No Confidence in the Flesh

This morning I was discussing with my wife her morning Bible study with her mentor. The two of them were able to discern an amazing connection that occurs in Genesis that I have meditated on all day. It has to do with the concept of circumcision, and what that meant for the Jews of ancient times and what it means for us today.

In Philippians 3:3, the apostle Paul gives framework: "...For we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh..."

What is circumcision? We know the literal answer- chop chop, hello collared shirt. But in Biblical concept, it has much deeper meaning. In Genesis 17, we're introduced to circumcision when the LORD comes to Abram and establishes a covenant with him. God says that Abram's offspring and descendants will be a multitude of holy chosen people, and Abram, renamed Abraham, accepts the covenant by being circumcised. The text reads:

As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you...Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised." -Genesis 17:4-10

Paraphrased:
God: Abram, I'm going to give you lots of kids, and I'll always protect them. I just need you to do one thing for me. I want you to get circumcised.
Abraham: Sure thing, G! I'd be happy to. Just one question- what does 'circumcised' mean?

I had always wondered why the sign of the chosen people, the Jews, was circumcision. It's obviously a very personal thing, and not something that can be flaunted. The people could be identified, but only in a very intimate and personal way. Why that particular cut? Couldn't a pierced ear or a tattoo sufficed?

The answer is, probably not. Two things stand out: 1) circumcision had likely never been done before, so it was clearly a unique sign. God marked his people out by a unique unprecedented sign that was not likely to be voluntarily replicated (b/c I mean, who would do that just for kicks?). 2) The progression of the covenant reveals everything. Abraham is 99 years old. He is well past child bearing age, as is his wife, Sarah. Abraham actually laughs at God when He tells him that he will bear many children. God had promised him many offspring in the past, and Abraham's steadfast hope in that was credited to him as righteousness, and here it is presented and formalized in covenant form. So the covenant for offspring comes first- essentially, you are going to have lots of kids. However, it is then followed by God's order for Abraham to, well, cut off part of his manhood. We probably can't imagine what Abraham must have been thinking- first, he knows that he's well past child bearing age, but yeah, God could probably work that out, but now God wants to take away the thing that, you know, is kind of important for the whole act of impregnation too? Of course we know that isn't what circumcision really is, but for someone who lived thousands of years ago and had no idea what it was, it's understandable that he was probably terrified at the thought. Yet it was necessary for him because God had to demonstrate to him that Abraham's faith had to go beyond what he could see with his own eyes. God wanted Abraham to see that he could put no confidence in his own flesh, even though that flesh was important to God's fulfillment of His covenant.

The amazing thing is that Abraham did know this, at least intellectually, and we know he knew this because of how he addressed God before the covenant was given- as El Shaddai. God is first acknowleged in scripture as Elohim- Creator, in Genesis 1:1. God is next referred to in Genesis as Adonai, which was the verbal and written substitute for Yahweh, the holiest name of God which was not allowed to be written or spoken aloud. Adonai means Lord and master. And now, in Genesis 17, we are presented with El Shaddai, which means 'All Sufficient One.' In commonspeak, Abraham addresses the Lord as his all sufficient one, and God says he will bless him with many descendants, and he's going to do it but only if Abraham acknowleges His promise, takes a leap of faith, and get circumcised. In essence, God says, "You call me your sufficiency. Now I am going to ask you to prove to me that it is both belief in your heart as well as your head." We then see Abraham embrace the LORD, getting circumcised with the rest of the men in his household. After this, Abraham probably realized that the act did not harm him in the way he thought it would (and in many ways benefits him and his descendants), and increased his faith accordingly. It is this act of faith necessary to prepare Abraham for his next test, which is a willingness to trust God once again with the sacrifice of the son God promised him, Isaac. As we later find out in that text, even though Abraham knew that he would be called to sacrifice his son, he also had complete confidence that somehow, his son Isaac would be spared or resurrected. In many ways, this test of sacrifice mirrors the circumcision test- refusing to put confidence in his own flesh and blood, and instead trusting God's promises, despite the superficial obstacles that, to his own eyes, would derail God's plan and covenant.

