Lessons from this Seasons

With all of the discussion every year about the lessons people learn from sports, this year's season of baseball is a good teacher. While colleges talk about all of the good things that can be learned from playing sports, and then turn around and show us all the bad things that can be learned from too much money and too little concern about education, professional baseball this year has provide, I think, at least two clear lessons.

The stories coming out of the Boston Red Sox's locker room tell us one very clear lesson. You can pay players too much. When they get so much money and so many years guaranteed they stop performing and they become complacence. The Oakland Raiders had a quarterback from LSU that they paid too much money to and he never saw the need to work hard or to take seriously the organization's advice. Yes, you can pay a player too much and he will lose the passion to perform well.

Along the same lines is the lesson from the teams in the Division play offs and the World Series. Money will not buy you a championship. The payroll of the teams in the League championship series and the World Series have pay rolls that rank between the 10th to the 17th on the list of highest payrolls in the major leagues. Obviously you need to pay your players fairly, but just because you go out and hire and pay the largest payroll in the sport does not insure that you will win the championship. The LA Lakers also discovered the same thing. Most expensive payrolls do not insure a championship.

You can play a player too much. No matter how much you pay for your line up, it does not guarantee you a winner.

Same Old Same Old

One of the very first people I visited in my very first job in 1968 was an elderly woman who said she could not ever vote for Richard Nixon. She remembered his hateful actions as a congressman. She jokingly said that was the trouble with old age, you remember too much.

I thought of that when I started hearing all the concern about the Mormon religion of two of the candidates for the Republican nomination for President. I don't claim to remember too much, but I do remember all of the worry, fears, and bigotry that was expressed over John Kennedy's Roman Catholic faith. A minister named Herb Meza in Houston, Texas was Chair of the Houston Ministerial Association and had Senator Kennedy address that issue and the issue seemed to diminish.

John Kennedy became President and his Roman Catholic religion did not seem to bother him as President. At least not according to the rumors of all his romantic affairs. In fact, as I think back, there are very few Presidents who seem to give any evidence that their religious faith has made much difference in what they did. Jimmy Carter is about the only President I remember who seemed to take very seriously his religious convictions and if truth be told, he had a very difficult time being President.

It does not take a long memory to remember that religion was a major aspect of the Obama struggle to be President. He keeps claiming to be Christian and his enemies keep claiming he is a Muslim. There was a lot of discussion about the "brand" of Christianity he followed if he was a Jeremiah Wright follower. But the nation elected Obama and one can hardly say that his religious convictions have "ruined" the country.

Now there is just as much ignorance and fear over two Mormons who are running for President. The great "we can't have a President who is a Mormon. They believe all kinds of strange things and are not Christian. They are a cult." cry has gone up. The reality is that those men have been elected to various leadership roles and those states, companies, and offices have not been destroyed by having Mormon leaders.

Why do we keep having the same debate over and over? A long time ago an organizer told a group of us the only legitimate standard to judge a politician was by whether or not he has kept his promises to the public. Look to the record. What did he say. What did he do. The Politician who promises one thing and does not attempt to do what he says should not be trusted. The Politician who promises the public something and tries to do them deserves to be trusted. To their credit many of the Republicans elected in 2010 have been trying to keep the promises they made when they ran. Thus it is easier to decide if they should be reelected because we know they will try to do what they said. The only other question is whether we like what they promise.

I would much rather have a devout, faithful Hindu who speaks quietly, makes one or two promises and tries to keep them, than to have a Bible Thumping Christian who says he wants to impose his religious convictions on the whole society and yet does nothing. But we do not need to have a religious orthodoxy standard for our Presidential candidates. We have been through that too many times before.

Not an end to it

One of the House of Representatives of North Carolina said that he voted to put the amendment to ban same sex unions on the ballot in the form of a constitutional amendment in order to put this question to rest "once and for all." The only trouble is that this amendment which is called Defense of Marriage may ultimately work in the opposite direction.

This amendment which bans same sex unions will make the repeal of it very difficult. Once it passes it will be very hard to overturn it. So what will be left for those who are homosexuals to do? What will be there next target? It is obvious to me that they will not disappear from society if this amendment passes. They will not stop loving and seeking relationships. So what will be the next thing that they can target?

As part of a religious denomination which has just recently changed its requirements after about thirty years of debate to allow congregations and governing bodies to ordain and install homosexuals in positions of leadership. The denomination refused to do this for more than thirty years but the homosexuals did not go away or stop their struggle. They did not go away. They did not stop fighting for the opportunity to serve the church. Neither will they stop seeking to have their relationships recognized.

