Brett Favre, Brett Favre, Brett Favre. Lebron, Lebron, Lebron. Heat, Heat, Heat. The decision, the decision, the decision. It's all you ever hear about right. I'll admit, I don't find Favre all that interesting, and am sick of hearing about him every time he breaks a nail, but Lebron fascinates me. It may be because he was "the franchise" of my favorite franchise for 7 manic-depressive seasons.
Now I don't like Lebron. I'm not naive enough to forget that I'm a Cavaliers fan. I understand that my dislike is rooted deep in my "fandom". But I want to make a case that Lebron is an unlikable person regardless of what team he is on. This holds true, even though Michael Vick killed dogs, and Steve McNair beat his girlfriend, and Kobe at least had an extra marital affair. If your point is that what Lebron did in "the decision", is nothing in comparison to what these men did, I would shoot back that what Lebron did wasn't even wrong. It's not even worth comparing. Dan Gilbert and the city of Cleveland's reaction would lead one to believe that Lebron committed the worst atrocity against humanity in the 21st century, but in the end their reaction also did more to justify Lebron's departure than anything. Who would want to work for a boss like that? The decision wasn't wrong. "The decision" wasn't wrong either. Lebron has broken no laws; has shown no one any disrespect. He has just went about his business as a free American employee.
With that said, I am also a free American employee, who has the right to not like somebody. And what makes Lebron so fascinating is how the last 5 months he has made PR gaffe after PR gaffe to the point where you wonder if he should fire his PR guy, or if he was always that much of a jerk, and now with new found free agent freedom he has come out. What he has come out as is a self-centered, naive, Generation Y crybaby, who is in way over his head. He overestimated his "untouchable" quality. He underestimated the value of team chemistry. He underestimated the historical value of bringing championships to a city, especially like Cleveland. He has made us suspect of his competitiveness, perhaps seeing his move to South Beach, as the easy road to a championship.
Granted, I don't know him. I might even like him if I met him. Maybe the media has cast him in this light. I admit that my opinion of him is based merely on the perception I get from the media. My only point is this. If the media is the only chance I get into Lebron's psyche, then I don't feel bad for him that people don't like him. With that said, I defend Lebron's right to play for whomever he wishes as a free agent. I am not really all that offended over "the decision", although a little irked by the way he went about it, and his undiscerning/insensitive/arrogant comment about taking his talent to South Beach. The Cleveland fans reaction has been childish, unacceptable, and worse than anything Lebron has done. But this post is not about the Cleveland fans. It's about me understanding why Lebron is not liked. He's not a real competitor, or leader. He doesn't seem to be very team oriented. He's a millionaire with a victim mentality. His one redeeming quality beside his skills at basketball is... um... he hasn't slaughtered any dogs, gotten in any legal trouble, or sold drugs??? In the immortal words of Chris Rock. "You're not supposed to slaughter dogs!" You also don't have to be a nice guy. You're allowed to be selfish and whiny. But I don't have to like you for it.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Powers and Principalities
So I've been on this Gospel kick. Been on it since 1993. Over the years I have greatly struggled with my Christianity. Many of the issues that caused my frustration were political and cultural. By now the acute difference between Republican/Bible Belt politics and the politics of Christianity is so plain to me that it takes me a minute to place my wits when I meet a person who does not see that difference. Having been tormented over the issue of how an ancient message such as the gospel, can be clearly understood in and communicated to a post-enlightenment culture, I have scoured the likes of political theologians, right and left, but mostly left. I have dabbled in liberation theology, only to find that it was as worldly, and defunct as the Bible Belt ideology I was raised in. I have read relativistic postmodern theologians, and emergent authors who tickled my ears, and found in the end, that that was all they did. All this to say that I have recently read a book that tickled my ears, but also warmed my heart with a renewed love and deeper understanding of my own treasured Christianity with its precious Gospel. The remainder of this post will be a quotation from that book by British missionary, pastor, apologist, and theologian Lesslie Newbigin called "The Gospel in a Pluralist Society". But before that I must say that I doubt that my struggle is over. There must always be struggle for the Christian trying ot live out the ideals of the next world in the world that he finds himself in. But we are already victorious in Christ, and in this faith, I stand strong, and am glad to proclaim that despite the struggle, I walk into the future with my basic faith in Jesus' cross and resurrection stronger than ever.
