"Satch, Dizzy, & Rapid Robert": A Review

Before Jackie Robinson and the Brooklyn Dodgers integrated Major League Baseball in 1946, white and black professional ballplayers competed against one another in barnstorming tours in the fall and winter of each year. In "Satch, Dizzy & Rapid Robert," historian Timothy M. Gay provides a history of that era, capturing both the prejudice and discrimination characterizing those times and the hopeful events of these tours.

While numerous other stars, both white and black, are covered, Mr. Gay focuses on the contributions of the three players named in the title. Lanky in physique, and mercurial in personality, Satchel Paige would certainly have been universally regarded as one of the greatest players of his time if he had been permitted to play in the white leagues earlier in his career. Past age 40 when he was finally allowed to pitch in the Majors, he nonetheless put together some solid years in the big leagues.

Dizzy Dean and Bob Feller are neither lionized nor demonized in the book. While they are praised for participating in tours that helped open the door to integrating baseball -- at a time when many white players refused to compete against black players and MLB frowned on the inter-racial off season games -- it is also noted that Messrs. Dean and Feller primarily engaged in these events for money making purposes, not for social ones.

Modern baseball fans will be surprised at the number of innings pitched, working almost daily at times, during these tours. While the strain of barnstorming probably contributed to the early retirement of Mr. Dean (though he ultimately hurt his arm by changing his motion after a line drive broke his toe), it did not seem to affect either Mr. Paige or Mr. Feller.

While the book covers much interesting ground about a world that is thankfully foreign to the modern reader, it sometimes suffer from a travel log type style, with repetitive recounting of cities, crowd sizes, and numbers of hits and strikeouts by various players. Nonetheless, the descriptions of the various personalities involved, as well as anecdotes from the various tours, make this book a recommended read for any baseball fan.

2011: Full of Sound and Fury

The age old question of whether a tree falling in an uninhabited forest makes a sound held no relevance to the events of 2011. The nations raged and nature unleashed her fury. Only the coming years will determine the consequence.

The year began with the bang of a gavel, as Nancy Pelosi handed over the reins of the House of Representatives to John Boehner. Republicans had taken control of the House as the result of a seismic election overthrowing the Democrats in the public's retaliation against Obamacare and other obstinancies. Nonetheless, the nation's political attention quickly moved outside the Beltway as the result of one of the year's tragic incidents -- the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords at a campaign event in her home state. Ms. Giffords was critically injured, and others died at the scene. The perpetrator was a deranged man with no coherent political philosophy, but people opposed to the free speech rights of others feigned concern over the rise of uncivil political rhetoric in order to silence their opponents. The President gave a thoughtful speech on the subject that will be little noted nor long remembered, because no one really cared about the issue. A couple of months later, when union protesters in Wisconsin painted Hitler-like moustaches on posters featuring Governor Walker, those previously concerned about uncivil rhetoric were no where to be found. By year end, Ms. Giffords had recovered to some degree, managing to cast a key vote in the House and attend the final launching of the space shuttle Atlantis, which included her astronaut husband on board.

The American economy continued to lag along, seemingly avoiding a recession, but not generating enough growth to move unemployment much below 9%. An enormous disaster in Japan -- the result of a massive earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear catastrophe -- an ongoing debt crisis in Europe, Middle East turmoil, and decreasing confidence in the U.S. government all created headwinds for what would have likely been slow growth in any event. Recognizing the public's concern about the public debt, the divided American government did the best it could: it created a Commission under circumstances that made its year end failure almost certain, thus kicking any reforms related to spending and entitlements a year further down the road. Those who created the debt crisis largely blamed those who want to restrain spending for S&P's downgrading of the U.S. debt rating. President Obama, who for the most part was not present for negotiations, blamed Congress.

None of this is to say that nothing was happening in Washington. NY congressman Anthony Weiner was caught sending women pictures of his -- well, of himself. President Obama bowed to pressures from within his party and dallied on granting permits for the building of a pipeline from Canada to the gulf coast that would largely alleviate American dependence on foreign oil. Attorney General Eric Holder was at the center of a scandal involving the delivery of arms to Mexican drug cartels, but remains in his job. Billions of dollars wasted on a bankrupt green energy firm, Solyandra, has also gone unpunished.

