Lebron

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.

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."

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.