Contributing to Society

I am struck by the contrast between a couple of famous deaths. Today it was announced that Senator Ted Kennedy died. The last of a political dynasty, he was way too liberal for my taste but there is no denying that he dedicated his adult life to public service. Though there are arch-conservatives who possibly are delighted that he is gone, there is a sense in which society is poorer for having lost him.

Then there is the model who was killed by her reality-show ex-husband. Now her death and his suicide are quite sad for them and those who knew them. However, can it be said that society is any worse off because of their departure?

I think the answer is No. It seems that the only concern of these two is how to gain fame and fortune from their good looks. They didn't have real jobs or careers that would make a difference in the life of another human being. They lived for themselves alone.

Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that society is better off without them or that I am in any way glad they are dead. But I just think that the contrast between how they chose to live their lives and how Ted Kennedy chose to live his is striking. Years from now, Kennedy will be remembered in some fashion for his contributions and the others will be completely forgotten. Why? Their real level of contribution to others.

Line of the Day

John Smoltz pitched decently and got the win over the Padres yesterday. The Boston castoff just might have enough left to hold down a starter spot in the Cardinals rotation the rest of the season.

The best line of the TV broadcast yesterday came from Rick Horton. Noting that both Julio Lugo and Smoltz were considered worthless enough by Boston to give them away, he said, "If I were John Mozeliak, I would be calling their general manager to see if they had any more players they didn't like."

He's baaaaaack

Amazing. Brett Favre actually signed a contract to play for the Vikings this year. I don't really care except to be amazed at how he can't seem to make up his mind. Or else he just enjoys stringing people along. Either way it's a bit odd.

I don't know how much he has left in the tank. Last year he was good early and not so good late. If Minnesota fans really think he is going to be the ticket to the Super Bowl, I think they are delusional. He might be better than their other quarterbacks (this is far from certain), but how much can he improve last year's 10-6 record?

I don't know what the final result will be, but I suspect that in the end, this story will be much ado about very little.

When Is It Time to Quit?

How old does a rocker have to be to hang it up? I guess as long as they can reasonably perform and there are still people who want to attend a concert, let them keep going. I saw 80+ year old BB King a couple of years ago and though he was far past his prime, it was still a good show. Good tight band and his playing is a good as ever. He never was a great singer, so that didn't matter.

However, the other day, I listened to a couple of tracks from the Crosby, Still, Nash, and Young album taken from their concert tour of 2006. Their harmonies were never as clean in concert as on record, so I understood the occasional raggedness there.

What did surprise me was how bad Stephen Stills sounded. His solo voice was never smooth, but at 61 it was just awful. Apparently he knows it. On Wooden Ships, the opening back-and-forth dialogue vocals are done by Crosby and Nash, rather than Stills and Crosby. When Stephen comes in on the chorus, he sounds ragged, but is largely hidden behind the harmonies.

The worst, however, is For What It's Worth. Here his vocal is out there for everyone to hear and he just can't hit clean notes any more. It's sad.

So what should he do? Quit? He still plays an outstanding guitar. People still want to hear CSN perform. Though Crosby and Nash still sound decent (especially considering their ages), I don't know how a concertgoer can ignore Stephen's voice.

Still, it is not my place to tell him to stop. I just don't know if I want to pay to hear.

Stop the Insanity

Recently, I blogged about being one of the few in my circles to admit to actually having voted for Barack Obama. Since most of those with whom I attend church or seminary are conservatives of the Bill O'Reiley/Sarah Palin variety, nothing that the president does will ever meet with their approval.

I don't think they are always fair or open-minded, but I can live with that. What amazes me is the lengths to which some people will go to smear Obama. Someone made this video that should sicken you, but will actually fire up some non-thinking Christians.

The contention is that when Jesus said, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven," the phrase "lightning from heaven" would have sounded in Aramaic (or Hebrew) like Barack Obama. The anonymous poster's points are these: (1) The Hebrew word for lightning is Barak. (2) The Hebrew word for heaven (or heights) is Bamah. (3) The conjunction waw which unites words is sometimes pronounced "O". Therefore, when Jesus said Satan was like lightning from heaven it sounded like Barack Obama.

First, if this were true, it is simply ludicrous to think that Jesus was leaving us a hint as to the identity of the future anti-Christ. This is like the Bible Code nonsense.

Second, several of his contentions are just wrong. (1) The Hebrew consonants for lightning is BRQ. The president's name is derived from the Arabic BRK, which means the same in Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic: to bless. (2) In the other 105 uses of BMH in the OT, it never refers to heaven. In Isa 14:14, BMH does not mean heaven either; rather, Satan declares he will ascend above the BMH of the clouds to get to heaven (Shamayim). (3) The conjunction waw when added to a word beginning with "B" will become a "U" sound. Despite his claims, no one who understands Hebrew pronounces it "O". Regardless, why would there be a conjunction here? That would make the translation "like lightning and heaven." It would never mean "from heaven." For that we would need the proposition "min".

