teacher.  So rather than acting adult-like to a class of 20 sophomores, I felt like I had to apologize for my modesty.

Later I realized that I had nothing to apologize for other than not having the immediate conviction of being more respectful toward women and their privates.  I did remember, however, to talk to the aforementioned offended student about how much trouble students have run into when trying to submit announcements about Jesus and the Bible. 

Anyway, how would you have handled it?  It's not that I'm sheepish around the "V word", it's just that I don't appreciate being manipulated to say something or stand for something I find to be at the root of society's ills.  The "Monologues", if you haven't heard, promote sexual promiscuity and abortion under the banner of "ending violence against women."

Call me Ebenezer, but I'm not getting that old-fashioned Christmas joy from watching the whole presidential campaign happening right now.  It is fun, though, to think about the irony of Jesus's arrival and the arrival of ____________ (fill in the blank with your favorite candidate) at the same time.  It makes me think of the end times, where Christ's return will correspond to the coming of the anti-christ. 

Which one of the current candidates do you think most resembles the anti-christ?  I would have said Romney a few months ago (as my views of Mormonism aren't very tolerant), but I think most of them could all be thrown in there for good measure.  I can easily picture Hillary with seven dragon heads, and Oprah's praise of Obama sounds eerily like Revelation 13.  Although if our next president really will be the anti-christ, I think I'd choose Huckabee, because he's the most likeable of all the potential anti-christs.  He'll make me feel good while we tarry through the tribulation. 

Come, Lord Jesus. (Rev 22:20)

I've thought more about the issue of steroids in baseball.  I enjoyed an article in the New York Times today written by the ghostwriter for Jose Canseco in Juiced, a book I thoroughly enjoyed.  In Juiced, Canseco made the argument for everyone being allowed (and encouraged) to use steroids, HGH, and whatever other performance-enhancers are out there.  His view is that the game is a show, and they should put on the best possible performance for the crowds.  In other words, screw integrity.

There's also the "Integrity Clause" in the Hall of Fame balloting procedure (rule 5).  Many of the talking heads are complaining about the subjectivity of this clause.  "Who is defining integrity?  Integrity for one person means something different for another," they say.  This is where I began to make sense of the question I asked in my previous post about integrity.  We live in a society that has been trying to reconcile relativism with absolute morality for a while now.  We still adhere to common values (e.g. integrity, honesty, hard work, kindness, etc.), but we can't figure out how to redefine those values to fit opposing values held by other societies or the immoral minority of our society.  In other words, we all agree that integrity is good but we are uncomfortable making that claim in the face of opposition.  Someone, somewhere, says integrity is bad (e.g. Jose Canseco).

So the issue for many is the integrity of the game being destroyed by steroids, but integrity is losing it's appeal as the definition gets erased from absoluteness.  I'd like to reintroduce it if I may...

Integrity is doing what you said you would do, even if everyone else forgot.  It is agreeing to a rule and not breaking it.   It's telling the whole truth, not just part of it.  It's looking people in the eye.  It's when you give exactly what you said you would and sometimes more.  If someone tries to knock it down, it won't fall because it is stronger in the storm.  It is rare, especially these days.

There are people crying out for this kind of integrity, both those who have it and those who don't.  It feels good when you are around it, and it makes you want it.  Those lost to selfish ambition and deceit often get re-awakened when they encounter someone with real integrity (the movie, In Good Company, comes to mind).  I think the corruption in baseball had gotten so bad that even the depraved began to get a sick feeling in thier stomachs, which is why the recent outcry.

I listened to a lot of radio over the last week in order to hear everything they were saying about the Mitchell Report.  As a baseball fan who has never witnessed professional baseball outside of the "Steroid Era" I find it intriguing that now is when there is a demand to clean up the sport.  Where did the demand originate and why is it prevalent now?

I was at baseball practice in college in the late '90's when we were talking about Barry Bonds showing up to Spring Training 40 pounds heavier and hitting every batting practice pitch out of the park.  We all laughed and agreed that he had to be taking steroids.  A few of my teammates were busted that same season.  The general attitude toward steroids was either "only people crazy enough to risk getting caught are taking it," or "more power to them."  I don't remember feeling cheated because the effects of steroids didn't seem drastic compared to creatine and Andro, which were being taken by just about everyone.  For the record, I only took creatine because it was legal and I didn't know of any harmful effects (whereas my friends taking Andro were having "roid rages").

Just a couple years later I was in the minor leagues.  We got tested frequently, but a few of my teammates were taking steroids and apparently not getting caught.  Again I thought that these ballplayers were crazy and steroids weren't the only drug they were taking.  But I also noticed that these guys were improving much more than I was.  The fat guy on the team was all of the sudden as fast as I was!  I wasn't taking creatine anymore (it had caused me to tear both my hamstrings), but I was working out daily and maintaining a protein-centered diet.  I seemed to be keeping up with the creatine guys just fine, but not the steroid guys.  By the way, the amphetimene guys were just nuts--those didn't enhance performance; they just made them hyper.

In Spring Training '01, I saw a teammate go from A to a Big League All-Star practically overnight, and most everyone assumed he was taking steroids.  That's when I first became jealous.  I reflected on that later and realize that I was in an organization that promoted steroid use as much or more than any other.  That year we had Randy Velarde, Ken Caminiti and Rafael Palmeiro (all known users), plus Pudge Rodriguez, Gabe Kapler, A-Rod, Andres Gallaraga, and others who some have accused of using.  I suspect many others in the organization as well. 

My point is, why is it being addressed now?  The game is making more money than ever and home run totals have been down the last few years.  The word that kept creeping into the radio conversations was "integrity," as if people all of the sudden have it.  People were talking about the "integrity of the game," and players who aren't using that have integrity.  I think it's ridiculous to all of the sudden demand integrity in a sport that has been corrupt for at least a decade.  Not that I'm unhappy about it.  I welcome the change, although I'm cynical about it really happening.

Do you think there is a new wave of integrity?  Do Americans crave it more now than before?  We may find our answer in the upcoming presidential elections, although it's difficult to tell which, if any, of the candidates have it.