The day after Opening Day, I expressed my thoughts about the Angels and their chances this season. I didn't say much because, first of all, the Angels had only 2 of their 5 starting pitchers on the roster (the rest being on the DL). Secondly, my reflections were based on only one game. Not much to go on there. Nonetheless, I was excited but on the fence about whether we could preform well under the particular constraints under which we started the season.
But now it's the All-Star Break and half of the season is over. Here's the negative perspective:
-We still don't have all five starting pitchers healthy.
-Nick Adenhart (a young replacement starter) was killed the night of his first start.
-I'm not sure about now, but for most of this first half, our bullpen has been the worst in baseball.
-Vladdy has spent more time on the DL than not on the DL.
-We've gone 2W-7L against the Rangers, our AL West competitors.
Actually, the last one hurts the most since our ability to perform against the Rangers may determine our playoff chances down the stretch. If you would have forced me to write this email one week ago, it would have been too depressing to read. We had just lost 2 of 3 to Texas and losing that series knocked us out of 1st place and propelled them into that spot. It was terrible and I didn't think that following that performance up with a series against the Yankees was going to help things much. Imagine how excited I was to hear that we were entering the Yankee series with Torii Hunter and Vlad Guerrero on the DL with Juan Rivera joining them the next day!
But now it's time for the positive perspective:
-We swept that series against the Yanks and, with the Rangers losing 2 to Seattle, we entered the Break in 1st place by a game and a half.
-Jered Weaver is pitching up a storm and is carrying our struggling pitching staff.
-The little guys (Izturis, Aybar and Mathis) are making up for the home runs that Vladdy and Bobby Abreu aren't hitting.
-Torii Hunter is going above and beyond what anyone could ever ask of him, providing needed leadership and inspiration on and off the field.
-The Angels have won 5 of the 6 games that I've been able to attend and they've all been pretty exciting.
So, as my beloved Halos enter the 2nd half, I'm hopeful. I'm not sure when or in what condition Vladdy, Hunter and Rivera will return and I always worry that trips to the DL might ultimately mean the end of a season—or career—for a player. But the Yankee series showed that, if the rest of our team has their game on, we can play adequately without them. Our bullpen still needs A LOT of help, but they've settled down somewhat and aren't an exhibition in dismal failure anymore. I'm going to see the Angels play the Athletics in Oakland tomorrow night. That will be my final game before going back to Ukraine. I'm not excited about seeing Ervin Santana pitch but, if the offense is on, I'm not too worried. And even if we lose, they'll still have a winning record on games that I've been able to attend—I can't ask for much more when I'm around for only parts of every 3rd or 4th season. So, as we say goodbye to the first half of the '09 season, I can say, from the depths of my heart and with high hopes for the remainder of the season, "Go Halos!"
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Thrill-seeking's in the Blood
When I was young, my dad used to do some crazy stuff. I have memories of standing on the beach, watching my dad swim away from shore with his face mask and flippers on. He'd swim so far out beyond the waves that I'd no longer be able to see him. I think that's the point at which I'd start crying, thinking that he'd never come back. I also remember outings that involved descending into old mines that I'm sure have been closed off by now as safety hazards.
Well, I wasn't too old when I started to manifest my own thrill-seeking nature by climbing dangerously high into trees, eating live bugs and jumping off of all kinds of things. As a kid, I never felt any need to psychoanalyze it, I just had lots and lots of fun. The thrill of jumping off the roof of our garage just never got old, EVER!
But now I have an almost-3-year-old. Everything that I do is lodged into my son's memory. If I say it, he might say it. If I do it, he might do it. I'm almost to the point where I believe that if I think it, he'll think it. Needless to say, as a parent, you have to be cautious about what you do. That, combined with the fact that my knees are 35 years old—25 years older than at peak roof-jumping time—and I don't find myself jumping off of too many things anymore. If Dietrich doesn't see his daddy jump off of stuff, maybe he won't feel the need to jump off of stuff.