In years past, Obama bewailed American interventions in the Middle East, while neo-conservatives cheered them, but they made for strange bedfellows as protesters in Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere sought to overthrow their tyrannical governments. On the theory that American forces were not stretched thinly enough, the United States launched an air war against Libya and Moammar Qaddafi under the guise of a NATO action in order to avoid the constitutional nicety of consulting Congress. The United States has still not been engaged in a war, in the declared sense, since 1945, and none of the candidates seeking to replace Obama seems to think it an issue. Nonetheless, the Libyan strongman was ultimately overthrown, his brutal murder being recorded on videotape. New governments in Libya and Egypt, however, would seem to portent less an "Arab spring" than a regression toward Islamic fundamentalism. Osama Bin Laden was also killed by American special forces. While Osama's death was welcome, Americans have possibly not thought enough about the potential implications of the acceptance and openness about this form of military action. As the Middle East revolutions turned bad, the American media stopped paying attention, though they did find available resources to cover Prince William's wedding, where they breathlessly reported that Kate's younger sister was better looking. Stop the presses.

American forces leaving Iraq and Afghanistan reminded the American public that they were still there.

In general, it was a bad year for journalism. David Broder and Andy Rooney died. They will not be replaced. Christopher Hitchens, sadly, met his Maker. The press spent too much time wondering why the nation could not appreciates its brilliant President. Meanwhile, in Britain, a media outlet owned by Rupert Murdoch was caught wiretapping.

In North Korea, Kim Jong Il, who had convinced his population that he was so pure as to have no need for defecation, improved the world by his death, though it is not known whether his son will be any better.

In addition to Japan, Mother Nature unfurled her wrath in other places. New Zealand and Turkey also endured massive earthquakes. Joplin, Missouri was the most notable of several American cities hit by vicious tornadoes. Given these cataclysms, a small group of people given far too much attention became convinced by a radio minister named Harold Camping that the world was going to end in May -- no make that October. It did not. People of such a mindset are now turning to 2012 and the Mayans.

For those seeking diversions in sports, it was a mixed year. The Packers and Steelers invaded the frozen tundra of the Jerry Dome, and the Cheeseheads won the Super Bowl. In baseball, two playoff spots were determined in final innings on the last day of the season, and the most dramatic World Series in over 30 years went to the Cardinals after the Rangers could not close the deal. In the aftermath, Albert Pujols decided that he was no Stan Musial.

It is sometimes said that sports build character, and there have been few characters in sports more vile than Penn State's Jerry Sandusky, who was at the center of the worst scandal in the history of college and professional athletics. Failure to aggressively react to information about an alleged child molester has ruined the previously pristine reputation of Joe Paterno.

It has now been 15 years since the Dallas Cowboys appeared in a Super Bowl, but Jerry Jones remains the general manager, and it appears that the owner will not replace him. Scourge of the NFL Al Davis died. The NBA went on strike, but no one noticed.

The Casey Anthony case proved once again the capacity of the American public to obsess over the trivial while also further discrediting the American legal system. However, in the Conrad Murray case, a California jury finally got a big trial right. In business, a group of professional protesters angry at Washington bailouts decided to occupy Wall Street, in New York. Copy cat protests broke out across the country. At the University of Tampa, a protester explained that school was not just about partying: there was protesting. Studying never came up. The "Occupy" movement began to be broken up by law enforcement due to increasing crime problems. Steve Jobs passed away. His ability to innovate prevented Apple from maturing into obsolescence. American Airlines filed for bankruptcy.

Were any good movies made in Hollywood this year? Perhaps the remake of True Grit. Liz Taylor died, as did James Arness and Peter Falk. Amy Winehouse's life ended as many feared.