Which brings us back to Phil. 3:3. "We are the true circumcision...and put no confidence in the flesh." This passage takes new meaning in light of how circumcision began. Circumcision was a direct result of Abraham putting no confidence in his own flesh, and putting his complete faith on El Shaddai, his All Sufficient provider. I draw strength in Abraham's faith, because I know that my own physical limitations will never be an obstacle for God's purpose in me.

Ricky Williams Retires; Ewing Theory invoked?

With the Dolphins’ Ricky Williams going the way of Jim Brown and Barry Sanders, are we ripe for a perfect Ewing Theory scenario?  In case you're unfamiliar with the Ewing Theory, it is one of the more prominent forces of sports reality.  Go HERE to educate yourself.  Williams has been praised ad nauseum since college.  Yes, he did win the Heisman, but that’s no great feat in this day and age.  His team never really won anything significant, and then when he got to the NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE Senator Ditka made Ernie Acorsi’s Eli Manning trade look feeble in comparison, swapping something like 4 first round picks to nab the tinted wonder.  He was always right on the verge of doing something in New Orleans, yet ultimately broke fantasy football owners’ hearts by never reaching his potential.  Then he is traded for Miami for MORE first round picks, and the Dolphins, a playoff team a year prior, are suddenly Superbowl favorites, now that Dave Wandstedt and Norv Turner had their missing cog.  In Miami, Williams once again did reasonably well, winning a rushing title and running for more than 3000 yards in his two seasons there, but the Fins never even make the playoffs.  Now Williams is running around Asia somewhere, and the Fins are left for dead.  And yet…they still have a dominant defense, 50% of the time they have the good Jay Fiedler (as opposed to the evil Jay Fiedler), they’ve brought in David Boston who is reunited with his WR coach, they’ve still got Chris Chambers, and coach Wandstedt is against the wall, the classic case where a coach reaches at every last straw to save his job.  Will the supernatural forces of the Ewing Theory propel the Dolphins to an inconceivable playoff spot come December???  

I have many very important leather-bound books, and my apartment smells of rich mahogany

...And so we are graced by the presence of legend- Ron Burgundy.  What an amazingly great movie.  Satirical yet sophomoric, sophisticated yet silly, it is an amazing blend of over the top humor that has come out of the "Frat Pack's" archives and a throwback to some of the great comedy satires of all time. 

In lieu of a movie review (there are plenty out there), I just want to list some of the things that I found brilliant.  To me, this was not so much a movie in the vein of "Dodgeball" but is more reminiscent of the great satires "Spinal Tap" and "Blazing Saddles."  In fact, I see many similarities between "Anchorman" and Mel Brooks' classic western.  Both deal with stereotypes (white vs. black, men vs. women); both are funny because they take themselves so seriously with a few intermittent over the top gratuities (horse getting taken to the gallows with a convicted man, Brick Tamland riding 'bear-back'); classic breakout in song ("I get no kick from champagne," "Sky rockets in flight, afternoon delight"); and a stupendous breakout brawl (Blazing Saddles crashes the Hollywood party with full fledged pie fight, area anchormen have a "Gangs of New York" style showdown for local news supremacy). 

The names given to the characters are absolutely priceless- my personal favorite was Wes Mantooth.

What makes this a future must-own DVD is that apparently 80% of this movie was ad-libbed.  They have approximately 11 hours worth of film that they shot, so they could basically release a second movie.  Can't wait to see the extras.

As an added bonus, you can go here to see the music video for "Afternoon Delight."

The best thing for me though is that Will Farrell is proving to be much more than a slap-stick humor guy.  He's got a level of sophistication to him that should carry him forward for many years to come, and for that I am thankful, and I can't wait to see him show up in the future biography of Tenacious D, "The Pick of Destiny."  But to me he'll always first be Gene the "more cowbell" guy, and that's not such a bad thing either.

