Jr. to the Braves?

According to today's Atlanta-Journal Constitution, my beloved Atlanta Braves have an interest in none other than "Junior"- that's Ken Griffey Jr. Eight years ago, I would have been thrilled to see the future Hall of Famer join the Braves, but I must confess that at this stage of his career, I would rather see the "Kid" return to where it all began in Seattle. Sentimental? Perhaps, but I just hate seeing the greats of the game bouncing from team to team. In my humble opinion, Griffey has always been associated with the M's, despite the seven or eight years spent in Cincinnati. Then, seeing Mr. Griffey in a ChiSox uniform last year was like, well, seeing Michael Jordan in a Washington Wizards uniform. It just wasn't right!! There's something right about seeing a Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn, etc... staying with one team for the entirety of their careers. Just as it was "right" to see Tom Glavine return to the Braves before the 2008 season, so I think it would be for Junior to return to Seattle. Ken, if you by some strange work of God's providence read this, please do not finish your career anywhere else but Seattle. With the image of Major League Baseball and its stars having taken a major blow in recent years, the game needs something "good" like this reunion to take place so that we have something positive to talk about. Oh, and memo to the aforementioned Mr. Glavine: Tom, please forgo any temptation to sign with the Washington Nationals or any other major league team- you're a Brave and should retire a Brave. Don't try to hang on longer and in doing so spoil your brilliant career.

When A Choice Is Not Celebrated

Having watched the NBC Dateline special tonight about Nadya Suleman, the California mother who recently gave birth to octuplets, I am dumbfounded how hypocritical the left (media) is. Let me preface this by saying that I believe that these children are in need of a father in their everyday lives. For as much as I admire this woman for wanting a large family and seeing that children are a blessing from God-which she acknowledged- I can't understand why she doesn't feel the need for a husband to be a father to these children. That being said, what caught my interest (not only on this program but in the media in general) is that those in our culture who are so steadfast in championing the rights of a woman are not standing up and applauding the choice of this woman. Where are the feminists? Why aren't they shouting out their praise for her desire to bring these children into the world sans a husband? Another head-scratcher is the outcry about this woman having all those children and yet having no income. Yes, it is causing a hardship on her and her family, and it is therefore causing her to receive tax payers dollars to support those children. Heck, if I'm really honest, I have to admit I don't like the irresponsible doling out of taxpayer dollars that our government continues to practice. However, we as a society are twisted when we will be outraged at this, and yet say "amen" to the "Mexico City policy" which President Obama overturned, allowing the U.S. to fund overseas organizations that promote and/or perform abortions. Finally, and the real "kicker", towards the end of the interview, Ann Curry makes the comment, "People are not trying to judge you. [Which is a lie] What they're trying to do is, it seems, trying to speak up for your children, who can't speak up for themselves. Your children cannot say, "What are you doing, Mom? What are you doing? My life, my future, is being affected by your decision." This kind of statement when coming from the media is deemed appropriate, and yet that is the argument that those who are pro-life are ridiculed over. We're not "concerned"- no, we're just "looney" or "intolerant." I pray that the Lord will provide a husband to this woman and father for her children. I pray that God would be gracious towards Ms. Suleman and her fourteen children.. Perhaps the American public who have bought into the lie of "choice" will see their own hypocracy tonight.

Baseball Stat Geek, or Christian Apologist?

My friend Rick recently loaned me some issues of the Baseball Research Journal and in one particular issue from 1985 was an interview with Bill James-baseball writer, historian, and statistician. In this interview, a discussion takes place concerning James' research and how people get upset with his evaluations. I found the following quotes very interesting in light of our postmodern society: James "The search for truth is a matter of finding the evidence and understanding it...But if a statement is true it's true-whether the person making the statement is an amateur or a professional doesn't matter...who you are doesn't have a thing to do with the validity of what you're saying." BF: "What you're talking about here, essentially is an objective truth." James: "...I'm not trying to convince anybody. I'm just showing what my research reveals. 'Look, here are the facts; this is what they mean.' Anybody who wants to believe it, I'm happy. But I don't have to convince any one individual, which is a lot more relaxing for me..." I think we Christians would do well by having that same mindset when we are engaged with unbelievers about our faith. A) Christianity is true, based on a historical person and an historical event. B) Just because we are not the cultural elitists doesn't mean the good news we proclaim is invalid. C) We can be confident that the lost will not come to faith because of our convincing them, but because salvation is a gift of grace from God, and apart from the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit no one would desire Christ.