Quotation from "The Gospel in a Pluralist Society" from the chapter entitled "Principalities, Powers, and People"
"We are not conservatives who regard the structures as part of the unalterable order of creation, as part of the world of what we call "hard facts" beyond the range of the gospel, and who therefore suppose that the gospel is only relevant to the issues of personal and private life. Nor are we anarchists who seek to destroy the structures. We are rather patient revolutionaries who know that the whole creation, with all its given structures, is groaning in the travail of new birth, and that we share this groaning and travail, this struggling and wrestling, but do so in hope because we have already received, in the Spirit, the firstfruit of the new world. (Rom 8:19-25)...The soldiers in Christ's victorious army were not armed with the weapons of this age; they were martyrs whose robes were washed in blood. It was not that a particular Emperor was discredited and displaced; it was that the entire mystique of the empire, its spiritual power, was unmasked, disarmed, and rendered powerless. A conversion of individuals which failed to identify, unmask, and reject that spiritual, ideological power would have been futile as an attempt by Christians to wrest that power from is holders. Evangelism which is politically and ideologically naive, and social action which does not recognize the need for conversion from false gods to the living God, both fall short of what is required."
"We are not conservatives who regard the structures as part of the unalterable order of creation, as part of the world of what we call "hard facts" beyond the range of the gospel, and who therefore suppose that the gospel is only relevant to the issues of personal and private life. Nor are we anarchists who seek to destroy the structures. We are rather patient revolutionaries who know that the whole creation, with all its given structures, is groaning in the travail of new birth, and that we share this groaning and travail, this struggling and wrestling, but do so in hope because we have already received, in the Spirit, the firstfruit of the new world. (Rom 8:19-25)...The soldiers in Christ's victorious army were not armed with the weapons of this age; they were martyrs whose robes were washed in blood. It was not that a particular Emperor was discredited and displaced; it was that the entire mystique of the empire, its spiritual power, was unmasked, disarmed, and rendered powerless. A conversion of individuals which failed to identify, unmask, and reject that spiritual, ideological power would have been futile as an attempt by Christians to wrest that power from is holders. Evangelism which is politically and ideologically naive, and social action which does not recognize the need for conversion from false gods to the living God, both fall short of what is required."
Monday, November 22, 2010
How To Preach Foolishness to the Learned.
A preacher is to preach the Gospel. The Gospel is the good news that Jesus died, was buried, rose again, and is coming again to receive His folk. Of course, explaining why the Gospel is good news is integral to preaching the Gospel. Keep in mind the teachings I use to explain the good news are not the Gospel itself. The Gospel is unchanging. The way I make it make sense in a given culture is flexible.
In preaching, I am trying to persuade people that the Gospel is good news for them and everyone. I realize that if one is not convinced of the historicity of Jesus' death and resurrection, that they cannot believe the good news. I do not believe that a skeptical person however must be convinced of the historicity of the Gospel, prior to believing the Gospel. I believe that they may believe the Gospel on grounds that do not line up exactly with the skeptical worldview, and change their skepticism from the inside out. But I do not believe that it must happen that way either.
For these reasons I think that proofs for the existence of God are often overemphasized by preachers of the Gospel.For instance, while a person must accept the existence of God when He accepts he or she accepts the Gospel, it may be that he or she believes in God because he or she believes in the Gospel. A person may see that the cross and resurrection explain the human life and purpose better than any other gospel and accept it even as an atheist (As they simultaneously cease to be an atheist).A person only has to call on the name of the Lord to be saved, so a good route for most common folk to take in their preaching of the gospel, lacking perhaps in formal academic education at a culturally legitimate university (not a Bible College), instead of trying to explain the teleological/ontological/cosmological proofs of the existence of God, (a passe' proof laughed at in the universities since the the 19th century), is to be a walking testimony of how the Gospel has changed their life for the better. Perhaps, most small churches, full of common folk, should concentrate more on understanding the kingdom that they're representing, and then working to live it out, than understanding passe' philosophical proofs, because there is a Holy Spirit who is able to open people's eyes to the truth of the Gospel without human wisdom. Perhaps, the Holy Spirit can use beautiful and meaningful redemption story of the church as a witness to the blind. This happens when we understand, talk, and walk the story.
In preaching, I am trying to persuade people that the Gospel is good news for them and everyone. I realize that if one is not convinced of the historicity of Jesus' death and resurrection, that they cannot believe the good news. I do not believe that a skeptical person however must be convinced of the historicity of the Gospel, prior to believing the Gospel. I believe that they may believe the Gospel on grounds that do not line up exactly with the skeptical worldview, and change their skepticism from the inside out. But I do not believe that it must happen that way either.