Wrong-O, buddy bean! Dietrich jumps off of everything. Everything that we'll let him jump from, that is. It proved to be solidly part of his daily routine about 6 months ago and there isn't much that we can do about it, except mildly monitor and, when it's not too out of control, enjoy it. Oh, and there's one more thing that we (read, "I") can do. I can join in the fun! As noted, my knees aren't what they used to be, but I can out-jump Dietrich, for now. So, here's me and him indulging at a park while visiting the younger Martins in Camas, WA, in April:
On that same trip, Dietrich did had a lot of fun with Nels and Willem. One of their thrill-seekingest moments was this tire swing at another of Camas' great little parks:
The fun continued once we were settled back in Morgan Hill, CA, at Josie's parents' place. A short-lived joy was cruising down the driveway—driveways are quite long on a 3-acre farm—on daddy's 1967 Honda CT-90, named Vanguard. Dietrich thinks that Vanguard's motor is a little too loud, so he didn't want to get anywhere near it while it was running. But he loved to sit on it while it wasn't. And, as it turns out, he loved coasting down the driveway on Vanguard with daddy holding him. Here's 2 great shots of that fun:
But notice that a lot of the verbs in the previous paragraph are in the past tense. Dietrich "loved," not "Dietrich loves." That's because there is a flip side to the thrill-seeking lifestyle. The danger is accompanied by the pain of accidents. And the accidents can be traumatic enough to keep us from retravelling some avenues of thrill-seeking. On what would prove to be our final ride, a car was coming up the driveway as we were coming down. I put on the brakes and the combo of only having one hand on the handlebars—the other hand being on Dietrich—and being on a particularly gravelly part of the driveway resulted in us tipping over. Dietrich got a nice scrape on his ankle but was fine otherwise, physically. Psychologically however, he's done with the motorcycle or, as he calls it, "da muh-kah-duh." In retrospect, he's much too young to go on actual motorcycle rides with the engine running so, maybe this incident was meant to keep him from wanting to move from the engine-off stage of riding to the engine-on stage. We wouldn't have stepped it up to that level and much frustration would have ensued. Still, the powerful memory of that accident lingers as a reminder that thrill-seeking has potentially painful consequences.
But the incident at the Splash Zone of Gilroy Gardens was the topper. We discovered Gilroy Gardens in early June and, since Dietrich loved it and it's only a 20-minute drive away, we upgraded our one-day admission to a membership and have been back about 10 times since. About 4 of the first 5 of those visits involved a trip to the Splash Zone. What a great way for a kid to spend part of his day! I remember when all I had available were the sprinklers in the front yard. Here's Dietrich busting through a geyser, an action that causes him to scream with delight:
But then it happened. On what would prove to be his final visit to the Splash Zone, Dietrich was running full speed at the same geyser pictured above while a kid not much older than him—but twice his size—came running full speed from the opposite direction. Right on top of the geyser, the 2 of them collided, sending Dietrich falling backwards right onto the back of his head. "Smack!" You could tell it was gonna be a doozy and it was. We had to keep a close eye on him for the rest of the day and it seemed like it took a few days before he was his fearless, thrill-seeking self again. But, due to the memory of shock, pain and disappointment, Dietrich has closed this avenue of excitement for himself. The only time he's ever seemed interested in returning to the Splash Zone was when I offhandedly commented that he needed a Splash Zone helmet. Unfortunately, there's no such thing and I'm afraid that all I did was add to the disappointment by mentioning the mere possibility.
So, Dietrich certainly is an adventurous little tike. It's fun to watch him have a blast discovering new ways to exhilarate himself and to occasionally join in the fun. But he's had some hard lessons in the last few weeks about the downside to thrill-seeking. It's hard to watch the tears fall when the living out of the Oldenburg nature leads to the accidents that accompany that nature.
Well, I wasn't too old when I started to manifest my own thrill-seeking nature by climbing dangerously high into trees, eating live bugs and jumping off of all kinds of things. As a kid, I never felt any need to psychoanalyze it, I just had lots and lots of fun. The thrill of jumping off the roof of our garage just never got old, EVER!
But now I have an almost-3-year-old. Everything that I do is lodged into my son's memory. If I say it, he might say it. If I do it, he might do it. I'm almost to the point where I believe that if I think it, he'll think it. Needless to say, as a parent, you have to be cautious about what you do. That, combined with the fact that my knees are 35 years old—25 years older than at peak roof-jumping time—and I don't find myself jumping off of too many things anymore. If Dietrich doesn't see his daddy jump off of stuff, maybe he won't feel the need to jump off of stuff.