So I suspect that if this amendment passes and same sex unions are banned by constitutional amendment then only visible target for them will be to seek to change the definition of marriage in the state law. Currently state law says that marriage is between a man and a woman. So now if same sex unions were permitted those unions would not be marriage and marriage is protected. If this amendment passes, the easiest target would be in the legislature to redefine marriage to allow it to be the union between two loving people regardless of sexual orientation. That redefinition would be much easier than rescinding a constitutional amendment.

So what is now being proposed as a defense of marriage may very likely force the gay community to target the redefinition of marriage. What is suppose to protect will in the end change marriage. Funny how things turn out.

Public Prayers? Whose Name?

At the last City Council meeting in my home town, there was a large debate about the nature of the opening prayers that are said at the Council meetings. At the County Commissioners public hearing concerning zoning the meeting was opened with prayer and it concluded in "Jesus' name, Amen." The Chair of the County Commissioners commented on what a wonderful prayer had just been offered. These comments came about because there have been a number of issues raised in the courts and by the ACLU about the legality of public prayers that are religiously identifiable.

The prayer that become exclusively Christian in its content has been declared inappropriate in some courts recently. Our leaders felt the necessity to bear witness to their faith by declaring that they would continue to open our public meetings with prayers "in Jesus' name."

It is true that the Old Testament has lots of public events where the meetings are opened with public prayer. There are a host of prayers given by King Solomon at the opening of the Temple in I Kings 8. Of course, the King was considered a servant of God and had a religious obligation in the Old Testament. So public prayers to God are abundantly present in the Old Testament. But none of them conclude with "in Jesus' Name" and none of them that I know of end with Amen. If we were to follow the Old Testament examples of prayer in public the Jews and the Muslims could probably tolerate those prayers well.

When we as Christians move into the New Testament and try to learn what Jesus says about prayer, one of the first things we read is that Jesus is not a very big fan of public prayers in the first place. He tells his disciples to go into a closet to pray. Don't pray like those other people on the street corner and in public. Do your praying in private. So I guess the first thing we would have to say is that if we took Jesus' advice seriously we would not have prayers in all these public activities like City Council meetings, Football games, and Chamber dinners. So avoid public prayers and making a show of prayers. Jesus would certainly want to urge us to be a lot briefer than a lot of people are.

Now if we continue listening to Jesus in the New Testament there is his instruction to his disciples as to how to pray. He gives them the prayer we call the Lord's Prayer. In none of the Bibles I have does that prayer end "in Jesus' name we pray." As it is now said by people, it just ends with, " forever and ever, Amen." In fact, different traditions of Christians have different endings to the prayer. At least in theory, that Prayer to Our Father, could be shared by Jews and Muslims alike. So it we were to pray like Jesus taught his disciples we would not have to add that "in Jesus' name" conclusion.

There are the passages which talk about Jesus telling his disciples that whatever they ask in his name, that will be done. But it could be suggested that Jesus is talking to his disciples as a group and that what they ask as "the church" will be done. That might suggest that asking in Jesus' name in a public meeting where it is not automatically obvious that all are disciples that asking in his name is not warranted.

I am among those who believes in the power of prayer and the call to obedience and faithful witness to one's faith, but it does not seem to me that we are witnesses to the graciousness of God and the loving kindness of our Lord when we are offensive, insulting, insensitive and dogmatic in our behavior. "O Holy One, come into this room and bring wisdom and the courage to do what wisdom shows us to do. Amen" That prayer would get it done for me.

Defense of Marriage?

The Republican majority in the state legislature have passed a bill putting on the state ballot in May, 2012 the question of a new amendment to our state constitution. They have called the amendment the Defense of Marriage amendment. Yet the amendment has very little to do with defending and strengthening marriage. It is aimed primarily at preventing same sex unions and partnerships.

The referendum will add nothing to the definition of marriage which the state of North Carolina has already defined by law as the union of one man and one woman. So by law already, whatever same sex couples do it will not be a marriage. The referendum will move to prevent same sex unions or legal partnerships.

It is a shame that the referendum that will be voted on is called Defense of Marriage Bill and yet has nothing in it to defend or strengthen marriages. Because, heaven knows, marriage as an institution does need all the help it can get. We do need to do something to make marriages more stable and more respected. The figures suggest that more than half of the marriages that take place end in divorce. That is a tragic statistic. We need to do something to help strengthen and assist marriages to last.

Marriage as an institution is being attacked. We have lots of young couples who live together without the legal protection and security of marriage. We have more and more older adults who are now being reported as living as if they were married, but not actually getting married because of the legal complications of estates, income, pension benefits, and health care obligations. We have lots of unwed mothers in our country. Marriage needs help. Pat Robertson has just recently attacked marriage by suggesting that a spouse might divorce a partner if the partner has Alzheimer’s.