For these reasons I think that proofs for the existence of God are often overemphasized by preachers of the Gospel.For instance, while a person must accept the existence of God when He accepts he or she accepts the Gospel, it may be that he or she believes in God because he or she believes in the Gospel. A person may see that the cross and resurrection explain the human life and purpose better than any other gospel and accept it even as an atheist (As they simultaneously cease to be an atheist).A person only has to call on the name of the Lord to be saved, so a good route for most common folk to take in their preaching of the gospel, lacking perhaps in formal academic education at a culturally legitimate university (not a Bible College), instead of trying to explain the teleological/ontological/cosmological proofs of the existence of God, (a passe' proof laughed at in the universities since the the 19th century), is to be a walking testimony of how the Gospel has changed their life for the better. Perhaps, most small churches, full of common folk, should concentrate more on understanding the kingdom that they're representing, and then working to live it out, than understanding passe' philosophical proofs, because there is a Holy Spirit who is able to open people's eyes to the truth of the Gospel without human wisdom. Perhaps, the Holy Spirit can use beautiful and meaningful redemption story of the church as a witness to the blind. This happens when we understand, talk, and walk the story.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Blogging
Has it really been since July 16th? I got caught up in my professional blog for Steamtown Church and neglected my personal blog. For what it's worth I'm back. And this is inspired by my wife, Mrs. Miller (Rachel). She started her own blog over the weekend. I read it the other day and its really very good. Better than mine I think. She has music, pictures, humor, and an ability to evoke tears. Her writing is surprisingly angsty. In short, her blog is everything mine is not, and it has made me want to apologize (not really) for being so Stoic. True. I am biased. But fortunately, I am also Stoic.
Mrs. Miller starting her own blog has also made me think about blogging in general. I feel that I started a blog for all the right reasons. I like writing. I do not like keeping a journal. I actually prefer typing to handwriting. Handwriting is too similar to drawing for my taste. Typing is faster, and more efficient. For the record, when I say writing, I don't mean strictly handwriting. And there is a distinction between merely typing and writing isn't there? Should anyone ever critique me for being a mere typist, I would then question my skill in writing. (Rambling on...) I did not start a blog to make a living, or to make people like me. I started it simply because I like writing. Of course I want people to read my posts. Of course I enjoy expressing myself. (I am a writer). But mostly I like writing. But the biggest mistake bloggers make when they start a blog is that they assume that people care enough about their opinions to read them. The key to successful blogging (I think) is to talk about issues that people care about. If that makes you feel like you have to sell some odd sense of authenticity, you shouldn't blog. But I always talk about what I think is important, and I never consider my audience. Maybe that's why I don't have much of an audience. But I'm okay with that. I like writing.
Mrs. Miller starting her own blog has also made me think about blogging in general. I feel that I started a blog for all the right reasons. I like writing. I do not like keeping a journal. I actually prefer typing to handwriting. Handwriting is too similar to drawing for my taste. Typing is faster, and more efficient. For the record, when I say writing, I don't mean strictly handwriting. And there is a distinction between merely typing and writing isn't there? Should anyone ever critique me for being a mere typist, I would then question my skill in writing. (Rambling on...) I did not start a blog to make a living, or to make people like me. I started it simply because I like writing. Of course I want people to read my posts. Of course I enjoy expressing myself. (I am a writer). But mostly I like writing. But the biggest mistake bloggers make when they start a blog is that they assume that people care enough about their opinions to read them. The key to successful blogging (I think) is to talk about issues that people care about. If that makes you feel like you have to sell some odd sense of authenticity, you shouldn't blog. But I always talk about what I think is important, and I never consider my audience. Maybe that's why I don't have much of an audience. But I'm okay with that. I like writing.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Conservative Doldrum vs. Christian Hope
Not by choice, but not by coercion neither, have I been watching a lot of FOX News lately; particularly O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck. And here's my question. Is not FOX News as ridiculously biased on the conservative perspective as is CNN the liberal? Now I understand that talking heads are what they are. Everyone has the right to an opinion, and the right to share it, and if they can get paid to have people watch it, that's fine by me. But when it comes to just reporting News, does anybody do that anymore? (besides the local news of course.) Another problem is that people like Beck are extremely influential in people's lives. He must express many Americans sentiments, otherwise he would not be so popular. But it seems that FOX News is now the alternative for conservatives. It's Nirvana to CNN's Guns and Roses. Maybe the press is so overwhelmingly liberal that this is necessary, but I'm a little concerned about conservatives today. I've spent the last two weeks of my life with people more conservative than the people I am accustomed to being around, and while I deeply appreciate these people, I am becoming infected by their apocalyptic paranoia. Today's conservatives seem perfectly content to consider the war (against our country's increasing liberalism; a debatable position itself)lost and have resigned themselves to fear mongering, complaining, and waiting for the ball to drop. Conservatism, in my life time, has never been so depressing.