Wrong-O, buddy bean! Dietrich jumps off of everything. Everything that we'll let him jump from, that is. It proved to be solidly part of his daily routine about 6 months ago and there isn't much that we can do about it, except mildly monitor and, when it's not too out of control, enjoy it. Oh, and there's one more thing that we (read, "I") can do. I can join in the fun! As noted, my knees aren't what they used to be, but I can out-jump Dietrich, for now. So, here's me and him indulging at a park while visiting the younger Martins in Camas, WA, in April:
On that same trip, Dietrich did had a lot of fun with Nels and Willem. One of their thrill-seekingest moments was this tire swing at another of Camas' great little parks:
The fun continued once we were settled back in Morgan Hill, CA, at Josie's parents' place. A short-lived joy was cruising down the driveway—driveways are quite long on a 3-acre farm—on daddy's 1967 Honda CT-90, named Vanguard. Dietrich thinks that Vanguard's motor is a little too loud, so he didn't want to get anywhere near it while it was running. But he loved to sit on it while it wasn't. And, as it turns out, he loved coasting down the driveway on Vanguard with daddy holding him. Here's 2 great shots of that fun:
But notice that a lot of the verbs in the previous paragraph are in the past tense. Dietrich "loved," not "Dietrich loves." That's because there is a flip side to the thrill-seeking lifestyle. The danger is accompanied by the pain of accidents. And the accidents can be traumatic enough to keep us from retravelling some avenues of thrill-seeking. On what would prove to be our final ride, a car was coming up the driveway as we were coming down. I put on the brakes and the combo of only having one hand on the handlebars—the other hand being on Dietrich—and being on a particularly gravelly part of the driveway resulted in us tipping over. Dietrich got a nice scrape on his ankle but was fine otherwise, physically. Psychologically however, he's done with the motorcycle or, as he calls it, "da muh-kah-duh." In retrospect, he's much too young to go on actual motorcycle rides with the engine running so, maybe this incident was meant to keep him from wanting to move from the engine-off stage of riding to the engine-on stage. We wouldn't have stepped it up to that level and much frustration would have ensued. Still, the powerful memory of that accident lingers as a reminder that thrill-seeking has potentially painful consequences.
But the incident at the Splash Zone of Gilroy Gardens was the topper. We discovered Gilroy Gardens in early June and, since Dietrich loved it and it's only a 20-minute drive away, we upgraded our one-day admission to a membership and have been back about 10 times since. About 4 of the first 5 of those visits involved a trip to the Splash Zone. What a great way for a kid to spend part of his day! I remember when all I had available were the sprinklers in the front yard. Here's Dietrich busting through a geyser, an action that causes him to scream with delight:
But then it happened. On what would prove to be his final visit to the Splash Zone, Dietrich was running full speed at the same geyser pictured above while a kid not much older than him—but twice his size—came running full speed from the opposite direction. Right on top of the geyser, the 2 of them collided, sending Dietrich falling backwards right onto the back of his head. "Smack!" You could tell it was gonna be a doozy and it was. We had to keep a close eye on him for the rest of the day and it seemed like it took a few days before he was his fearless, thrill-seeking self again. But, due to the memory of shock, pain and disappointment, Dietrich has closed this avenue of excitement for himself. The only time he's ever seemed interested in returning to the Splash Zone was when I offhandedly commented that he needed a Splash Zone helmet. Unfortunately, there's no such thing and I'm afraid that all I did was add to the disappointment by mentioning the mere possibility.
So, Dietrich certainly is an adventurous little tike. It's fun to watch him have a blast discovering new ways to exhilarate himself and to occasionally join in the fun. But he's had some hard lessons in the last few weeks about the downside to thrill-seeking. It's hard to watch the tears fall when the living out of the Oldenburg nature leads to the accidents that accompany that nature.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Another Book and Another Blog
A few months back I made mention of J.P. Moreland's newest book, The God Question. I ended up making time for it much sooner than I expected to and just finished it last night. I confirm and multiply the force of everything I said here. This is the book to start with if you've not dabbled much in apologetics or Christian philosophy before now. I remember giving a friend J.P.'s Scaling the Secular City as a gift, like 15 years ago, or so, and he still hasn't read it. He says it's too much for him. If The God Question was out back then, I would've given it instead.
