Romans 5:20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass . . . .
Holtz: No! No!
May: (1) fumble the ball, (2) throw an interception.
Holtz: No! No!
May: You have the field goal try in the bag. What does he do – he underthrows the fade and throws an interception. You can’t turn the ball over.
Holtz: No! No!
May: Turn the ball over you lose. What does he do? Turns the ball over – they lose.
Holtz: You don’t ever say “Don’t do this!” Because it will happen every time! We’re playing Penn State. I’ve got Tony Rice at quarterback. We put in Jeff Graham. We’ve got the ball on the 3 yard line. I say to Jeff Graham: “I’ve got three points on the board. Don’t take them off. Don’t throw an interception.” Guess what happens. Boom! He throws the interception! I put the thought in his mind. You don’t say don’t do this. . . .
COMMENTS
16 responses to “Don’t Throw Rhat . . .”
Leave a Reply
I have to admit you've got a point there….
This post is waaaaay close to home. I am a lifetime South Carolina fan and my oft repeated adage is: "You learn a lot about life being a Gamecock fan." I took the loss at Kentucky pretty hard– prior to the game, I was trying to conclude that IF (big If) we won out, including the SEC champ game, we would finally get our shot at the National Championship. Then the 2nd half meltdown at Kentucky– ugghhhhh. The thrill of victory (USC over #1 Bama)followed by the agony of defeat (scoreless 2nd half at UK). Such is life. Grace to Spurrier– its just a game (unless its for the SEC Championship). Art and sports reflect life and vice-versa. Stay tuned, USC may meet BAMA again in Atlanta for SEC championship . . .
On the other hand, there are plenty of taboo things about which people take the "don't do that" advice very seriously, and don't, in fact, ever do those things. I could name a few pretty easily.
It would be very interesting to tease all that apart and see what makes the difference….
Fisherman – Condolences for rubbing salt on your wound, but as a Bama fan, the post may have been subconscious retaliation for the upset. (As also a UVA fan, I understand the suffering part.)
bls, very true, here's my attempt at your query.
We're masters of our own universe and think we know what's best for us. If someone tells us to do something, our natural tendency is to rebel because we know better.
If, on the other hand, we actually desire to fulfill the Law or the law of an idol, we attempt to conform to the law's requirement, but ultimately are unable to satisfy the law, and it destroys us in one way or another. If, for a time, we are able to fulfill its demands, we become self-righteous.
Keeping the football analogy, if a quarterback plays for enjoyment of the game as an end in itself, he seemingly would focus on the intricacies of performing his role in the game. When law/judgment/expectation comes in – "Don't throw an interception" or you might be benched or lose your starting position or your shot at the NFL, the quarterback, who wants to retain his position and achieve NFL success, will focus on the law and the judgment associated with his potential failure rather than actually performing like a quarterback. Because we are more focused on avoiding failure and judgment rather than doing the thing itself, our performance declines and the likelihood of failure/judgment increases, as the quarterback is thinking "don't throw an interception" rather than making his reads, finding the open receiver, and throwing a good pass. In a basketball context, telling a free throw shooter before an important shot, "Don't miss," causes him to think about missing, failure, and judgment rather than shooting the ball in the effective manner which he practices. The probability of a missed free throw increases.
If we try to do something only because of the law, our efforts will lead to failure or self-righteousness. The trespass is increased either way. If we endeavor to live a healthy lifestyle only because we're told to, we will fail, or become self-righteous and then fail, because the law itself does not impart life. If we actually have the desire to live a healthy lifestyle, for whatever reason, we may satisfy the law's requirements in large part, but not because of the law, but because of our heart.
Ron, no apology necessary. Great post. I appreciate the sports theme. In sports and life, fear of failure (ie, "the letter of the law") destroys much . . . confidence, peace, relationships (with God and others), etc..
What are failures (that would be all of us) really afraid of? (Romans 8:38)
Ah – yes: self-righteousness!
That's the piece I was missing, and thank you Ron….
Hey Ron, nice response. And great question by BLS.