Given the state of the economy, one might think that Obama's re-election chances would be nil, but Republicans are doing their best to revive his odds. Sarah Palin wisely stayed out, but Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, and Chris Christie disappointed serious people by either withdrawing or deciding not to run. Donald Trump threatened to run while garnering publicity talking about Obama's birth certificate, but mercifully backed out. Meanwhile, those running engaged in a game of musical chairs in pursuit of the front runner's seat. Mitt Romney remains the favorite, in spite of his plethora of flip flops. Rick Perry's candidacy generated much enthusiasm before it was undermined by his IQ. Republicans turned off by Herman Cain's woman problems briefly flirted with Newt Gingrich. Rick Santorum has recently surged in Iowa, but he has little organization elsewhere. Jon Huntsman has staked out the most articulate and conservative positions on the issues, but his clumsy decision to run as the Republican most likable to non-Republicans probably ensures his defeat. Ron Paul continues to get enthusiastic support from the fringes of the party.

Czech playwright Vaclav Havel died. Both a man of courage and a brilliant thinker, Havel was among those that helped establish governments in eastern Europe in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

It was a year of sound and fury. Signifying what?

Don't Fix Your Transmission Here

If you need a transmission repair in the DFW area, it sounds like you would want to avoid the guy described in this article from the Fort Worth Star Telegram. The shop goes by the name Einstein Transmission Repair. I have never done business with or met the owner, so I can't accuse him of incompetence, fraud or criminal activity, but it sounds like there are a lot of complaints elsewhere on the internet.

Should Christians Vote Romney?

Martin Luther famously said that he would rather be governed by a competent infidel (actually, he said a competent "Turk," but I'm updating the language to convey the thought) than an incompetent Christian. Luther's thought comes to mind as certain Christian evangelicals take to considering the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney.

I should hasten to add that my writing on this subject should not be taken as an effort to support Mr. Romney. I have not yet decided who to vote for in the Republican primaries, and I am sympathetic with those who would like to see a strong alternative to the former governor of Massachusetts , who has flipped and flopped too much along the path to his candidacy to suit my own tastes. However, while I don't care much about the candidacy of Mr. Romney, I do care intently about whether those who speak for the Church think Christianly, and that is why I address this subject.

Thus, when one Rev. Robert Jeffress thunders from the diminishing pulpit of the First Baptist Church in Dallas that Christians should not vote for Mr. Romney because he is a Mormon, my immediate question is, "Why?"

Well, the answer comes back, Christians should not support Mr. Romney because Mormonism is not Christian. That is true. Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, believe things, particularly with regard to the Trinity, but many others also, that Mormons do not believe. As an intellectual matter, Mormonism differs significantly from Christian orthodoxy. However, once we resolve that, my response is still, "So?"

If a person is not a Christian, that should deeply concern us about the state of his soul, but there is no biblical reason that would preclude him from being an acceptable President. A decision regarding my vote is dependent on the candidate's competence for office, agreement with my concerns and views on the issues of the day, and trustworthiness. None of these require the officeholder to be a Christian. Now, because trustworthiness is an aspect of general moral character, I suppose that it could be argued that a Christian has an advantage, but given that many non Christians have generally solid character, and given the number of very public Christian moral failings, both in the political and religious spheres, in recent years, one might be cautioned about making that argument with a straight face. Good Christian teaching notices that believers are saints and sinners at the same time, and life experience provides all too abundant evidence that both sides of that teaching are true.

Good Christian theology addresses two issues that are relevant here: 1) the church and the state, while both ordained by God, have fudamentally different functions and, thus, different qualifications for leadership; and 2) God's common grace to mankind means that there is a general moral order and disbursement of skills and gifts among all human beings. One does not have to be a Christian to excel as a writer, thinker, athlete, or politician, or in any other profession. God causes it to rain (meaning He brings refreshment to) on the just and the unjust alike.

In short, I don't have to be concerned whether my plumber or dentist is a Christian or not, as long as they are able to fix my pipes and teeth. Respectively. The same principle is true of those running for public office.

Christian engagement in politics has created a lot of confusion about Christianity in recent decades, both among Christians and non Christians. I note that Glenn Beck, who is also a Mormon, is now being introduced as a "Christian leader." While that is perhaps inevitable for a political movement that has come to define Christianity in terms of a set of moral guidelines for individuals and society, it is most unfortunate for those who understand Christianity to be a religion about what God has done in Christ. If opposition for Mr. Romney comes from the notion that he has shown too little principle by his frequently shifting positions, I can agree with that. If opposition comes from the notion that a non Christian should not be President, you're wrong.

