Cubs Finally Above .500, But Injuries Are Going To Be Damaging

The Cubbies have won 4 straight games and finally are over the .500 mark on the season. I have to agree with Rick Morrissey of the Chicago Tribune that Dusty Baker is actually doing a pretty good job of managing this team given all the injuries and holes that is has:

• Nomar Garciaparra injured until August.
• Kerry Wood injured since late April.
• Mark Prior hit by line drive and currently injured.
• Todd Walker (2B) injured for a month.
• Joe Borowski hit by line drive and injured for first month and a half.
• No true lead-off hitter.
• LaTroy Hawkins blowing saves.
• Team draws few walks.
• Aramis Ramirez off to a slow start. (appears to be heating up, though)

The Cubs have been able to keep from completely falling apart because Derrek Lee has been the best player in the National League, leading the league in all three of the triple crown categories. Other players have also played decently for the Cubs. Jeromy Burnitz has been solid and Neifi Perez has filled in nicely for Nomar. Carlos Zambrano and Greg Maddux have pitched decent baseball and Glendon Rusch continues to blossom into a pretty good lefty. However, the loss of Mark Prior, who was 4-1 with a sub 3.00 ERA when he went down, is going to really hurt this team. Prior is the team's superstar player and perhaps the best young pitcher in baseball when healthy. With Prior joining Kerry Wood on the DL, the Cubs will be forced to start Sergio Mitre and a random minor leaguer--this week it is John Koronka, who has a 5.05 ERA for AAA Iowa. This means that the club will be usually be facing a serious pitching disadvantage 2 of the 5 games it plays in each trip through the rotation. The inevitable result of which is that the Cubs will not be able to make a serious move towards the top of the standings unless everything goes perfectly (such as recently acquired Jerome Williams being called up and pitching well). If the Cubs are at .500 at the end of June, they should count their blessings, hope they get healthy, and try to make a wild-card run in the second half of the season.

Killearn DTS: Romans 11: 17-36

1) After explaining that the apostasy of Israel has benefited the gentiles, and that Israel's eventual acceptance of Christ will lead to even greater benefit, Paul explains why gentiles should not look down upon the Jews. In verses 17-20, Paul uses the analogy of the gentiles being branches from a wild olive tree being grafted into the olive tree of faith after some of that tree's branches have been broken off. However, the fact that the gentiles have been brought into the family of God should not give them cause to be prideful. In verse 21, Paul notes that if God was willing to let this happen to the natural branches (Israel), the same possibly could happen to the grafted branches (gentiles). Paul advises his readers to consider both God's goodness as well as his severity, stating that they can count on receiving God's goodness if they "continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off." (v. 22).

--Paul warns against having pride in once's position as a Christian to the extent that we use it to hold it over the Jews. Theologically, why shouldn't Christians exhibit pride? Why is it practically important that the Christian not exhibit pride? Who are some groups that today Christians often exhibit pride against?

--Wesley notes that when Paul tells the gentile believers not to have pride, but rather fear, that the fear being spoke of here has the effect of preventing against pride and security. Wesley takes the opportunity to say that Christians can fall from their faith, noting that Paul specifically states that God's goodness is experienced by those who continue in His goodness, but those who do not continue will be cut off. Calvin says it is a warning that does not change the fact that Christians are eternally secure. Calvin does this by saying Paul is addressing the gentiles as a group and saying that just as the Jews were broken off, the gentiles as a group could be also. Who do you think is right?

