on Writhing and Diving (and yes, biting)

It's amazing to watch and observe American attitude toward football (I refuse to call the sport soccer).  I grew up remembering the name "Pele" and his famed 1970 World Cup; how Brazil kept the Rimet Cup permanently (whoever wins the cup three times keeps it) and actually rooting for Germany in 1974 (when everybody else wanted the Netherlands to win).  I just loved Gerd Muller "Der Bomber" and Beckenbauer "Der Kaiser" (very martial nicknames), Berti Vogts, Paul Breitner, Sepp Maier, these guys were awesome.

So it's been pure delight to watch the World Cup after a few decades recess (missions work, grad School, life getting in the way).  The first observation is the incredible tempo with which the players play now.   Players today are much more athletic than before, which results in a higher number of goals.  No-one is complaining there.

So, the main beef people have here in the US about the game is "diving" and "writhing" (ok, and biting too).   The Wall Street Journal even computed how many minutes per game each team spends rolling on the ground in pain: 6 minutes, less than 2 minutes, it varies.  Obviously, the good folks in Midtown Manhattan coming up with these stats have never had aluminium cleats jammed into their ankles.  I still remember all the blue marks we got from one another when we were playing as kids (we had these screwed-in cleats, just like the pros today; now kids are spared with these fake soft cleats).  The game is tough and, yes, painful.  And when the players actually fake it, it's their way to break the tempo,  slow the game down, give a chance to catch their breadth, creating "time outs." Same with diving.  The players are attempting to induce error on the part of the referee; it's psychological warfare.

Obviously these plays don't quite fit as written notes on the arm of the quarterback and they can't be phoned in from the side-lines.  I know it's been chronicled many times before, but the way football is choreographed is fundamentally different:  strategies are much more fluid and exhibit far less control during the game from the top-down structures of American football coaches (I can never keep up with how many coaches are on the side-lines).  Creativity to generate plays is left to the players after the clock starts and pretty much until it ends.  This means the human dimension of the game is an essential part of it, including referee's mistakes, unfair outcomes, etc.  In the other game of football, nothing seems left to chance or human error (even if it takes some dude 20 minutes to stare at a screen to figure out there was interference).  So, I'll take the short-lived drama (WSJ assures us it's 6 minutes) over the excruciating slow pace at which what is supposed to be a one-hour game can take place. 

The "beautiful game" is one of multi-layered nuances, many of them lost by those who don't know the game.  I suppose the best analogy is baseball with all the rituals surrounding the psychological warfare involving  the pitcher, the hitter, the umpire and the catcher.  If you don't know anything about baseball, you won't catch half of what is really going on. But once you do, it is a beautiful thing. 

Climate Change vs. the Glory of God

Just a quick note on the excellent report in NYT on Bowdoin's decision not to allow Intervarsity to meet on its campus.  At issue is, of course, the question of sexual ethics.  The university has decreed what sexual ethic is appropriate and what is not.  Any Christian group that doesn't fit their idea cannot meet in a formal way on campus.

There are a number of questions raised by this posture, but the one I have is, what does the administration seek to achieve by banning Intervarsity on campus?  Do they really believe wielding the big stick will cause these committed believers simply to "recant" and change what these students (rightly) perceive as a non-negotiable ethical standard?

All this new climate of intolerance (for another illustration, see Michael Bloomberg's 2014 commencement address at Harvard; starting at about 7:30 min) will achieve is to galvanize Christians precisely to meet together to pray and worship the Living God.  The One who has an absolute territorial claim to every square inch (I prefer centimeter) of HIS green earth scoffs at these human-engineered restrictions: His glory will not be suppressed.  History has many examples of the powerful effect persecution and discrimination against Christians produces.  Expect (and pray) for revival to break out at Bowdoin!  Authorities won't be able to put a lid on this, anymore than the authorities tried to stop Peter, et al in Jerusalem (as recorded in the early chapters of the book of Acts): "we must obey God rather than man."


 

D-Day+70 years

Tomorrow we remember that 70 years ago a bunch of teenagers and young adults took on the might of Nazi power on the Atlantic coastline of northwestern France.  We sometimes forget that the Nazi war machine, while weakened by the tremendous drain caused by the Eastern Front was still formidable in the West: the fortress that represented the Atlantic Wall; elite armored divisions in reserve; their general was a legend and probably (along with Erich Von Manstein) one of the best the OKW (Ober Kommando der Wehrmacht/German High Command) could provide in Erwin Rommel.

This was not going to be an easy crossing of the Channel in the month of June (a rainy cold month in this region of the world, not unlike Massachusetts right now).  Intelligence was on the allies' side but somehow the "résistance" forgot to tell the allies about the hedge rows in the "campagne Normande."  Every one with a sense of tactical logic expected the passage at the Pas-de-Calais, the shortest distance between England and France, but instead Ike crossed La Manche/English Channel into the region of Normandy.  The effect of surprise (crucial in special ops doctrine) was achieved in the most brilliant ways. 

