March 29, 2010

Corporate Election and Baseball

I finally got an opportunity to listen to Dr. White and Dr. Brown's most recent debate. Very good and both of their parts. Naturally I think that Dr. Brown did much better, but I also agreed with his exegesis (as well as his style of exegesis) and I'm sure that played a big part of that. What frustrated me was the caricatures that White kept putting forth.

One of the interesting ones was the "impersonal nebulous group". He claims that if one chooses a group it is impersonal, and that group lacks real world definition.

Now I really like baseball. The crack of the bat, the sound of the parks, the smell of the grass, the feel of the ball in your hand, the drama of the pitcher and batter; it's great. Additionally, I am a Yankee fan. My father grew up in Staten Island, and I fell in love with baseball watching with my father. So I love the Yankees.

Now here's a question: is this not a corporate election? My selection of the Yankees is a corporate one, not an individual one. It is also not impersonal, because I care a great deal about Petite, Jeter, Posada, etc... Indeed, I still loved Petite when he went down to Texas, but my affection for him as a ball player is greater when he is wearing those pinstripes. And it is not like the Yankees is a nebulous group. Sure, some members come, some members go, but the group is a tangible existing thing in of itself. Finally, White criticized Dr. Brown's corporate view in Ephesians because of the use of personal pronouns. Yet most fans I know refer to their team using such terms. "We swept Chicago." "We're going to the World Series." "Well, we'll do better next year." I'm sorry, but Dr. White has simply not thought out this criticism at all.

It is like I have always said about Dr. White: he is an excellent apologist because he has a thorough understanding of his position, but he is a terrible polemicist because he never seems to comprehend what he is arguing against.

5 comments:

Jc_Freak: said...

Apparently, Brian Abasciano used this same ananology in his debate with Schreiner. I don't know if I simply remembered it, or whether I came came up with the idea after completely forgetting it. But because A) I don't want to steal someone else's ideas and B) this essay is such a wonderful presentation of corporate election, I offer you the essay.

bossmanham said...

This is a really good response to the awkward complaint from White.

Kevin Jackson said...

I love the comparison.

"It is like I have always said about Dr. White: he is an excellent apologist because he has a thorough understanding of his position, but he is a terrible polemicist because he never seems to comprehend what he is arguing against. "

You hit a home run there. ;)

drwayman said...

I think your analogy would have been better if you used another team. I have been upset with the Yankees ever since they lured Sabathia from the Indians with the highest contract a pitcher has ever acquired.

Otherwise, I'm OK with it. But you don't need my approval ;-)

Jc_Freak: said...

I used the Yankees because the Yankees are my team (and they're just awesome, let's face it). I have no regrets :)