2) Paul states that if the Jews do not persist in their unbelief, God will graft them back into the tree of the family of God. After all, if God could bring the gentiles into the family of faith, then it makes sense that He can bring the Jews back in since they are God's chosen people. (v. 23-24). Paul says that it is a mystery of God why the Jews have becomed partially blind towards the things of God, but that once all the Gentile believers are grafted in all Isreal will be saved, quoting scripture regarding God's covenant promises to Isreal. Paul quotes Isa 59: 20 to that effect. (v. 25-27). Paul points out that while the Jews are enemies of the Gospel, they are still loved by God for the sake of their forefathers because the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. (v. 28-29). For just as the gentiles were once disobedient but have been shown mercy, the same will apply to the Jews. (v. 30-31). Paul says that Paul has committed all over to disobedience in order that he might have mercy on all. (v. 32). Paul concludes with a brief meditation on the depth of God's wisdom and knowledge, and the impossibility of fully understanding the ways of God. Isaiah 40:13 and Jeremiah 23:18 and Job 41:11 are quoted in verses 34-35. Paul concludes this section of his epistle dealing with God's dealings with Israel celebrating the fact that God is the creator, sustainer and God (natch) of all things.

--Paul indicates that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. Should we find comfort in this fact?

--Calvin states that verse 32 means that God has so arranged all of creation in such a way that every person would be guilty of unbelief, but that he does not directly cause the unbelief of these persons. This is done so that God can provide salvation that is depending solely on the goodness of God. Wesley interprets this passage less that God is arranging creation so that all will rebel against Him, but rather that God has permitted this to happen. With whom do you believe? How should we interpret the statement that God has allowed disobedience in order to "have mercy on all." If some reformed theologians teach that Romans 9-11 teaches that God has specifically bound all persons over to disobedience so that he can elect certain persons, doesn't this verse indicate that all persons will be saved? Because of this, all three chapters are best read as a discussion of God's dealing with his chosen people as a group, not as how he acts with regard to individuals.

--Why is it important that we recognize the impossibility of figuring out all the ways of God? Why do you think Paul ended this section of the epistle (ch. 1-11) the way he did, praising the sovreignty of God?

Establishment Clause Showdown in the Desert

As reported in the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal, the ACLU has won a federal appellate case that would require the removal of a six-foot tall cross erected in 1934 by WWI veterans to honor their fallen comrades from land designated a national preserve in 1994. The memorial is currently maintained by private citizens. Naturally, some old soldiers honoring their forebears with a cross has been interpreted as the establishment of religion in America. The pettiness and opportunism of such suits is striking. A desolate monument designed to honor brave men who died for this country should not be allowed to exist, simply because it uses the same religious symbol that can be found in Arlington National Cemetary to honor fallen soldiers of wars and deceased political figures. God forbid a person should be forced to see a religious symbol that our fellow citizens deem meaningful and erect in honor of their friends and loved ones on property that the government annexed 60 years after the erection of the monument. Additionally, as the Wall Street journal notes, the ACLU has cashed in on private citizens to the tune of $60,000+ by bringing this suit. Who knew that banishing all traces of religion from the public square could be so profitable? The establishment clause is designed to prevent a state church and government coercion designed to promote a particular faith. This monument is neither, but sadly our establishment clause jurisprudence is in such disarray that the ruling has a good chance of standing.

(Nod to the "Galley Slaves" weblog for pointing this story out)

The Devil Rays are Golden

My Tampa Bay Devil Rays are starting to show some signs of life, having swept the nefarious Oakland A's with their 2-1 victory. The day before, the Rays put up 10 runs in the first inning in a 14-6 victory. The Yankees, Red Sox, Orioles, and the rest of the AL had better watch out, as the Rays are quickly becoming the talk of the universe with their 18-30 record. The Mariners are next, and might as well forfeit at this point.

Christian Political Shifts in the Wind?

David Brooks of the New York Times has an interesting Op-Ed piece here on the increasing willingness of many evangelical Christians and political liberals to join forces on social justice issues such as care for the poor. I hope that Brooks is correct that many evangelicals are broadening their political vision to seek and looking to apply their faith to a wider range of problems and issues facing the world today. A deeper Christian involvement in helping the poor and downtrodden, if done with wisdom, serves to show the love of Christ to an unbelieving world. You can read the article HERE if you have signed up for the free Times version on the web.