Interestingly, when I was about half way through the book, I came across Doug Groothuis' brand new blog (which is actually the blog for Denver Seminary's Christian Thought division—but only Groothuis has posted, so far). I was checking out Ph.D. programs (which they, unfortunately, don't have) when I found the blog and I didn't exit until I'd read everything there. Groothuis, like Moreland, is as sharp as a Ginsu, offering perceptive insights on some of today's most pressing issues. Add this to your bookmarks and read it when you can. Groothuis writes at a pace more like mine so, don't expect floods of material. But when he does post, expect nothing but the best. One of his posts, fortunately, is a review of Moreland's, The God Question. Thus, instead of writing a bunch myself, I can just link that review and be done. Thanks Professor Groothuis, I think I'll go take a nap.
But before my snooze, I'll leave you—as has become a veritable custom when I've read a book that qualifies—with the review entry for my annotated bibliography of Christian apologetics for The God Question.
"J.P. Moreland, The God Question: An Invitation to a Life of Meaning (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers: 2009).
It would not be outrageous to guess that if a first-rate Christian philosopher—one who has spent two-thirds of his life propounding the deepest aspects of Christianity in professional and academic settings—attempted to present the basics of those aspects to an audience unfamiliar with them, that confusion and misunderstanding would result. Not so with Moreland’s, The God Question. Moreland speaks primarily and directly to the skeptic of Christianity and, secondarily, those believers who have not been introduced to some of the basic issues in Christian philosophy and spirituality. What he’s said in thousands of pages of technical work in the past on arguments for the existence of God, the historical reliability of the New Testament and how to live a life of genuine spirituality and happiness, he says here in just 200 pages of conversational prose. And not only is he able to communicate these complex issues clearly, he does so winsomely, with passionate conviction and genuine concern for those who do not yet know God. This is a book to give to anyone who is interested in the rationality, coherence and meaning of a vibrant life as a disciple of Jesus but who isn’t yet able to plunge into the intellectual deep end of the Christian faith. Reading this book will move that person toward those deep waters, armed with many of the devices necessary for staying afloat as they get there."
Interestingly, when I was about half way through the book, I came across Doug Groothuis' brand new blog (which is actually the blog for Denver Seminary's Christian Thought division—but only Groothuis has posted, so far). I was checking out Ph.D. programs (which they, unfortunately, don't have) when I found the blog and I didn't exit until I'd read everything there. Groothuis, like Moreland, is as sharp as a Ginsu, offering perceptive insights on some of today's most pressing issues. Add this to your bookmarks and read it when you can. Groothuis writes at a pace more like mine so, don't expect floods of material. But when he does post, expect nothing but the best. One of his posts, fortunately, is a review of Moreland's, The God Question. Thus, instead of writing a bunch myself, I can just link that review and be done. Thanks Professor Groothuis, I think I'll go take a nap.
But before my snooze, I'll leave you—as has become a veritable custom when I've read a book that qualifies—with the review entry for my annotated bibliography of Christian apologetics for The God Question.
"J.P. Moreland, The God Question: An Invitation to a Life of Meaning (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers: 2009).
It would not be outrageous to guess that if a first-rate Christian philosopher—one who has spent two-thirds of his life propounding the deepest aspects of Christianity in professional and academic settings—attempted to present the basics of those aspects to an audience unfamiliar with them, that confusion and misunderstanding would result. Not so with Moreland’s, The God Question. Moreland speaks primarily and directly to the skeptic of Christianity and, secondarily, those believers who have not been introduced to some of the basic issues in Christian philosophy and spirituality. What he’s said in thousands of pages of technical work in the past on arguments for the existence of God, the historical reliability of the New Testament and how to live a life of genuine spirituality and happiness, he says here in just 200 pages of conversational prose. And not only is he able to communicate these complex issues clearly, he does so winsomely, with passionate conviction and genuine concern for those who do not yet know God. This is a book to give to anyone who is interested in the rationality, coherence and meaning of a vibrant life as a disciple of Jesus but who isn’t yet able to plunge into the intellectual deep end of the Christian faith. Reading this book will move that person toward those deep waters, armed with many of the devices necessary for staying afloat as they get there."
