November 24, 2009

Sports

1 comments
My friend Chris and I have had some fun debating the word "sport". Well, it's not so much debating since we basically agree.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but there is an interesting thing going on with this word in America. I kinda of starts in High School, where cheerleaders attempt to refer to what they do as a sport, in an attempt to legitimatize its funding I think, and jocks, in umbrage, claim that it isn't. This extends into adult life, and for many sports fans, there is a strong desire to properly define the concept of sport. Personally, I don't find this a need. Rather, I just find it fun to define and categorize things. So, here are my playful attempts.

Definition

Technically, a sport is any activity done for fun, but we are looking at a more precise definition here. Within human society there have been particular competitions of physical endurance, strategy, and ability which have developed a sociological niche. This niche forms the foundation of much of male social interaction and is thus a source of great interest, development, time, and money.

However, how do we differentiate the competitions that truly fall under this niche and other forms of competitions and recreation? I think these definitions found at wikipedia are quite good attempts. The more offical one that it give is "Sport is commonly defined as an organized, competitive and skillful physical activity requiring commitment and fair play." However, I also liked the point this point that the article also made: "Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determinant of the outcome." I believe it is this second point that marks the primary difference between sports and other kinds of games.

Primarily a sport is about physical competition and ability. It is not simply a physical activity, nor is it simply a competition, but it is precisely a competition of a physical activity, and for a men, a test of masculinity. We men derive our sense of worth usually by our useful and ability. This isn't bad in small doses, just masculine. This is why sports find such a level of importance within the male world. Team camaraderie also demonstrates the primary social structure within which men naturally think.

In light of this, my friend Chris and I identified 4 major factors required for something to be a sport in the above sense of the word:
  1. Athleticism: It must require actual feats of athletic ability.
  2. Objective evaluation: By this it means that points, credit, or victory is awarded by the accomplishment of tasks, rather than a judges opinion of "how well" a task was performed. For instance, synchronized swimming is not a sport: its a dance competition. It is a valid competition and worthy of attention... I guess, but it is not really a sport. It is not the reason is because it is not the actual physical ability that is being judged by the beauty of movement. Compare this to boxing, where it is not how interestingly one punches, but whether one connects and where that matters.
  3. Competition: Yes, it must actually be a competition where there is a winner and a loser.
  4. The human body as the motor of the action: There is a difference between motorized sports, and true sports. Nascar fans often point out that in order to drive at those speeds one must have acute senses, and athletic strength to move the steering wheel. Well, that may be true, but from mere observation of the difference between Nascar fans, and how Nascar is followed when compared to other sports, one can tell that it doesn't quite fit the same niche. The reason is, fundamentally, those athletic abilities are not really the thing that is being tested. It is the motor of the car. Compare that to a bike race, where it is actually the person's body propelling the bike forward. It is the human endurance and leg strength that is being tested, and it is treated like other sports.
Considering these requirements we can define a sport as an objective recreational competition of human physical ability.

Categories

Now, just for kicks and giggles, I took the time to divide all sports into neat categories. That's right, this is what I call fun. I am a dork. Anyway, here's my list:
  1. Club Sports: Club Sports are the primary games that most think of when they think of "sports" as a category. In each Club Sport there is an area of play, usually called a field, but not always. This area is divided into two halves with a goal on either side. There are then two teams, and each team is assigned one of the two goals. There is then an object. The objective of the game is to put this object into the opposing side's goal as often as possible, while preventing the other team from doing likewise. The variations are usually based upon what this object is, and the rules for moving this object around. Sometimes the goal itself is modified.

    Examples of these sports include Hockey, Basketball, Polo, Rugby, Ultimate Frisbee, Lacross, and the exemplar of the category: Soccer (Football to those of you in Britain). The oddest example though is American Football. Football actually has two goals, and the amount of rules for moving the football around are massive, especially with it's stop and start format. However, it still fits within the same category.

  2. Volley Sports: This is the second largest category. In each Volley Sport there is an area of play, usually called a court, but not always. There is a object that is in play, as well as two teams (sometimes consisting of one person each). The objective of the game is to essentially hit the object back and forth between you, each hit being called a volley. A side is awarded a 'point' if the other side fails to return the volley. There are certain rules which determines whether or not a volley is legal, consisting of many times the object can be hit, how the object is hit, how many times the object bounces before or after being hit, and whether or not it stays in bounds.