Motley Crue Files Suit Against NBC

Apparently, Motley Crue is suing NBC for refusing to put them on the airwaves after the band's lead singer used an expletitve in December 2004 on the Tonight Show. I would have thought a class action lawsuit against NBC for subjecting us to their "music" to be more apropos, but I guess it really is a wacky world that we live in. Click HERE to read the NY Times reporting on the story.

PS: Motley Crue is still making music? Seriously? Wow.

Stem Cell Veto

Kudos should go out to President Bush for his upcoming VETO of a bill that would expand federal funding for embyonic stem-cell research. The President stated that "This bill would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life. Crossing this line would be a great mistake." I agree with the President on this one. I fear that humans being what we are, we will beginning a slow march where we are willing to use some humans, and alter humanity, for the purpose of bringing greater health and prosperity to some. In other words, use the weak and downtrodden to benefit those in power.

Catfish Hunter

If you want to see the catch of a lifetime, click HERE.

Movie Review: Star Wars Episode III--Revenge of the Sith (***):

( *** out of **** stars: Good)

The most eagerly awaited movie of the summer, Star Wars III details the fall of the Galatic Republic, the ascention of the Galactic Empire led (appropriately) by the Emperor Lord Sidious, and most importantly Anakin Skywalker's embrace of the dark side whereby he becomes Darth Vader. After two mediocre prequels in The Phantom Menace (**1/2) and The Clone Wars (**1/2), there has been quite a bit of trepidation regarding whether ROTS would finally provide moviegoers with a film that stands up to the films in the original trilogy. The answer is yes, this is a much better film than its two recent predecessors, though not the unparalled triumph that many have stated.

First, the positives. Director George Lucas did a fantastic job with special effects, and the movie really looks great. Also, the acting performances are much improved across the board, with Ewan McGregor (Obi-Wan Kenobi) and Ian McDiarmid (Chancellor Palpatine) giving the best performances. The light saber scenes are quite entertaining, particularly those involving Darth Sidious, and the battle between Obi-Wan and Darth Vader (Hayden Christensen) may be the best of all the Star Wars Movies. The pacing of the movie is also better than the two previous films, as things move briskly for the first half-hour and last 45 minutes of the film. Most importantly, Lucas does a pretty good job of connecting all the story arcs between these prequels and the original trilogy. Revenge of the Sith has much to recommend it, but it also has a few flaws that prevent it from achieving the heights that the original Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back reached.

The key flaw of the whole film, and indeed these prequels, is that Lucas decided to have the fall of Anakin largely due to his marriage with Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman). However, the "love scenes" in all three prequels between the two feature poor dialogue and a lack of chemistry between the two actors. It is hard for the viewer to relate to Anakin's desire to protect his wife by any means necessary since the movies fail to establish a convincing love and chemistry between the two. Thus, the dramatic and emotional heft of Anakin's tragic fall are greatly reduced. Other failures in the movie include the opening space battle scene, which looks great but lacks any dramatic tension. The reason it lacks tension is because the Jedi Heroes do not actually do any dogfighting with enemy pilots. Instead, they have to dodge missles coming from nameless, faceless fighters, and primarily need to get gremlin like mini-droids off their ship. The tension is missinig because we do not have any opponent we can root against in the battle.

No review of a Star Wars film would be complete without a brief discussion of the themes that Lucas presents in the film. Though I think it is wise not to take a Star Wars film too seriously, as Lucas is not a deep theological or moral thinker, the fall of Anakin is worth discussing briefly. First, as the movie goes on it becomes clear that Annakin is willing to use evil means to achieve the good of saving the life of his wife Padme, and that he is doing it not so much for her overall good, but rather to ensure that he will not lose her. In the end, he treats her as a means to his happiness and his love for her is turned to selfishness. It is a potential flaw in our love of any person not to care for their well being but rather use them to satisfy our needs. Anakin shows his supreme selfishness in that he is willing to betray his ideals, his friends, and in the end his wife to meet his own needs. To the extent that this theme is internalized by moviegoers, Lucas has shared a valuable truth with his audience.