Why did not the legislature actually pass a referendum that did Defended Marriage? Certainly seems to me that they could have put in the referendum a limit to the number of divorces a person could have. Nothing weakens the image of marriage more than somebody having six or seven marriages as if they were short-term rentals. Would not it strengthen marriages if you limited everybody to just one divorce? There are a number of sociologists who would say that you could strengthen marriages if you did not let anybody under twenty five get married. Let them live together or date or do whatever, but do not let them marry until they have grown up a little and matured in their choices. I am sure that they could have thought up some other better ways to strengthen marriages.

Banning same sex unions will have absolutely no affect on what happens in heterosexual marriages.

Same Sex marriage?

The Republican dominated legislature has finally managed to put a "same sex union ban" on the ballot as a constitutional amendment. What a shame. This will be a very divisive debate and at the end there will be very little gained by the results one way or the other. If the amendment passes we will be no further along than we are right now as marriage is already defined as between one man and one woman by law in N.C. and so marriage will not be enhanced. If it fails we will have a large number of people who will see our society sinking further into chaos.

As someone once remarked, "With more than half of the heterosexual marriages ending in divorce, with more and more elderly living in heterosexual relationships without marriage licenses, with so many unwed mothers in our society already, with domestic abuse all around us, just how in the world does same sex unions erode the respect for the institution of marriage?" In fact that same person wondered why homosexuals even wanted to get married with all the bad things associated with marriage. Allowing same sex unions will have no impact on the quality of heterosexual marriage.

A large number of people believe that they are defending the Biblical definition of marriage. There are two major places where the Bible speaks of "one man and one woman" There is a passage that says a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife. (Let it be noted that it does not say he can only cleave to one wife.) The thrust of the passage is that the man and woman create their own place and do not put the interest of their parents ahead of their own family. There is a passage of advice that leaders should be husbands of only one wife.

But when you read the whole Bible it does not seem to have a consistent definition of marriage or family. Abraham and the patriarchs had several wives and servant concubines. The Kings of Israel and Judah have listed harems and lots of wives. Saul, David, and Solomon had bunches of wives. Jesus himself is not reported to have had any wives, but he had lots of female friends. Paul, it has been argued by some scholars, had a wife but apparently was never home to care for her.

The desire to establish and impose the narrow definition of marriage from the Bible as one man one woman is an attempt to continue the imposition of the Christian world view on our rapidly emerging multicultural society. There are other cultures where more than one wife is expected. There are different ways to organize society. Certainly we can organize our society the way we think it is best but there ought to be great principles involved in what we do.

The principle of justice and human rights in its broadest understanding would not attempt to prevent same sex unions. Marriage is still one man and one woman, but there are people, human beings, who are homosexuals. How they got that way may be a long debate itself, but they exist. They have desires, feelings, and rights that all humans have in our society. They ought to be able to form unions, to share homes, to have children, to have the same benefits in health care, inheritance, and respect that other people have.

We did not need this amendment. We do not need this debate which is being forced upon us now. We do not need to pass this amendment, and if this amendment passes it will be a great step backwards for our "common good."

Our Story

There is a story in the New Testament. The story is a great story, but it causes more reaction than most stories in the Bible. It is a story Jesus tells about a farmer who needed some day laborers. The farmer goes to town early in the morning and picks up a truck load of workers. When the farmer hires them they all agree before they get to the farm to work for the wages he offers. He offers to pay them a full day's pay for a full day's work. Every body is happy. But the farmer sees that there is a lot more work than the people he hired can do, so he goes to town and picks up another load of workers. About half way into the afternoon, he begins to really worry that the work will not be finished by the end of the day. He rushes in and picks up another load of workers. We have no explanation as to why these workers were still unemployed at that hour.

When it comes time to pay, the farmer calls those hired last out to the pay desk first. The farmer and these workers had never talked about pay. The farmer pays these last to the job workers the full day's pay. Now naturally, those hired first start to think that they will be paid more because they worked more. When they are called they get paid what they had agreed to work for. They get a full day's pay for the full day's work.

As you well know, they were not happy. They start to complain. The farmer asks, "How did I cheat you? Did I not pay you what you agreed to? Did I not pay you a fair wage for your work? Why are you so upset by my kindness to the others?"

What strikes me so amazing is that we in this country get so outraged by that story and it seems to me that it is our story. America is the late come workers. We are only two hundred years old, but we have more than half of the world's wealth. We are the workers who have been abundantly compensated for our work in the world. Compensated far more than so many who have worked so much more, longer and harder. We are the people who have been given so much more than we have earned, and yet we have this amazing outrage when we read about some farm hands being helped by this farmer. If it is the lack of fairness that troubles us, (it is not fair to pay the last workers the same,) then it is not fair for this country to have the great abundance of wealth that we have at the expense of all the other nations who have been working in the vineyards of the earth for far longer, far harder, and for a lot less.

Perhaps that is the reason we dislike the story so much. It is too close to home.