Saturday, June 20, 2009
A Treasure Trove of New Testament Scholarship
A few weeks ago I came across quite an amazing site. It's a blog forum called PrimeTime Jesus. A bunch of Evangelical scholars, including Darrell Bock, Craig Blomberg and Dan Wallace, all contribute regularly about the latest media happenings that concern the New Testament. I've read several blog posts and can say that it's a great place to visit. It's a good way to keep on top of stuff that you'd never know about if someone didn't point it out. One of the most provocative and popular posts is Blomberg's criticism of a recent National Geographic piece. It's wonderful that these guys are making their work public and not keeping it confined to journals and books. Read and be enlightened, edified and encouraged.
In a related note, you should visit the Day of Discovery site. I can't vouch for any of the other programs that DOD puts out, but the Jesus: Man, Messiah or More? series is phenomenal. It has it's cheesy cinematic moments, as most Christian productions do, but the research presented is worth putting up with the cheese. A group of Evangelical scholars, known as the Jesus Group, which includes some who regularly post on PrimeTime Jesus, worked together for a decade, defending the historicity of the portrait of Jesus that's found in the Gospels against the many critical portraits that have arisen in recent decades. (And because I must, I'll note that the Jesus Group includes Mike Wilkins, Distinguished Professor of New Testament and Dean of the Faculty at Talbot School of Theology.) Each of the 8 shows are filmed in Israel, so it's much more exciting than just reading words on a page. Check it out if you get the chance.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Hmm, How Should I Put This?
On the recommendation of a friend, I just finished reading a little book called Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's Journey with the New Calvinists, by Collin Hansen. Hansen is an editor at large for Christianity Today and, as far as the major objective of the book is concerned, he did a fabulous job. He not only tracked down and interviewed some key figures in the so-called New Calvinism, like Al Mohler, John Piper and Mark Driscoll. Hansen also brought out the more representative views of some "laypeople" in the movement, as well. I was really excited to hear about the birth of thriving Evangelical Churches and the growth of solidly Evangelical seminaries all around the US. To read about thousands of young adults worshipping God, being passionate about theology and having a passion for evangelism and missions brings joy to the heart.
But I couldn't quite get as excited about the fact that most people cited in the book seemed to be as excited about Reformed theology/Calvinism as they were about their faith and about Scripture ("I've been saved for a while but I wasn't on fire for the Lord until I became a Calvinist," and "I read Scripture but it didn't make sense until I read it Calvinistically," are paraphrases of common comments found throughout the book). Granted, when you are able to make sense of something as huge as Christianity, you will be excited within the boundaries of the system that helps you make sense of it. Reformed theology in general, and Calvinism in particular, are pretty extensive in scope and can answer a lot of questions. So I understand the excitement to a point. But the author spun the data in such a way as to give the impression that Reformed theology/Calvinism is the great, undiscovered key to the future of Evangelicalism. This is how the Church will weather the storms of relativism and postmoderism. This is how the Church will reach this culture as well as others. I'm sorry, but I just don't think the Kingdom of God is limited to one denomination or theological system.
To be fair to the author's main point and to the gist of most comments, the bottom line of the conversation was God and His grace. But that is why I still feel so unsettled when reflecting on the book. Why do I still feel like I'm supposed to have a greater passion for Jonathan Edwards than for Augustine, Anslem or Aquinas? He's great, but he's not the only dead theologian that should inspire us. Why do I still feel like I should consider the recent explosion of Reformed theology/Calvinism as a theological resurrection from the dead? Reformed theology/Calvinism was never dead; I've known groups as passionate as any in the book for as long as I've been a Christian. I guess I just think that Hansen made this aspect of his case a little too strongly.