In the end, Revenge of the Sith qualifies as a good move and one worthy of being a Star Wars film. However it is not a great movie. It is not a self-contained film like the original Star Wars that manages to introduce all its characters, revolutionize special effects, provide outstanding action, humor, and an iconic story all in one film. Nor does it pack the emotional wallop and surprises of Empire Strikes Back, a film that is also the best directed of the series. The force is with this one, but it is not the chosen one that some claim it to be.

Star Wars Geeks Get Hurt

Apparently, being a Star Wars geek can be hazardous to your health. See HERE.

Movie Review: The Interpreter

With the arrival of summer, there are finally some movies worth seeing and reviewing. Here are my thoughts on The Interpreter. (**** excellent, *** good, ** fair, * poor)

The Interpreter (**1/2*): The Interpreter is an international political thriller directed by Sydney Pollack (Out of Africa, The Firm) and starring Sean Penn and Nicole Kidman. Kidman plays Silvia Broom, a United Nations interpreter who hears whispers late one night that she thinks are a plot to assassinate a corrupt African dictator who is coming to the UN to give a speech defending his rule. She reports what she has heard, and US Secret Service agent Tobin Keller (Sean Penn) is given the assignment of investigating the potential assassination. Keller is suspicious of Ms. Broom's motivations and the movie focuses on the possible plot to kill the African dictator and the evolving relationship between Penn and Kidman's character. Perhaps the most interesting thing about this movie is that it is the first film shot inside the UN, and we should not be surprised since the film has only nice things to say about the organization. The plot is solid, but plods along at times. The film takes too long to reach its conclusion, and the change in the relationship between Penn and Kidman that takes place about midway through the film is not sufficiently explained or convincing. The Interpreter is a solid but unspectacular thriller that is worth renting on DVD once, but never again, as you will likely forget all about it soon enough.

Deception in Pat Tillman Death

As reported in the Washington post HERE, it is sad to see that the U.S. Army and our government's leaders apparently lied to the nation and the Tillman family regarding the fact that he died via friendly fire. In case you are not familiar with the story, Tillman was a millionaire NFL player who left his riches to serve as a soldier in the U.S. army in Afghanistan and Iraq. Tillman was killed in April 2004, in what the Pentagon and U.S. government said was a battle with insurgents. Tillman was given a hero's funeral, but the truth surrounding his death was not widely known until a Washington Post December 2004 ARTICLE which detailed the facts surrounding his death via friendly fire (US troops). His parents have a right to be angry with the Army. If the Army and our political leaders did lie about Tillman's death in the immediate aftermath (when national attention, emotional interest, and press coverage were greatest) then we should all be disappointed as Americans in their conduct.

The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe Preview

C.S. Lewis classic children's book, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe is coming to theaters this December. Since Lewis is my favorite author and this is an amazing children's book that can be read with profit by adults, I am cautiously very optomistic. If you'd like to see the trailer for the movie, click here

Killearn DTS Romans 11: 1-16

In Romans 11, Paul finishes explaining Isreal's current position with God in light of the coming of the Gospel. In v. 1 Paul states emphatically that God has not rejected the Isrealites, explaining that it could not be so since Paul himself is a Christian and also of Isreal. Calvin states that this is because adoption is dependent solely on God, and not on men, with which Luther agrees in his introduction. Paul then quotes 1 Kings 19:10, and draws a parallel between that time and his. Elijah despaired becaused it seemed to him that all had turned away from God. However, God informs him that not all have turned, and that God has reserved a remnant among Isreal who did not bow down to the false god Baal. In much the same way, there is a remnant among Isreal who believes in Christ (v. 6) that was chosen by God's grace and not works.

--Why is it in accordance with God's character that He has chosen not to reject the people of Isreal?