Revolving Rehab

Over the past few weeks I've had the opportunity to enjoy the new CD from Velvet Revolver, which is a collaboration by former Stone Temple Pilots frontman Scott Weiland and three members of the enigmatic Guns n Roses, including the immortal Slash.  Supergroups, or all-star collaborations, are often disappointments.  I believe it is because to be a great band you have to have common experiences with your band mates over an extended period of time that make the members vulnerable and trusting in one another, and when you haphazardly throw artists together you simply cannot get that kind of rapport and bond.  I think you may have to go all the way back to the 60's and 70's to find solid supergroups, such as The Yardbirds, Derek and the Dominoes, and Cream (the surprising thread being that Eric Clapton was featured in all of them) to see solid and consistent brilliant work.  My guess is because that was during a time when rock wasn't so commercialized, the music was the most important thing they did, and there was common fraternity amidst those brothers of rock that cannot be afforded today.  Needless to say, it is a difficult concept that often doesn't get past the first album.
 
And so we have Velvet Revolver's debut album "Contraband."  While parts of the album are uneven as the band is getting used to each other, the album features some amazing songs that are able to combine Weiland's lyrics with Slash's classic Les Paul sound.  Perhaps it is because Slash already knows what it is like to work with a certifiably insane lead singer that allows Weiland to translate his sound into Slash's snake pit so well, but I do think they pulled off the rare feat of actually blending Weiland's amazing lyrical voice with Slash's soaring solos and machine gun rhythm to derive a tremendous sound.  Among my favorites are "Fall to Pieces," "Slither," "Loving the Alien," and "You Got No Right." 
 
So the fact that they actually pulled it off makes it all the more frustrating to see that Weiland has once again found himself back in drug rehab after a DUI.  It both saddens and frustrates me because fans of Weiland already know how the story goes- he spent numerous stints in drug rehab while leading Stone Temple Pilots, struggling mightily and publicly with heroin addiction, which probably prevented them from becoming one of the all-time great bands.  Lyrically and vocally, I feel he was one of the best lead singers of the past 20 years.  When the band was together, they possessed a synergy and music ability that was glaringly absent when they were doing solo projects.  What I always found most remarkable about Weiland was that he could alter his voice so easily to fit the tone of a given song.  This ability was on full display when you compare the electric versions of the songs "Plush" and "Interstate Love Song" with their acoustic counterparts.  In the former, his voice is rocking, raunchy, and resonant.  But in the acoustic versions, his voice becomes soft, delicate, thoughtful, revealing past pains that inspired him to write them. 
 
And now he finds himself back in rehab, hurting his present effort in the same way he hurt his past one.  Unfortunately, we as fans probably know how this one ends.  A few years ago the same sad saga unfolded for another talented singer, Lane Staley of Alice in Chains.  Almost a decade earlier, Kurt Cobain, not a favorite of mine but still respected, took his life after struggling with his addictions.  For some, the source of their pain is also the source of their muse, and it is sad that the dichotomy has to be that way.  Weiland's life just seems to be another case of charging on down the road full speed ahead, ignoring the signs that say DANGER AHEAD.  I hope someone helps him before it is too late.

Jesu Joy of My Desire

Shifting gears a bit...

I consider myself an appreciator of classical music, but by no means an expert. So it was much to my surprise and untrained ear that, listening to some Johann Sebastian Bach one evening, I came across the familiar opening notes of that classic piece "Jesu Joy of My Desire," the common processional that accompanies the family of the bride and groom at many weddings around the world. I'd heard those notes many times over, as I've had the privilege of attending many friends' weddings over the years. However, up until then it had only been simple notes played on an organ or piano, a nameless piece. But then I heard it again on a CD, and the full piece could be heard, with the accompanying horn...and I was moved by it. The horn, overlaid atop that classic rhythm of joy and happiness, portrayed such regality, sorrow, beauty, and illumination that I was simply overwhelmed. So simple, so perfect. What was Bach trying to convey with those notes? And then I finally learned the title to the piece- "Jesu, Joy of My Desire." Suddenly I felt such emotion inside me, as I realized I had come across a long dead composer who was somehow able to translate the beauty of Jesus Christ into such simple notes. Bach understood the nature of Jesus, and his perfect title conveyed it. Those notes, such regality, sorrow, beauty, and illumination match perfectly the name Jesus. As I listened to those notes, I could not help but remember a stanza from the great hymn "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross," written by Isaac Watts:

See from His head, His hands, His feet
Sorrow and love flow mingled down
Did e'er such love and sorrow meet
Or thorns compose so rich a crown

That forlorn, sorrowful, beautiful horn captured those words for me. Understanding the title, that Jesus is the Joy of My Desire, means that you understand the nature of that joy, and why the desire exists, and that the desire could only be met by the Christ outpouring his love onto mankind. It is no coincidence that this piece would be a historical companion to a wedding, because the wedding itself, union of man and woman, is the perfect illustration of Christ's love for the church- His joy, His desire.