Here's the impression I get of today's conservative viewpoint: Our country is headed towards inevitable socialism, which in their minds means totalitarianism. Socialism+national debt= fall of our nation. Our youth culture has no ambition or morals. We must get back to the way things used to be.
The problem here is twofold. One, there's seems to be no plan on how to get things back to the way they used to be, other than preaching to to the choir, and fear mongering. Two, no real attempt is made at dialogue with liberals or the youth culture, and thus my generation has no idea why things so much better then, and why things are comparatively worse now. Then was the the Great Depression. Then was two World Wars, and the Holocaust. Then was Vietnam. Now is all sorts of bad too, but its all sorts of good as well, as well as was then. I wish divorce wasn't prevalent. I wish violence was not so volatile. I wish abortion wasn't on the rise. I wish our government wasn't so big and didn't spend so much money. But is it really all a part of a giant Obama/socialist conspiracy that started all the way back in the 60's? Attempts to explain how we got where we are have their merit, certainly. They can help us moving forward, but what about the future? What do we do to curb all this badness? If I hear a conservative who thinks in those terms I might not feel so stifled and lethargic.
Now it's no secret that the American conservative is generally speaking, a religious person, and is most likely Christian. I am a deeply committed Christian myself, and so the religious angle matters to me. It is inconsistent with Christianity's message of hope to be so despairing, is it not? Don't we know that we win? Society must go down the tubes. That's its natural course, so why would we want to return to a better time, when one, regardless of what time you find yourself in a society, its regressing, two, its still not the optimal situation which is the kingdom of God, and three, regardless of what age we find ourselves in we have the keys of the kingdom, and a message that applies to our neighbors, an urgent message at that? Isn't the call to return to better days, a call to return to something that is not the kingdom of God as much as looking forward to better days (like progressives) is the same thing. Call out abortion, I say, but not in the name of the Constitution, but in the name of what's right. And if we live under a socialistic, totalitarian government, yeah it sucks, but either way we have God on our side, and a gospel that not even the government can contain. (Besides we still are considered a center-right nation. Republicans are going to win the house and senate. How close to socialism can we be?)
Some Christians attachment to an American ideal seems to be a form of idolatry. Perhaps this because I was born in 1982, received a public education, and didn't grow up in Christian home. Perhaps I learned a different history than some in previous generations did. The idyllic age is unfortunately not a part of my experience. Hence, my lack of sympathy. I can see that it probably feels pretty crappy to see a generation of folks destroy everything you fought for, believed in, and cherished.
A wise man told me something. He said the problem today is that young people do not listen to experience, and that older folks do not listen to developing perspectives. A healthy society does both. Trust me when I say I've listened to "the old" perspective, and I'm genuinely trying to be sensitive to it, mostly because I think it would be foolish not to. But I ask you to look at mine. As a young person who has no attachments to the things of the past, but who wishes that the government wasn't so big, the borders were not so open, and the debt wasn't so high, who is a Christian and a Biblicist, let me lead us to a perspective of hope, let me call all people liberal and conservative to move past discussions that depend on man's wisdom, to faith that believes that God wins, despite all contrary evidence. Let us focus on the task, saving people, so they will be on the right side of society's salvation. Patriotism and nostalgia are a distraction from that.
Here's the impression I get of today's conservative viewpoint: Our country is headed towards inevitable socialism, which in their minds means totalitarianism. Socialism+national debt= fall of our nation. Our youth culture has no ambition or morals. We must get back to the way things used to be.
The problem here is twofold. One, there's seems to be no plan on how to get things back to the way they used to be, other than preaching to to the choir, and fear mongering. Two, no real attempt is made at dialogue with liberals or the youth culture, and thus my generation has no idea why things so much better then, and why things are comparatively worse now. Then was the the Great Depression. Then was two World Wars, and the Holocaust. Then was Vietnam. Now is all sorts of bad too, but its all sorts of good as well, as well as was then. I wish divorce wasn't prevalent. I wish violence was not so volatile. I wish abortion wasn't on the rise. I wish our government wasn't so big and didn't spend so much money. But is it really all a part of a giant Obama/socialist conspiracy that started all the way back in the 60's? Attempts to explain how we got where we are have their merit, certainly. They can help us moving forward, but what about the future? What do we do to curb all this badness? If I hear a conservative who thinks in those terms I might not feel so stifled and lethargic.