    Beyond this, it is important to mention two subcategories. First is Net Volley Sports, where the court is divided in two with a net running down this division and either team needing to remain on either side of it. In this category, for a volley to be legal it must be hit over the net to the other side of the court and remain in bounds. Examples of this include Volleyball, Badmitton, Four Square/Two Square, and, of course, Tennis.

    The second subcategory is Wall Volley Sports, where the court remains intact, both teams sharing the same area, with a large wall on one side of the court. In this category, for a volley to be legal, it must be hit against the wall and then remain in bounds. Examples of this include Handball and Racketball.

  3. Bat-and-Ball Sports: This one is most easily described by its examples, namely Cricket, Baseball, and Baseball's derivatives (kickball, softball, etc...). B&B sports have some rather special features. First of all, the defense has control of the ball (it's always a ball here). At any given point, one side is completely on the offense, while the other the defense since both are doing completely different activities.

    As for the rules, at designated locations on the field, one member of the defense, throws the ball to one member of the offense. The offensive player then hits the ball into the field. The defense then must fetch the ball, and bring it back to where the offensive player is, as the offensive player attempts to reach a base, which is a designated location where the player is 'safe'. If the defense brings the ball back to the offensive player before the offensive player is at the base, that player is out of play. Points are scored by how successfully the player reaches the bases (in Baseball it is one point if all for bases are reached; in Cricket it is one point each time a base is reached). After a certain number of outs, the two teams switch sides. Variations can be defined by comparing Baseball and Cricket.

  4. Target Sports: Target Sports are very simple. You have an object and a target. Players take turns projecting the object towards the target and is then awarded points based off of the quality of the hit (or the number of attempts to reach the target). Whoever has the better score after a certain number of attempts wins.

    However, the variety here is tremendous. How the points are tallied will vary due to the how different some of the targets are, and how differently one projects the object. For instance, the most basic style is like darts, curling or archery, where the target is a bullseye, and points are awarded based off of zones which show how close you get to the middle. However, in golf or croquet, points are negative and are based on how many tries it takes you to reach the target. Then there is bowling and nine-pins, where the target is a set of precariously placed pins that you try to knock-over. Then there's bocce, where you get points pased on how many balls you get close to the pauline. The possibilities are endless.

  5. Track and Field: All these sports come down to a basic contest of how well one can accomplish one particular task. In other words, who can run the fastest, throw the farthest, or jump the highest. All races fall under this, as well is the pole-vault, shotput, long jump, etc...

    Once could place Target Sports within this category, especially archery and its ilk, but the primary difference between Track and Field and Target Sports is that Target Sports tend to be scored with discrete numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, etc...) , while Track and Field tend to be scores with analog numbers (measured with a decimal points). Another way of saying this is that one's accomplishments in Field and Track Sports are measured, while in Target Sports, they are counted. This creates a very real difference, especially in terms of the feel of the sport.
    (One could argue that you could design a target sport where one measures how far the projectile is from the center of a target. Well, fine. That would essentially be a hybrid. I have no problem with that. )

  6. Combat: Ok, I think this is easy. This is where two people fight, and points are awarded by whether or not the person made contact and other objective standards. Absolute incapacitation of an opponent usually is considered an automatic win. This includes, boxing, wrestling, fencing, and pretty much any martial arts style one can think of.

October 27, 2009

What's been going on with me

2 comments
Those who have been keeping up with this blog may have noticed that I haven't been keeping up with it very well as of late. The reason for this is because I've been busy looking for a pastoral position. I graduated seminary about a year ago, but at the end of August, my pastor told me that he thought I was ready to begin truly pastoring. So, from then on, I've been looking.

It has actually been rather difficult. It isn't like looking for other kinds of jobs. Number one, it isn't about going for the position you like the best. It is about finding the right fit. There is a relational aspect of pastoring that can't be ignored. So rather important factors, like money or location, can't be the primary qualifications. I have to primarily look at the people of the church.

Second, it is much more difficult to find a those looking for a pastor. It's all about networking rather than want ads.