So now I hear those familiar notes and wonderful horn and I think of the title of the piece. I reflect on the nature of the cross and the salvation proffered by it. I think of my heart's desire, and I ponder that joy unspeakable when I reflect on the grace that has been extended to me. And I am overwhelmed and undone by it.

3 Sides to Every Story

In the latest developments for the Carlos Boozer/Cleveland Cavs fiasco, we finally have a second version to compare to. Within the last day, we have learned that SFX Entertainment, the company that employs Boozer's agent, and Rob Pelinka, have fired Boozer as a client, SFX has seen Pelinka resign, and Boozer went on the record to say that he never gave his word to the Cavs that he would sign with them, but he only gave his word to the Utah Jazz. Now he is mystified why the Cavs would be slandering his character, why his image would be so tarnished to the general population, and basically what all the fuss is.

So in short, Boozer claimed he never gave his word to the Cavs, SFX fired Boozer because they want people to think he went back on his word and now they want to protect themselves, and Pelinka resigned to distance himself from this mess, quite possibly to protect his crown jewel (which is???).

Why oh why oh why can't people admit that they just did it for the money? Unless some other element comes out that we haven't heard that totally contradicts everything we've learned, this is exactly what happened. Boozer took the money. How can we be so certain? To wit:

1) Boozer claims he never gave his word to the Cavs that he would re-sign with them. The first problem with this comment is that it is directly contradicted by several sources who state that Boozer said in meetings with owner Gordon Gund and GM Jim Paxon that "If you respect me by not picking up the option, I'll show trust and loyalty to you by signing with you." That's a compelling quote, but it can obviously be refuted. The bigger problem is this: unless everyone in the Cavs organization had a collective case of stupidity, there is NO WAY that they would have relinquished Boozer's rights if they weren't positive that he would re-sign with them. So for Boozer to say that he never gave his word to the Cavs that he'd re-sign is farcical and disingenuous.

2) Boozer's claims are also directly refuted by SFX's own actions that they fired him. If Boozer didn't do anything wrong, then SFX would not be compelled to distance themselves from this disaster. And then with regards to this whole firing...there's a simple relationship between employer and employee. An employee cannot fire an employer. Boozer is the employer. SFX is the employee. Boozer can fire SFX, but it can't go the other way around. Maybe it's just semantics, but it warrants mentioning.

3) Pelinka resigned because he 'tried to get Boozer to do the right thing' and get Boozer to honor his commitment to the Cavs, which is what was claimed by a fellow SFX employee. Pelinka clearly DID NOT try to convince Boozer to do the right thing, because it was Pelinka that negotiated the deal with the Jazz. You don't fire your money ticket for agreeing to a deal that you just negotiated. If Pelinka truly tried to get Boozer to do the right thing and Boozer refused to honor his verbal agreement, then Pelinka should have resigned on the spot, not gone out and negotiated a larger contract. Even if his motives were purely in the interest of his player, the perception of impropriety is too great to ignore.

4) for a good 3-4 days, Boozer and his agent refused to take any calls. You know what that is called? Assessing damage control. In one of the more humorous comments, one Boozer source actually said that Carlos was refusing to take calls from his beloved Coach Mike Krzyzewski, because "he doesn't want to hear Mike telling him not to do this."