Now it's no secret that the American conservative is generally speaking, a religious person, and is most likely Christian. I am a deeply committed Christian myself, and so the religious angle matters to me. It is inconsistent with Christianity's message of hope to be so despairing, is it not? Don't we know that we win? Society must go down the tubes. That's its natural course, so why would we want to return to a better time, when one, regardless of what time you find yourself in a society, its regressing, two, its still not the optimal situation which is the kingdom of God, and three, regardless of what age we find ourselves in we have the keys of the kingdom, and a message that applies to our neighbors, an urgent message at that? Isn't the call to return to better days, a call to return to something that is not the kingdom of God as much as looking forward to better days (like progressives) is the same thing. Call out abortion, I say, but not in the name of the Constitution, but in the name of what's right. And if we live under a socialistic, totalitarian government, yeah it sucks, but either way we have God on our side, and a gospel that not even the government can contain. (Besides we still are considered a center-right nation. Republicans are going to win the house and senate. How close to socialism can we be?)
Some Christians attachment to an American ideal seems to be a form of idolatry. Perhaps this because I was born in 1982, received a public education, and didn't grow up in Christian home. Perhaps I learned a different history than some in previous generations did. The idyllic age is unfortunately not a part of my experience. Hence, my lack of sympathy. I can see that it probably feels pretty crappy to see a generation of folks destroy everything you fought for, believed in, and cherished.
A wise man told me something. He said the problem today is that young people do not listen to experience, and that older folks do not listen to developing perspectives. A healthy society does both. Trust me when I say I've listened to "the old" perspective, and I'm genuinely trying to be sensitive to it, mostly because I think it would be foolish not to. But I ask you to look at mine. As a young person who has no attachments to the things of the past, but who wishes that the government wasn't so big, the borders were not so open, and the debt wasn't so high, who is a Christian and a Biblicist, let me lead us to a perspective of hope, let me call all people liberal and conservative to move past discussions that depend on man's wisdom, to faith that believes that God wins, despite all contrary evidence. Let us focus on the task, saving people, so they will be on the right side of society's salvation. Patriotism and nostalgia are a distraction from that.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Lebron and the Distinction Between Disappointed and Angry
Anger is the result of felt injustice. Injustice is the breech of a moral contract, spoken, or written, or unspoken, or unwritten. Do we as Cleveland fans have a right to be angry at Lebron James? It depends on what we're angry about. Because just because it feels unjust doesn't mean that it is, and as it pertains to Lebron's decision as a free agent, he broke no rules, written or unwritten. He never promised the city of Cleveland that he would stay for his career. He may have promised owner Dan Gilbert. We'll never know, but that would explain his anger at least. Of course, before Gilbert goes out calling people disloyal he needs to have a conversation with Mike Brown, the the winningest coach, percentage wise, in Cleveland Cavaliers history. Perhaps we are angry about the way that he went about it, carving out a one hour time slot in prime time just to take a piece out of our hearts. That was mean, granted. It was classless and ill-conceived. It added fuel to the fire, but how much less angry would we have been if he had made the same decision quieter. I think we might not have reacted so emotionally so quickly, but I think the burning of all things James would have been inevitable, and it might have squelched a Dan Gilbert email that he is now regretting forever. The seat of our anger comes from our belief turned expectation Lebron not only would stay in Cleveland, but more importantly wanted to win a championship in Cleveland. We gave our hearts to him. We wouldn't have done that had we not been convinced that he wanted to be for Cleveland what Jordan was for Chicago. The story was set up beautifully. James was being criticized for all the same stuff Jordan was in roughly the same period of his career, and then Jordan got Pippen, and Jackson, and the rest is history. All Lebron needed was "Pippen" and "Jackson", and the Cavs could be a dynasty. Alas, it seems that James had a different idea. No doubt, James decision was based on wanting to win championships. He took less money to go to Miami. He also wanted to stay in Cleveland. He wanted Bosh to come and be his "Pippen". Bosh wouldn't come. Lebron looked at the roster, post Bosh signing with Miami, and said, "to win the title, we have to get through Boston, Orlando, Miami, and Los Angelas". Gosh, I'm just one guy" This was the identical thought that went through his mind in the Boston series. He just didn't have it in him to carry them through