I'll let BLS comment further if she wants to, but the key thing she brought to my mind is that, here at MB, we can get on a roll claiming that the Law always provokes a person to rebel against it. If an outsider were to read MB articles and discussion threads for the last couple years she or he would hear that assertion made a lot.
This is in fact not true.
In fact, for almost everybody, there are some parts of the Law that are easy to keep. The law commanding a person not to abuse alcohol is for some people a no-brainer — and they don't think about it much. They just don't ever feel inclined to do it.
Likewise most folks don't struggle against the temptation to have sex with animals — it's just not on their radar. And if you boldly expressed the Law's demand to them about it, they wouldn't feel some desire to rebel and do it anyway.
What I think is the case, and you hit on it here, is that explicit consciousness of the Law always creates sin.
My experience is that explicit awareness of the Law's demand always results in one of three things:
(a) Lawbreaking
(b) complying with the Law externally but with clenched teeth
(c) complying with it fully, and then congratulating yourself on how good you are (and condemning others for their infactions).
All three of these are sin. And in fact the third is the most dangerous sin of all.
Well, one thing I'd point out about Mockingbird – as much as I like it and the topics that get discussed and etc. – is that there's an assumption made that when you speak of "Law vs. Gospel" the rest of us are going to understand what is meant by this! But, sorry: no. I had literally not the first clue what you were talking about, and it's taken me months (and lots of reading for extra credit) to begin to have a clue.
I'm not trying to be rude about this, BTW – just letting you know. Of course, maybe I'm not the best example because I've spent most of my life outside the church. Still, some of these are pretty subtle concepts and "Law v. Gospel" is shorthand that lots of us won't and can't get.
I'm not saying that we can't learn, like I did. I'm just saying that I don't think most people are as interested in religion/faith matters as I am and will give up before they figure it out.
But of course, mostly this all becomes clear over time anyway, and through behaviors rather than words.
But trust me: a lot of this stuff is much more subtle for the outsider to understand than you might think. You've maybe been part of the church your whole lives and don't realize this.
Again, no offense meant; just trying to explain what I've experienced myself. I really do like this blog, and I do think your approach is terrific; it's just very mysterious sometimes.
But this post in particular was a very good illustration of one of the concepts at issue here – and one that a lot of people can relate instantly to – so again I thank Ron for it.
(Thanks again StampDawg; I really appreciate your being so hospitable to me here.)
Hey BLS… what a powerful and helpful testimony you just gave us. I am certain that you are likely to be right about lots more folks than just yourself.
I'm sure that DZ and the other folks in MB's leadership will take your comments very seriously. Since MB is going to be substantially restructuring the look and feel of the blog in the next few months, your comments may be a help.
Do you have any ideas about what we could do? Would it help if we had a prominent button toward the top (maybe called NEWCOMERS?) that people could click on, and it could walk them through what we are about, and some of the big ideas that seem to come up in a lot of posts?
Would you be willing to look at MB's series "Good News For People With Big Problems" and give us feedback?
Yes, I think the Newcomers page is a great idea. And it might be really good to have short teaching videos in which some of your good teachers explain these ideas in a straightforward (if visually interesting!) way.
And maybe they could explain why you're doing this, too. I'm not sure exactly who your audience is, though; is it people who know the concepts but have had less than optimal experiences with the church – or is it people like me, complete outsiders? The approach would have to be different, I'd guess, depending – although maybe people who know the concepts haven't had them explained very well elsewhere, either. There's no way for me to know.
I just realized there are some definitions on the Home Page that I'd never noticed before. I'm not sure it would have helped me to read them early on, either – don't forget like starting at square one! – but having a single page with videos or FAQs or something would I think be helpful.
I would be happy to look at anything you ask me to. Is that series you speak of linked from the Home Page of the blog? Let me go look and see….
bls–you continue to provide such helpful and interesting commentary on our project here; thank you! Some thoughts:
You said: I had literally not the first clue what you were talking about, and it's taken me months (and lots of reading for extra credit) to begin to have a clue.