.

What does it mean to read the Bible covenantally?

In a Facebook status update last week, I made mention of the joy found in reading the Bible covenantally. Since that day, it has been on my mind to write something more at length regarding what is meant by that.

Most of the time the term "theology" is used with regard to particular doctrines or teachings of the Christian religion -- the doctrine of God, the doctrine of sin, the doctrine of the atonement, and so forth. However, the term "covenant theology" does not refer to a doctrine. Rather, the term refers to a type of hermeneutic -- that is, an interpretive system -- through which Scripture is to be understood. Now, someone may ask, why should we start off with an interpretive scheme when approaching the Bible instead of letting the Bible speak for itself? I will answer that in a moment, but first I should briefly explain what covenant theology means with regard to its approach to Scripture.

Understanding the glory of God as constituting the ultimate end of all things, and viewing the themes of creation, fall, and redemption as being central to the biblical message as to God's intention for His creation, we can discern three covenantal strands running their way through Scripture:

1. The Covenant of Redemption, made among the three persons of the triune God, regarding the plan of God to create all things, to permit the fall, and to redeem a people for Himself, as well as the means by which that redemption will be accomplished.

2. The Covenant of Works, made by God with Adam as the federal head of the human race. Adam, in behalf of us all, failed to meet the stipulations of the covenant, bringing death to the human race. The Covenant of Works is also seen in modified form in God's covenant with Israel at Sinai, which was intended as a covenant of national preservation and was never intended as a means of personal salvation. While Sinai in many ways represents a works covenant, it is important to note that it is modified in its provision of means for forgiveness for failures to meet its stipulations. The Sinaitic covenant also contains much that in shadows and types points to Christ.

3. The Covenant of Grace, entered into with Adam after the fall, renewed dramatically and vividly through Noah, Abraham, and David, and finding its ultimate fulfillment in Christ, who alone fulfilled the requirements of the Covenant of Works and thereby offers to us the privileges of the righteous wholly by His grace. Christians understand that we are saved by works, but the works that save us are not our own, but rather we are saved by the righteousness of Christ.
There is much more that can be said here, and perhaps I will write more in a future note, but for now I said that I would explain why having an interpretive approach is appropriate and even important.


While some people might suggest that one should approach the Bible with no preconceived interpretive scheme, this is not only inadvisable, it is impossible. Whether by academic training in theology or philosophy or by presuppositions based on life experience, or some combination thereof, everyone brings interpretive assumptions not only to the Bible, but to any text, religious or otherwise. The question is whether our interpretive suppositions are consistent with the message of the text or whether they are imposed upon it as an alien philosophy. For clarity, I am talking about how presuppositions must be assessed in order to understand a text. This is a different question from that of how presuppositions are appropriately utilized in critiqing a text. My point here is to suggest how Scripture is to be understood. In any event, understanding must precede evaluation and/or criticism.


In the popular, nonacademic, sphere, there are many philosophies alien to Scripture that will lead a person down the wrong path. For example:

1. If a person reads the Bible legalistically, they will certainly find much support for their perspective that religion is about living by a list of do's and don'ts, but Bunyan was right that such a view is like a series of steep and perilous cliffs posing a danger to the soul.
2. In our day, it is common for people to read the Bible through a therapeutic mindset. Such people manage to suppose, for example, that the death of Christ reveals human value, when actually it was a judicial punishment revealing the depth and extent of our sins. Christ died to deliver us from sin and death, not to help us feel better about ourselves.
3. Many conservative Christians have been taught the dispensational system of Christian thought. This view, which arose during the 19th century, divides history into a series of dispensations, periods in which God administered life for his people in differing fashions. Dispensationalism, at least in its classic form, misunderstands personal salvation under the Old Testament, exaggerates the discontinuity between the Old Testament and the New, and misapprehends the relationship between Israel and the Church. This view has also done great damage through its unbiblical, paranoid misunderstanding of biblical teaching regarding the last days.