the playoffs. He believed it in '07, '08, and '09, but not in '10, and you could see it on his face, the last three games of the series. I agree with Dan Gilbert, Lebron quit in the Boston series. He felt the burden of an entire city and folded underneath the pressure, and when Bosh sided with the Heat, Lebron decided he couldn't take that again. This is interesting because we're really hard on our athletes that lack a competitive spirit, but in some sense, it was Lebron's drive to win that led him to despair, and led him to choose Miami. Regularly we declare cynically that players always go where the money goes, and we kill them when they go to inferior teams for more money. Well, Lebron went to a superior team (with him on it)for less money, and we kill him for being disloyal. I point out this double-standard adding one caveat. A truly competitive spirit tries to win, always. Even if he's down two games to Boston in the second round, and he still has to get through Orlando, and the Lakers. Losing brings out character. I appreciate that Lebron hates losing. At least he didn't just smile and peace out, but he was a sore loser, and still is. He has to still play hard in Miami to win, not to mention with 9 summer league bench warmers. Winning is hard no matter where you are, and one would've have liked to see Lebron stay in Cleveland in sheer recognition of that fact. I mean, they did have the best record in the NBA two years in a row. (Combined Record- 127-37!)Perhaps there's stuff going on with management we'll never know. You can take this rant as an outsider's opinion, but this is how things appear to me given the facts that I have. What hurts is that through deciding to go to Miami, Lebron James communicated that he was not as enthusiastic or optimistic about Cleveland as we had believed him to be. The jury's still out for me whether this was misguided. I think it was spurred mostly by the media constantly comparing Lebron to Jordan. I think we were self-deceived. Lebron is a great basketball player who truly wants to win, but something's missing, that thing that Jordan, Kobe, Magic, Bird, and Wade have. The Derek Jeter factor if you will. He never had that look in his eye. He's actually a perfect Pippen to Wade's Jordan. We should've saw it coming. As second fiddle, Lebron doesn't have the pressure of a city's expectation and cursed history. He can be his goofy self and let Wade lead. He can make pretty passes, nasty dunks, and put on a show while Wade brings the necessary leadership. He wasn't who we thought he was. We should've known that championships are more appealing than Ohio, or where you grew up. We should've known that Lebron wasn't the King, but the Knight. But we wanted to be witnesses of the next legend, the next greatest player, the next dynasty. Lebron didn't see it that way, and he left, and it hurts.
If Lebron was unjust he was unjust in the way he went about leaving Cleveland. But this is not the issue is it? To call him disloyal assumes a moral imperative, and that loyalty is morally imperative. Only when the spoken/unspoken,written/unwritten contract is breached,is anger justified. Truly loyalty is nice. But in this situation, is it imperative? What loyalty are we asking Lebron to hold? He was drafted. He didn't have a choice to come to Cleveland. Is he disloyal to his word? What word did he give that he would stay in Cleveland. He finished out his contract without ever asking to be traded. Was he morally obligated to stay here? If he was, what's the meaning of "free agent". Of course he's not obligated to stay in Cleveland. Loyalty is based on a promise, and he fulfilled his. We feel betrayed because we let ourselves believe things that weren't true, but Lebron never shared them. A little look at recent history makes that clear. So somebody turned out not to be who we thought they were, but he never led us on, we led ourselves on, therefore, the anger, the bitterness, is unjustified. But the disappointment, the shock, and the loss of respect, well, at least that's how I feel for now.
If Lebron was unjust he was unjust in the way he went about leaving Cleveland. But this is not the issue is it? To call him disloyal assumes a moral imperative, and that loyalty is morally imperative. Only when the spoken/unspoken,written/unwritten contract is breached,is anger justified. Truly loyalty is nice. But in this situation, is it imperative? What loyalty are we asking Lebron to hold? He was drafted. He didn't have a choice to come to Cleveland. Is he disloyal to his word? What word did he give that he would stay in Cleveland. He finished out his contract without ever asking to be traded. Was he morally obligated to stay here? If he was, what's the meaning of "free agent". Of course he's not obligated to stay in Cleveland. Loyalty is based on a promise, and he fulfilled his. We feel betrayed because we let ourselves believe things that weren't true, but Lebron never shared them. A little look at recent history makes that clear. So somebody turned out not to be who we thought they were, but he never led us on, we led ourselves on, therefore, the anger, the bitterness, is unjustified. But the disappointment, the shock, and the loss of respect, well, at least that's how I feel for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