That mirrors my experience exactly!
You wrote: And maybe they could explain why you're doing this, too. I'm not sure exactly who your audience is, though; is it people who know the concepts but have had less than optimal experiences with the church – or is it people like me, complete outsiders?
The answer to your second question re: audience is: yes:) As for the first, while I can't speak for everyone, I'll venture an answer.
What we are doing here has developed over the years, but at heart we are trying to connect what we see as the central message of Christian theology to, as we've written, "the cares and concerns of everyday life." This message, as we've received it, operates theologically–and thus, experientially–within the dynamic of law and gospel.
Although these terms have concrete theological referents (as you can read in our glossary), at times (like now) they been relegated to the realm of Christian jargon (at best!), thus divesting them of any descriptive–read: helpful–power.
However, we believe that these words speak to an enduring human reality, and we are doing our best to connect these "defaced words" of Christian theology to everyday life. We blog on the premise that that everyday human existence–from the sublime to the ridiculous–has always testified to the truth of the biblical message with respect to God and humans and how they are related.
One could argue that we are attempting to offer a phenomenological apologetic for the Christian faith. As you have observed, this apporoach evinces a certain (necessary?) fluidity, but I feel that we are in good historical company, as even the pages of the New Testament do not speak univocally about what constitutes THE definition of law or gospel, but, rather, testifies to two different ways of being that correspond to the categories of law and gospel: works and faith, darkness and light, letter and spirit, dead and alive, etc. . .
Yes, I get you, JDK, thanks. And if you had the same experience, then maybe it's just the necessary path. Sometimes there's a learning curve and there's nothing to be done about it….
What JDK said!
I really appreciate your feedback, bls. And hopefully the new site, coming in 2011, should go a long way in addressing some of those concerns. We certainly don't want to be confounding for newcomers!
That said, as I'm sure you would agree, I don't think being a little mysterious is necessarily a bad thing, at least if it prevents folks from automatically putting us into a box, which is such a temptation with any websites that deal with religion/theology. As long as it doesn't mean we're dishonest or cagey… Curiosity is our friend! After all, when it comes to the internet (and such hot-button issues), I'm convinced that "showing" is almost always wiser/more effective than "telling". You have a much better shot at penetrating people's defenses. At least, I know that's true for me.
All this to say, thanks for reading and keep the feedback coming (info@mockingbirdnyc.com) – same goes for anyone out there. Oh, and the Good News series is only up right now as audio files (brand new, btw – on our Resources page). I'm rewriting the outlines, and they should be ready by 2011.
You're very right, DZ, about mystery – and about showing rather than telling. Actually it was the behavior of people here – in particular, as I've said, StampDawg's very kind hospitality – that went farthest in keeping me clicking to this site, even when I was mystified. I'm interested in Mockingbird for its ideas, of course – but if there had been a different sort of ethos here, I quite likely wouldn't have come back.
What also helps tremendously is that there is (blessedly!) very little "culture war" going on here – even as there's lots of culture, and commentary on it. What an unbelievable relief!
I should add that I really do think that some of the concepts here are incredibly subtle, so no matter what anybody does, it's going to have to be a "learning over time" sort of experience. And yes, that's a good thing.
Now that I think of it, I didn't know what anybody was talking about in A.A. for a couple of years, either! (Of course, that could just have been because most of my brain cells were missing, but still….)
Thanks again. You're doing a great thing here, no kidding. To me it seems the only way to reclaim what's really important….
(It's somewhat mystifying to me, in fact, that these really important ideas should be so difficult to grasp.
Why, do you think? Is it just because most of us have little background that helps us understand these things? Is it the culture (in the non-art sense of the word) that confounds us? Why would things so central to recovery be so shrouded and hidden from us?
Maybe it really is the culture. Well, if anybody has any ideas, I'd sure be interested.
But in any case, thanks once again to Ron for this post – it's really a terrific illustration of what you're talking about here….)
bls – thank you for your comments and for stimulating discussion on this site.