Finally, there are papers, and sermons, and other such things that I've needed to prepare to include in my resume. So that it a bit of work to add.

All in all, I hope that you guys can pray for me. This is my launch into the rest of my life, and it is rather important that God stays at the steering wheel here. There is one church that I really pray for right now, but it is not about me, but God's will. So please pray that He will guide me, and prepare the way for me.

Thanks.

October 12, 2009

Unchristian
Part VIII: Conclusion

3 comments
Introduction
Hypocrisy
Proselytizing
Antihomosexual
Sheltered
Too Political
Judgmental
Conclusion

Quite frankly, I liked this book a lot. It was very fair and balanced in its approach. I was a little worried that it was just going to tell us Christians how we were doing everything wrong, but instead, it focused on saying, "Look, here is how we are being understood. Is this what we want?"

In that way, the book was very pragmatic. It isn't saying we are being immoral. Instead, it is saying that how we are doing things isn't working, and if it isn't working, we should try something else.

Now in many ways even the early church was misunderstood. Many thought they were cannibals (Eucharist language) and atheists (because they didn't worship idols). That's going to happen to us too as more and more of the culture becomes ignorant on what Christianity teaches. But instead of becoming upset at this, we should instead take it as an oppurtunity to get back to our roots, and focus on the heart of the message: Jesus Christ. We should focus on making sure that that message is communicated, and no others.

Therefore let us reach out to one another in love, and focus on the finisher of our faith, and put away the petty things that are dividing us. If Jesus is proclaimed, who cares about the rest?

October 11, 2009

Ephesians 2:4-5; A Devotional

0 comments
But, being rich with mercy, God, through His great love with which He has loved us though we were dead in trespasses, has made us alive with Christ (by grace you have been saved)
The point of Paul telling us where we have come from in the past couple of verses is to make clear to us the boundless mercy and grace that has been giving to us. The point of the concepts of mercy and grace is that we do not deserve them.

And that is one of the principle differences between Christianity and any other faith (at least that I am aware of). In man-made religions, humans achieve a particular end, by some means. In Christianity, we are rescued from our own nature.

Lord, Thank you for the marvelous salvation that you have bestowed upon us! Thank You for Your unending grace to us. I can never fully understand it Lord. I can never fully grasp why You would sacrifice so much for us, who are so little. We praise Your name!

October 7, 2009

Unchristian
Part VII: Judgmental

0 comments
Introduction
Hypocrisy
Proselytizing
Antihomosexual
Sheltered
Too Political
Judgmental
Conclusion

Kinnaman's Thoughts

There are two points of Kinnaman's that I think are incredibly valuable. First he identifies 4 types of judgmental attitudes:
  1. Wrong Verdict: Simply coming to an erroneous conclusion about a person or situation. This is usually what it is that we think of when we think of being judgmental.
  2. Wrong Timing: This is when you come to an accurate conclusion about something, but express it at an inappropriate time. Why is this judgmental? Because , you are passing judgment on the person without thinking about communicating to them. Essentially, you are only passing judgment. You aren't trying to achieve anything with that judgment.
  3. Wrong Motivation: I think this one is pretty obvious. It is when we are right about our judgment, but act out that judgment in an inappropriate fashion. Are we acting out of a sense of justice, or vindictiveness? Is it about doing the right thing, or about revenge?
  4. Playing Favorites: This is the opposite. This is giving grace only to certain persons, while showing sternness to others (sound like any theology?).
All of these attitudes get in the way of reaching out to people. Being insensitive demonstrates to people that you don't really care about them. In the end, that's the biggest problem. If we are trying to reach out to people, then it has to be about them, not about us. If it isn't motivated by love and an honest desire to save them, than what is it?

That is the other thing that Kinnaman talked about: Pride. Often, instead of love, we are motivated by pride. We automatically think that we are better than the people around us. After all, we're saved and they aren't. However, we should never confuse being in a superior place with actually being superior. I found the translation of Romans 2:1,4 that he uses interesting:
You may be saying, "What terrible people you have been talking about!" (see Romans 1) But you are just as bad, and you have no excuse! When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are condemning yourself, for you do these very same things... Don't you realize how kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Or don't you care? Can't you see how kind he has been in giving you time to turn from you sin?
My Thoughts

I think the fundamental problem that much of evangelical Christianity has right now is realizing taht being correct isn't the same thing is being right. Often we think that the accuracy of our opinions justifies how we present these opinions.