--Calvin states that only those Christians who are chosen by God (the elect) shall end up being saved, pointing out that though circumcision was a sign of the covenant between Isreal and God, it was only an outward sign that was ineffectual without faith. Calvin goes on to say that the only reason for God's electing some persons and not others simply because it is God has willed it to be so, for if he chose on the basis of who He knew would accept or who is most moral, then it would be based on works. This is something Calvin states God chose to do with His creation before the foundation of the world. Is believing in something a work?

--Wesley states that this passage, in particular v. 5, must be read in light of Romans 3:22, which states that the righteousness from the Gospel comes to all who believe. God's purpose is that all who believe will be saved, and this is the remnant chosen by grace. If God offers salvation to all, and man decides whether to believe in God, can God be assured that his purpose of having a remnant will be fulfilled? Does the concept of foreknowledge, which Wesley believed in, provide an answer?

Paul writes in v. 7, that the righteousness before God that Isreal attempted to achieve through works was instead obtained by the elect, while others were hardened. Paul then quotes passages from the O.T. to prove his point. He first quotes Deut 28:4, and Isa: 29:10, to the effect that the people of Isreal still do not truly understand the purposes and desires of God, and also quotes David from psalm 69 to the same effect. Paul is once again making the point that the chosen people have a long history of not understanding or obeying God.

--Wesley states that those whose hearts are hardened are in that state because of their own willful blindness. How does God harden hearts? Does He make the creature do evil? Does he withdraw His restraint?

Isreal has not fallen to the point that they cannot be redeemed (v. 11), rather God has used their rejection (of Christ) to bring salvation to the Gentiles and thus make Isreal envious. And since God has used evil to do good, how much more good will abound once Isreal comes to God (v. 12). Paul states that part of the motivation of his ministry to the Gentiles is to provoke his own people to have faith in Christ. (v. 13-14). Paul then appears to tie in the acceptance of Christ be Isreal with life from the dead. Whether this means that the dead nation of Isreal will eventually believe in Christ and become alive, or that all Isreal will believe when the resurrection of the dead occurs is not clear. Wesley states that v. 16 is a use of metaphor to indicate that the remnant of Isreal that believes will eventually lead to all of Isreal believing.

--Does the concept of provoking Isreal to envy and thus acceptance of Christ make sense in a Calvinist worldview whereby God alone decides who will believe in him? Does an Arminian view of salvation allow it to be possible for God to make the claim that all Isreal will believe? What does the faithfulness of God to Isreal reveal about His character?

Good Times in Ohio

My trip to visit Sarah in Canton, OH is over and I am back in Tallahassee. The extended weekend was a lot of fun. Friday night we went to a local Japanese restaurant and enjoyed a nice dinner and celebrated her birthday (on Friday the 13th, no less--naturally it rained and was lightning). Saturday was rather laid back as well. We visited the William McKinley National Memorial, where the President and his wife are entombed. It was quite impressive, and I must assume that all US Presidents have impressive monuments after visiting this one. Later in the day we watched The Interpreter (**1/2, look for a group of movie reviews in a little while) and then had a delicious meal at Sahara, a local Greek restaurant. Sunday was a very big day, as Sarah and I drove 4 hours to Niagra Falls in Canada. The falls are quite awesome, and I recommend a trip to see them if you haven't already. We rode the Maid of the Mist, a boat that takes you reasonably close to the falls in order to see them up close, and I recommend it heartily so long as you don't mind getting a bit wet. We stayed until nighttime, when they use klieg lights to light up the falls, and then drove home, not getting in until late in the evening. Monday, we drove up to Cleveland and watched the Cleveland Indians take on the LA/Anaheim Angels at Jacobs Field. The Angels won 3-1, but the ballpark was very nice and we had good seats behind home plate. My time with Sarah ended Tuesday afternoon after lunch at the Macaroni Grill. It was a very fun weekend, and both of us had a great time celebrating her birthday. I'll post a couple pictures taken during the weekend during the next couple of days so you can see a bit of what I am talking about.