The Aramaic (which Jesus probably spoke) words are pretty much the same as in Hebrew. To say "lightning from heaven" would be something like baraq min shamaya or baraq meshamaya. Since "lightning" is almost always plural in Hebrew and Aramaic, it would probably be more like baraqin meshamaya (Aramaic) or baraqim meheshamayim (Hebrew).

Don't you agree that it's a long way from baraqin meshamaya to Barak Obama?

Why a PhD?

When I started on my late-in-life educational journey, it was not with the goal of getting a PhD. Titles and letters after my name mean little to me; my goal was to teach. Twenty years ago, I probably could have been hired in one of our schools after getting a masters degree. Today, a PhD is required, if not officially, at least on a practical basis.

So for the last six years, though my long-term goal was still to teach, my short-range goal was finishing the PhD. Now that I'm done, I have the degree but no teaching job. A bit ironic, huh?

Since it is theoretically possible to teach undergrads with just a masters degree (and a friend of mine with only a masters got a job last year), then did the time I spent in a PhD program make me a better teacher? I have thought about this a while and the answer is, Yes.

I didn't learn any thing about how to teach. I learned more content, to be sure, but what the program really did for me is teach me how to read more effectively and evaluate what I read. I am much better at doing original research, rather than relying on what others tell me.

So though I spent these last six years getting more education when I possibly could have been teaching, I think that I, and my future students, will be better in the long run.

Now I just need a job.

It's Not Just a Job

Now that I have finished my doctoral program, I am just two days away from being unemployed. My only job the past five years has been as a student worker in the library at school. Since I am no longer a student, that comes to an end.

I am finishing in what has to be the worst year to be graduating with a PhD in my memory. Almost all colleges and grad schools have been hammered by reduced giving and shrinking endowment funds. There are very, very few jobs out there and too many of us chasing them.

So what do I do in the meantime. I have been asked several times if I might seek a church to pastor. Obviously, I could do that and could probably even find a church to take me. But it wouldn't be right.

I was a decent pastor. Some churches did well under my leadership. I started one that eventually closed. One church fired me. Quite a mixed bag.

But I really believed in 2000 that God was calling me away from pastoral ministry to teaching. Though I love the church and believe in the role of the pastor, I do not personally have the fire necessary to be one. That would not be fair to a church to try to fill the job when I wasn't wholly committed to it. (It also wouldn't be fair to my family who would have to go through the difficult moments of being the pastor's family if it were just a job.)

Because being a pastor is not just like any other job. It is not merely one of many vocations. To be a good, faithful pastor (notice I didn't say successful) is a life-consuming calling. Oh sure, when I was in the pastorate I took time for myself and my family. But I had no real hobbies or time-consuming interests. The church that I served was my life, as it should have been.

Since I do not have that burning in me at this time, I cannot take a church in good conscience. I suppose I could fill in during a vacancy, but that typically doesn't pay well enough. So I will probably do some accounting work while searching for that teaching position or next step that I haven't even considered.

But I won't pastor. That's more than a job.

Baseball Is Still the Greatest Sport

Football has probably supplanted baseball as this country's premier sport. More people watch it, talk about it, and gamble on it than any other. I don't understand it, but everyone has their own preference.

Baseball is hardly dying, however. Except for a few cities where their team is run poorly, baseball attendance is strong (for 81 games, not just 8 like in football). Though I am a Dodger fan, it has been fun to live in St. Louis the past few years. The fans here support the Cardinals, know something about the game, and wear their colors year-round. In this town at least, football comes in second (and as bad as the Rams are right now, you could make a case that hockey is #2).

Those who want to say that professional basketball has overtaken baseball are kidding themselves (see, Bill Simmons). The Lakers just won the championship, but ask the average person in LA his/her favorite sports team and the Dodgers will come out on top.

I said all that to say this: Football training camps have opened and the sports news is now led by reports from the teams. Really? The average fan is really more interested in the fact that a fourth-string wide receiver really impressed the coaches rather than the score of last night's baseball game? Somehow I doubt it. About the only thing that is interesting about football this time of year is to find out which player has already had a season-ending injury (which happens too often). I think the reason for all the reports is not the demands of the fans, but only to justify the amount of people on the payroll covering the sport.

So follow, if you wish, the news from camp about this player or that (you might need it for your fantasy team). In the meantime, I will sit back on a nice summer evening and enjoy a baseball game.