5) Rob Pelinka's crown jewel is none other than Kobe Bryant. Pelinka stands to make huge bank off of Bryant (barring Bryant's trial outcome) but he grossly miscalculated here. He is now trying to distance himself far enough away from this mess so he doesn't lose Bryant too. Ironically, the only way that Pelinka will likely keep Bryant is if Boozer gets a dose of common sense and accepts the Cavs' olive branch and returns for an offered $5 million 1 year contract which can be renegotiated under restricted agency rules in 2005. But then again, Pelinka may lose Bryant to the Colorado penal basketball league anyway, so this may be moot.

This whole fiasco is sad and somewhat reminds me of the whole Justin Timberlake/Janet Jackson Superbowl controversy. In both scenarios, they did what they did because they had something to gain from it, got caught for what they were trying to do, and then tried to desperately convince everyone that that wasn't what happened. The problem is, the more they try to convince people, the more holes show up in the story, and you eventually realize that what we think happened is really what happened. Carlos gave his word, reneged on his promise, his agent brokered a new deal, and he took the bigger money. That's more or less what happened, so please, just come clean and this will all go away.

The Cost of Integrity

Can you see where this is going??? Allow me to recount an infamous story about Winston Churchill:

While at a dinner party, Winston Churchill asked the woman sitting next to him if she would sleep with him for one million dollars. After hemming and hawing, she agreed that yes, she would. Then, he asked her if she would sleep with him for one dollar. She was offended, "What do you think I am, a prostitute?" she indignantly replied. "Madam" Churchill said in the droll voice of his, "We've already established what you are, now we're just haggling over the price."

In the current day and age, Americans have become fond of puting a dollar amount on their level of whoredom. Shows like Fear Factor and Girls Gone Wild distinctly put a price on one's perceived modesty. Now we have witnessed the latest event in the NBA, which has seen Cleveland Cavalier power forward Carlos Boozer, a hard working future all-star, sell his integrity for approximately $26 million dollars. A steep price, no doubt, and hardly money to wag your finger at. But never the less, as Churchill established above, you are what you are, and now we're just haggling over price.

To rehash, Carlos Boozer just completed his second year in the L, a breakout year to be sure, and barring serious calamity, would be primed to cash in on a big pay day after his 3rd year, in which he would become a restricted free agent. All he had to do was play out the remainder of his contract at about $700K, and the lucre would be his. However, he wanted his money up front, and since you usually have to give something to receive something, he and his agent convinced the Cavs to tear up the final year of his contract (or not pick up the option to bring him back for a 3rd year, a luxury they had because he was a second round pick) and in return he would sign with them long term for the mid-level exemption of approximately 6 years for about $41 million. A real bargain for the Cavs, and a reward for Mr. Boozer for his hard work, and as I said, he gets the cash up front. So they agree to this arrangement on a gentleman's handshake, since new contracts cannot be consummated until July 14.

Well, you now know what happened...Boozer now being a restricted free agent, was woo'ed by the Utah Jazz by the sweet sound of $68 million, a deal which Boozer agreed to, and will be signed on July 14. Being a restricted FA, the Cavs can match the offer, but to do so and stay under the salary cap will have to jettison other promising young players, a move which they will be unlikely to do. This whole unfolding story sits in my stomach like a steak bought at the Waffle House.

There are two plausible scenarios that I see could have unfolded:

1) Boozer and his agent conspired to trick Paxon to let him out of his contract so he could negotiate offers, a plan which worked quite well in Boozer's favor.

2) Boozer & his agent went to Cavs GM Jim Paxon with the most honest of intentions- free me from this underpaid contract so I can make closer to my market value now, rather than hit the moneymaker a year from now. Once freed of his meager contract, Boozer got a sniff at what his market value was, and was seduced by the $$. He reneged on his verbal agreement, shunning the team that helped him get to his new prominence and took the additional $26 million offered by the Jazz.

The first scenario is less plausible than the second, but certainly not out of the realm of possibility, given sports agents' track records. Agents' jobs are to help their clients make as much money as possible. If they did conspire, then both are guilty of a vicious ploy and they will have a hard time keeping any respect from their peers for the foreseeable future. Boozer's agent will have a hard time doing business with any GM's and Boozer will be a marked man. I hope that this is not what they did.