I'm going to close with a quote from the book that conveys a postion that I think gives a better tone than most of what is found therein. And it comes from an amazing New Testament scholar who is highly respected and who is providing the world with outstanding Evangelical theology and exegesis. If I were to call myself a Calvinist, I'd resonate with these following comments from Tom Schreiner:
"If a church asked me, 'Are you a Calvinist?' I'd say, "Yes, but I don't use the word Calvinism. I teach what Scripture says, and I explain it in terms of biblical theology, what the Bible as a whole is teaching, the framework of Scripture. That's what I want to teach this congregation. I want this church not to be a Calvinistic church but a biblical church. Now I think there's a lot of overlap there biblically. But we're not indebted to John Calvin; we're indebted to the Scriptures at the end of the day." (p. 85)
Thanks, Tom. May your tribe increase!
But I couldn't quite get as excited about the fact that most people cited in the book seemed to be as excited about Reformed theology/Calvinism as they were about their faith and about Scripture ("I've been saved for a while but I wasn't on fire for the Lord until I became a Calvinist," and "I read Scripture but it didn't make sense until I read it Calvinistically," are paraphrases of common comments found throughout the book). Granted, when you are able to make sense of something as huge as Christianity, you will be excited within the boundaries of the system that helps you make sense of it. Reformed theology in general, and Calvinism in particular, are pretty extensive in scope and can answer a lot of questions. So I understand the excitement to a point. But the author spun the data in such a way as to give the impression that Reformed theology/Calvinism is the great, undiscovered key to the future of Evangelicalism. This is how the Church will weather the storms of relativism and postmoderism. This is how the Church will reach this culture as well as others. I'm sorry, but I just don't think the Kingdom of God is limited to one denomination or theological system.
To be fair to the author's main point and to the gist of most comments, the bottom line of the conversation was God and His grace. But that is why I still feel so unsettled when reflecting on the book. Why do I still feel like I'm supposed to have a greater passion for Jonathan Edwards than for Augustine, Anslem or Aquinas? He's great, but he's not the only dead theologian that should inspire us. Why do I still feel like I should consider the recent explosion of Reformed theology/Calvinism as a theological resurrection from the dead? Reformed theology/Calvinism was never dead; I've known groups as passionate as any in the book for as long as I've been a Christian. I guess I just think that Hansen made this aspect of his case a little too strongly.
I'm going to close with a quote from the book that conveys a postion that I think gives a better tone than most of what is found therein. And it comes from an amazing New Testament scholar who is highly respected and who is providing the world with outstanding Evangelical theology and exegesis. If I were to call myself a Calvinist, I'd resonate with these following comments from Tom Schreiner:
"If a church asked me, 'Are you a Calvinist?' I'd say, "Yes, but I don't use the word Calvinism. I teach what Scripture says, and I explain it in terms of biblical theology, what the Bible as a whole is teaching, the framework of Scripture. That's what I want to teach this congregation. I want this church not to be a Calvinistic church but a biblical church. Now I think there's a lot of overlap there biblically. But we're not indebted to John Calvin; we're indebted to the Scriptures at the end of the day." (p. 85)
Thanks, Tom. May your tribe increase!
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Such Reminders Are Never Out of Date
I know the murder of abortion doctor, George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas is now several weeks past and is no longer headline news, but just in case you haven't come across Al Mohler's commentary on it, I wanted you to know about it. Sure, I probably wouldn't have pointed it out if Mohler hadn't turned it into an discussion of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (my son's and this blog's namesake), but his point is clear, well-argued and worth reminding everyone, lest anyone get the idea that murder is the right way to respond to murder.
Friday, May 22, 2009
"A" for Effort, "H"ilarious for Achievement
Driving home on Monday night, Dietrich (2 yrs., 8 mos.) and I listened to the Angels-Mariners game. About mid-game, with Chone Figgins at the plate, this is what most people heard ...
"Two balls and two strikes to Figgy."
In his continuing, wholehearted effort to figure out the ins and outs of baseball, this is how Dietrich processed and repeated the above call ...
"Two balls and a piggy!"
Clearly I have some more educating to do.
"Two balls and two strikes to Figgy."
In his continuing, wholehearted effort to figure out the ins and outs of baseball, this is how Dietrich processed and repeated the above call ...
"Two balls and a piggy!"
Clearly I have some more educating to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