There are also academic fads that have misled:

1. Liberation theology, the view that made the news 3 years ago when it was said to be the viewpoint of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is an attempt to impose Marxist philosophy on the scriptural data that first arose among Latin American Catholic theologians and then spread to other groups. However, the effort to turn the Bible's promises of deliverance from the oppression of sin into a promise of sociopolitical deliverance from bourgeoisie oppression is not credible.

2. Classical liberalism, and many of the forms of liberalism that succeeded it, represents an effort to impose naturalistic philosophy on the Bible. Surely, philosophical presuppositions favoring materialism will not lead to a proper understanding of the Bible.

In order to understand Scripture, we must allow the biblical data to provide the basis for our interpretive approach. The Bible's message to us provides the means by which we understand the Bible. Clearly, the central message of the Bible is that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. That reconciliation was planned in eternity past, and it reaches its consummation in eternity future. Reading the Bible in this covenantal fashion brings great joy and hope to the reader.

Airline fees

Airline analysts, serving the interests of the industry, maintain that baggage fees are the only thing that helped airlines make a profit last year. However, I would note that the only airline that is consistently profitable, Southwest, does not charge the fees. Airlines make a mistake by ignoring the customer loss due to anger over the extra fees -- or by assuming that such anger has dissipated over time.

That is why I fly Southwest whenever it makes sense -- even if it means having to make a connection. AA and USAir lose my business because of their fees -- and I fly 3-4 times a month.

Christ Is Risen

One of the worst of frequently sung Christian hymns rises to this rousing, if questionable, conclusion: "You ask me how I know He lives? He lives within my heart."

The zeal with which these words of old time religion are sung may serve to mask the fact that this idea is thoroughly unbiblical. The New Testament writers did not seek to prove the actuality or the implications of the resurrection of Christ by resorting to private matters of the heart. Rather, they pointed to evidence that was open for all of the world to see and invetigate. Less than two months after the Crucifixion, the Apostle Peter stood out in the open in the city where it had happened and said to his listeners: you killed him, God raised Him. You know it happened: repent and believe.

The most extensive biblical passage on Easter evidence occurs in I Corinthians 15, where Paul lays it all on the line. If Christ is not risen, he says, then there is no future hope for us either. If Christ is not risen, we are still doomed in our sins. If Christ is not risen, we have deceived you. If Christ is not risen, then His followers are miserable people. If Christ is not risen, Paul essentially says, skip the religion thing and live and let live.

But, he argues, Christ really is risen, and the opposite of all of the above consequences are true as a result. Given the high stakes, Paul could have resorted to the feelings of his heart, but he didn't. Christ really died, Paul says: He was buried. Then He really rose from the dead: Peter saw Him. Then, the other Apostles saw Him. Then over 500 people saw Him at the same time. Some of them are still alive, Paul says. Go depose them and find out what they know

You ask me how I know He lives? Well, there is an empty tomb in Jerusalem

Today, we are not exactly sure where the tomb was -- there are at least a couple of competing theories -- but first century Jewish and Roman officials knew its precise location, and according to nearly contemporary historical accounts, they struggled to respond to the fact that the tomb was empty. The Jewish Sanhedrin Court and Roman officials conspired to lie and say that the body had been stolen, a theory that was improbable for a number of reasons, not least of which is the fact that the body never turned up. The notion that a group of scattered and cowardly disciples could overcome Roman guards, steal the body, and then find sufficient courage to start preaching openly in the city where He had been publicly humiliated strains credulity.

Within a year of the Crucifixion, the member of the Sanhedrin who had risen to become the chief prosecutor of believers, Saul of Tarsus, himself saw the light, literally, and converted, becoming a zealous follower in the process

It is commonly said that religion is a private matter, but the events of Good Friday and Easter show that Christianity is not. That His death had something to do with people's sins, certainly, is a matter of doctrinal belief, though that belief is either confirmed or denied by what happened in the open on the first Easter Sunday. The death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth occurred out in the open, in public, in real space and time. It is there for all of the world to see.

These are facts to which we are all then accountable. Men killed Him. God raised Him. Repent and believe. Receive the good news that forgiveness and eternal life are accomplished and provided through Him who loved us and gave Himself for us.