Still the Normandy campaign would be hard fought (as 100's of accounts tell us).  Once the OKW and their demented/demonic corporal-turned-Commander realized what was going on, the fighting intensified in Normandy and it would be a few weeks before the allies could break through into Paris.  Read about the "Kessel" (caldron), the "Hitler Jugend" SS division, along with other elite Nazi troops thrown into the fight,  and you  quickly realize what a bitter and uncertain campaign this was going to be.

All this seems so distant now, but for me, growing up on the late 60's in the neighboring country of Switzerland, we heard about the "débarquement" as if it had happened yesterday. For us "les ricains" were the coolest guys around.  So, thank you to the "greatest generation" for your sacrifice for our freedom. 

Academic freedom vs. doctrinal faithfulness in evangelical colleges

Academic freedom is a significant value in scholarship and should be promoted and encouraged.  Without free scholarly inquiry, there is not much point in organizing into learning communities/universities.  In recent times, evangelical Christian colleges (the schools that were founded around evangelical values in the past 100+ years) have especially emphasized academic freedom.  In the desire and need for more majors, the curriculum has shifted from the old 'Bible College' model to a 'university' model.  The consequence, with some exceptions, is that core requirements in Bible and theology have been reduced in emphasis and institutional significance.

In the process, the role of the doctrinal statements upon which these schools were founded has shifted from being a driving force in terms of ethos among faculty and replaced by academic freedom as the more significant value.  While faculty have to sign these doctrinal statements, in reality, the value of academic freedom supersedes the documents.  So, the adage seems to work, "Values on the wall vs. values down the hall." To paraphrase the words of a president (who is himself theologically conservative) at a famous evangelical college in the midwest, doctrinal disciplinary matters are the purview of the Church, not the college.  I think it's fair to say we are in a phase that is "accommodationist."  If a prof has views that are in some ways in contradictions to the doctrinal statement, the "don't ask, don't tell" approach will be applied.  No one college wants the publicity of a "witch hunt" or "heresy trials" on the front page of the CT website!

In my field (Old Testament exegesis and history and archaeology of the ancient Near East), the debates have shifted considerably among Christian college professors. A previous generation of  evangelical scholars in evangelical colleges (say, 20 years ago) would have been trained at the best universities in the world and produced (and continue to produce) first rate research.  So in this respect, nothing has changed. Younger profs also receive their degrees from great programs and conduct their research at the highest levels of scholarship. The marked difference is that a former generation  deeply anchored their research within a confessional framework and a broad apologetic context: "We are studying archaeology and history to demonstrate that the Bible is true." Theological loyalty and accountability was first and academic freedom came second.  Profs knew they were ultimately serving the Church at the college.  World missions and world evangelization, coupled with a deep conviction of the authority, sufficiency and normative nature of God's Word were all strong identity markers.

Nowadays, however, the focus of research in Christian colleges and universities has shifted from this apologetic bend and is now directed more specifically toward academic inquiry divorced from theological considerations.  While this is clearly not the case everywhere, the sense of obligation to a doctrinal statement stems out of heritage rather than deep personal convictions.  The sense that the ground is/has shifted is real when you consider some of the discussions going in these colleges.  The  question of the historicity of Adam is now an accepted debate.  As Biologos (a group with deep evangelical ties; see the endorsements) says on their website: we don't make a value judgment whether Adam was real or not.  I can't imagine this statement to have stood without an uproar only a few years ago.  Now, however, it's pretty much accepted that you can actually be evangelical and hold to a non-historical view of Adam.   Within this accommodationism, inerrancy is re-imagined so that it conforms to views on the Biblical text that clearly align with the classical higher critical tradition:  David didn't write the Psalms that have the "of David" superscription (but see Hebrews 3 and 4 on Ps 95); the Pentateuch has a Mosaic "core" but we're not sure at all "how much" was actually written at the time of Moses (some of its composition, it's argued, occurred as late as the 7th cent. BC).  Deutero-Isaiah is taken as fact (as opposed to a compositional unity of the book of Isaiah that harks back to Isaiah in the 8th Cent. BC).   What is striking is to read previous generations of mainstream critical scholarship (G.E. Wright, G. Mendenhall,  John Bright, among others) and find the discourse of current evangelical scholars remarkably similar. In this climate, I often ask myself, where is the sense of wonder at God's providential activity in empowering these writers to write the very word of God? Unfortunately, it seems this sense of awe is now "ein Anachronismus."
 
The real challenge for these schools will be how they choose to define themselves in the short-term future:  Christ-centered schools? Or schools with a Christian heritage?  There is a world of difference between the two!  You know the narrative: When Harvard moved away from its Puritan-evangelical roots, other colleges were founded. Let's pray history doesn't repeat itself and let's pray our flagship evangelical institutions remain the "Harvards [or Stanfords] of evangelicalism" rather than only other "Harvards" and "Stanfords" of the world.