However, scenario 2 is not much better, but in light of the current sports landscape, seems to be the trend. A contract seems to be a contract only when it suits the star. The LA Lakers have Shaq under contract for 2 more years. As the employer, they have every right to tell him to shut up and play, b/c they own him for 2 years and they will pay him $57 million for those services. However, they will not do this b/c their GM is weak minded and will fold both to Shaq and to Kobe, and the franchise will be hurt for it. I tend to think in Boozer's case, he's simply a young 23 year old who doesn't realize that the consequences of his actions could carry great weight down the road. All he knows is that he's going to make $26 million more with the Jazz than he would have with the Cavs.

The other big loser in this coup d'etat is the GM Paxon. He thought that word was bond, and that it was stronger than oak. Apparently he never watched the movie "Jerry McGuire." He got badly burned, and it will likely cost him his job.

Ultimately the big losers though are us, the fans. The more the NBA becomes a ruthless business, the more we're going to feel like we're watching a business and not a sport.

In the words of '80's wrestling icon Ted DiBiasi, every man has his price. Boozer's price is on display, and the NBA downward spiral continues.

July & August- Also Known as the sports Dead Zone

I freely admit that the summer months hold little sports interest to me. While I can appreciate a well played baseball game in Camden Yards, to laboriously follow a team through 162 games wears on me greatly. While baseball playoffs hold great suspense often unmatched by other sports, the doldrums of the season is akin to chewing on a piece of fat.

Here are my summer sports highlights (also known as the only way I can make it from the end of basketball to NFL pre-season)

- The NBA draft - Zaniness abounds in this event that now seems to have more of a high school prom/UN convention flavor to it.

- The NBA off-season - It began at the beginning of July, and on 7/15 new deals can be finally consummated. We shall see ridiculous amounts of cash promised to marginal players who will celebrate their newfound riches and guaranteed contract by taking the year off. Hey, wouldn't you???

- Tour de Lance, er, France - It comes like a rite of summer as we watch perhaps the finest athlete of our generation strive for the record books.

...And now we have our lengthy intermission...

-Finally NFL pre-season camp comes. If you are fortunate enough to live nearby an NFL training camp, you can gain access to the team like no other time during the regular season. Unless of course your local team stupidly decides to charge admission. (and no, that will not be my last Danny Snyder quip)

While we do have the Olympics to sidetrack us, I feel that it will be mostly a car crash curiosity to see if the NBA pros can blow it again, and who gets caught doping.

And yet we still will watch...

I can't hear the sustain...

For those of you who don't recognize the title of my Blog, it is tribute to one of the great scenes in movie history. In the rock mockumentary "This Is Spinal Tap," documentarian Marty DiBergi interviews legendary Spinal Tap lead guitarist Nigel Tufnel. Nigel decides to show Marty some of his favorite guitars and stumbles across the classic 1959 Les Paul in his stash...

...

NIGEL: This is the top of the heap right here. There's no question about it. Look at the, look at the flame on that one....

MARTY: Yes.

NIGEL: I mean it's just...it's quite unbelievable. This one is just ah...is perfect...1959...ah...you know, it just, you can uh...listen!

MARTY: How much does this....

NIGEL: Just listen for a minute....

MARTY: I'm not....

NIGEL: The sustain...listen to it...

MARTY: I'm not hearing anything.

NIGEL: You would, though, if it were playing, because it really... it's
famous for its sustain...I mean, you could, just hold it....

MARTY: Well I mean so you don't....

NIGEL: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa.... You could go and have a bite an'...Waaaaaaaaa...you'd still be hearin' that one.

...

(if you're wondering what a Les Paul looks like, our hero Dogburt is holding one)

A New Beginning

By very defintion you cannot have a new beginning, I think. Isn't it a contradiction? You only get one shot for your beginning. My beginning began 28 years ago. I suppose it would be more appropriate to call this a reload/regurgitation/rehashing/recharging of my muse. I cannot promise regular updates any more than I can promise new insights, which for me are quite rare, but hopefully my words will prove a catharsis for some (er, one...that is, me) and thought provoking for at least one other person who reads it.

Thoughts here on out will revolve around what usually occupies my thought process - family, theology, friends, music, sports, work, and dreams, and all not necessarily in that order.

And so we commence...