Now is there a place and time for speaking harshly, and critically? Yes, there absolutely is. Being it is only within the context of a relationship that gives you the right to do so; a relationship that we currently do not have in the general population. A credible report needs to be established that lets a person know that what you say matter. This cannot be assumed simply because we had it in the past.

Now, I'm giving some Christians more credit than they deserve here. Let's face it, there are a lot of jerks in the church right now, many of them in leadership. But, I'm not speaking to those people here because they (A) would never read this blog anyway and (B) wouldn't recognize I was talking to them even if they did.

I think it is more important for us who honestly mean well to recognize that we need to be careful how we say things. Being correct isn't good enough. We need to stop and consider how a person will understand what it is that we are saying, and adjust how we say it accordingly. This means that we need to listen to them, and know where they are coming from before we speak.

October 5, 2009

Unchristian
Part VI: Too Political

0 comments
Introduction
Hypocrisy
Proselytizing
Antihomosexual
Sheltered
Too Political
Judgmental
Conclusion

Many view Christians purely in terms of the political right. To them, we are activists of a particular brand of politics and have nothing much to offer apart from that. This is a problem in that the Church should not be defined by politics, though we should engage in them.

Kinnaman's Thoughts

Kinnaman sees the problem, not in terms of what our politics are, but in terms of how we go about engaging poltics. At the end of the chapter, he makes a series of observations and solutions to this problem:
  • unChristian: Christians rely too heavily on political
    Christlike: We are cautious not to place too much emphasis on politics

  • unChristian: Christians get enamored with politics
    Christlike: There is nothing gained by winning elections if we lose our soul in the process

  • unChristian: Christians drown out and demonize the voices of others
    Christlike: Respect our enemies and be aware of our capacity for myopia

  • unChristian: Christians do not respect leaders whose political viewpoint is different from their own.
    Christlike: Respect and listen to our leaders and pray for them

  • unChristian: Christians are hypocrites when it comes to politics
    Christlike: In trying to solve problems in society, be vigilant about our own capacity for hypocracy.
My Thoughts

Personally, I like Kinnaman's balance here. He is correct that Christians need to be engaged in politics because we want to make a positive difference in this world. I would add that Christians have a responsibility to be involved in politics because we are called to that positive difference.

But he is also right that politics should not be our focus. They are, by nature, complex, and any attempt to say that "such and such" is the clear Christian perspective on an issue usually fails to grasp the complexity.

For instance, let us take the issue of abortion. Now I'm against it because I believe it is completely Unchristian to allow millions of babies to die every year by government hands. This logic to be is unpenetrable. But I also realize that no pro-abortion person supports the killing of babies. What they reject is the notion that we are even dealing with a baby.

Another basic problem is that political agenda should not be the primary test for fellowship. Any church should be able to exist with different political views within it since the basis for fellowship is commitment to Jesus Christ. Yes, certain views should not be possible, but if we are focused on heavenly things, then we should not be as concerned with what happens in this world. If America falls, the kingdom of God will survive. We need to be OK with that.

October 3, 2009

Ephesians 2:3; A Devotional

0 comments
Along with them, we all once lived by the passions of our flesh, doing the desires of the body and of the mind. Like the rest of them, we were children of wrath.
What do you think when you see a non-Christian? One of the problems of American Christianity is that most Christians do not understand the difference between the Church and America. This has caused a few problems. One, we don't tend to trust non-American Christian bodies. Two, we except someone to behave like a Christian simply because they are an American.

However, the world is worldly. We need to remember this. We do not look down at those in the world and see how far beneath us they are. We look at them and recognize that of ourselves, we are no better. We are the same. Any good aspect of ourselves comes strictly from God's grace!

Instead of seeing them simply of children of wrath, we need to seem them as potential children of grace. Just like we are no better than them, they are also no worse than us, and have just as much access to God's grace.

So I encourage you this week to reach out to those around you. Spread the grace around. Don't be like some that hoard God's grace for themselves and their cliches; distribute it to all. After all, it is the will of God that all be saved.