Bible Study Cancelled Sunday May 15

Because I am out of town and most of the rest of the class will be also, the DTS class is cancelled. We will resume in Romans 10. Thanks for your understanding and I look forward to seeing you all on the 22nd.

Legislative Session Over; Good Times!

For those of you who check in on this weblog, rest assured there will be more content on the site now that the Legislative session is over, having ended Friday May 6. I will try and post more on things going on in my life, humorous links, commentary on various topics, my Bible study and topical articles, and more. So if you check in now, you will probably find more than my usual Bible Study outlines.

I am very excited to be visiting Sarah up in Canton, OH this coming weekend of the 13th. We plan to drive to Niagra Falls (about 3 hours in the car) and take that in for a day. It is Sarah's birthday, and she has always wanted to see the falls, so I think that will be a very nice time for the two of us. We also will be taking in the Indians vs. Angels game at Jacobs Field on Monday, something I know I will enjoy, and Sarah has stated that she thinks she will like it too and I hope she is right. Since she is a smart and discerning woman, I think she will.

Already, things are more laid back for me. It is nice to leave the office at 5pm again, rather than between 9 and midnight. It is also nice to have the time to eat a bit more healthy and get to the YMCA. I put on a few pounds like always during session, so I need to be sure to take them off the next month or two (like I usually do). I am also glad to finally get a bit of a raise, as with rising gas prices and inflaction in general, my salary hasn't bought as much as it did when I was hired. That also should reduce my stress level. Now, if the Cubs start winning a few games, things will be really going well.

Listen closely

For those of you who know some friggin idiots, perhaps this will help you relax a bit.

For those of you hoping to exact revenge, or who simply have a superior intellect, this might be a bit more helpful.

Killearn DTS Romans 10: 1-9

1) In Chapter 10, Paul focuses on the necessity of the Jews (and everyone) to obtain salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. He begins by reiterating his good motives and his desire that the Isrealites be saved. In verse 2, he states that the Jews are zealous for God, but that such zeal is not based on knowledge. Wesley notes that while the Jews of this time may have had zeal without knowledge, too often the Christians of Wesley's time had knowledge without zeal. Calvin takes the opportunity to make the point that ignorace of God is no excuse of bad actions and refusing to submit to God. Paul continues in v. 3 by saying that the Jews did not know the righteousness that comes from God, and instead attempted to create their own righteousness (via the law). Their lack of knowledge is seen in that they do not understand that Christ is the end of the law, and provides righteousness for those who believe.

--Why is it important that zeal and knowledge go together in the Christian life? What sorts of knowledge are necessary and how is it obtained?

2) In v. 5, Paul gives an example of the righteousness that comes through law, quoting Lev. 18:5, which states "the man who does these things will live by them." Wesley and Calvin both note that because it is impossible to perfectly keep the law, obtaining righteousness through the law is impossible. Paul then provides examples that the righteousness that comes through faith is not hidden to anyone or inacessible, but is obtainable. He quotes Deut 30: 12-13, modifying the meaning of the quotes. The language of going to heaven or descending to the deep was used in the original passage by Moses to tell the people that the law of God was given to them and is accessible. In similar fashion, the provision of Christ is not hidden, but rather accessible. Paul then quotes Deut 30: 12-13, to the effect that the word of the Lord is in the people's heart and mouth. Similarly, the righteousness from faith is available and readily known, for if a person confesses that Jesus is Lord, and believes He was raised from the dead, that person will be saved.

--Moses told the people that the law was accessible and known to them, thus they could not try to excuse their behavior by saying that they do not know it. Does this contradict what Paul has to say about the impossibility of keeping the law? What were the purposes of the law being given?

--Paul is arguing that the Jews need to accept Christ. If God is wholly in charge of who accepts Him, what is the purpose of this passage? If belief and acceptance of Christ is wholly imparted by God, why doesn't Paul make mention of that fact in v. 9?