Why did the Cubs miss out on the 2003 World Series?
Everyone knows the answer to that. Bartman blew it, right? Steve Bartman reached out on to the field of play and prevented Moises Alou from making a catch he otherwise would have easily made and cost the Cubs their chance at glory. Facts are facts, right? Bartman was to blame.
What cost the Red Sox the 1986 world series?
Everyone knows that the Red Sox were about to win it all when Buckner let a ground ball go through his legs and cost them the lead and ended the World Series. Facts are facts, right? Buckner was to blame.
There is a problem with both sets of facts. They are wrong.
Bartman reached for a foul ball that came at him (as millions have done before and since). The ball was in the stands and even Moises Alou has admitted he probably wouldn’t have caught the ball. But when he missed it, he threw a tantrum on the field and pointed at Bartman who then became the focus of the Cubs’ ire.
It was the eighth inning, the Cubs had a three run lead with their best pitcher on the mound and one out. Bartman’s (questionable) interference didn’t really change a thing. But then the pitching went bad, the defense became porous and within a few minutes eight runs had scored, the Cubs were losing and Bartman was being escorted by security out of the stands.
And they still had another game to play. This was the sixth game, not the seventh and the Cubs had another home game opportunity to win their way to the World Series.
Why did they blame a fan? It was easier than taking responsibility for their poor play, wasn’t it?
Buckner? People have a lot of facts wrong on that one. First of all, the game had already been tied on a wild pitch by Bob Stanley. If Buckner had made the play, the game would not have been over, it would simply have gone on to another extra inning.
And the Red Sox had another game to play. Again, it was game six, not game seven. The Red Sox led through most of game 7 before they gave that lead up. Was Buckner to blame for their failure in game 7 as well?
Of course not. But again, it was easier to pass the buck by blaming Buckner than to admit their failures.
I watched the ESPN documentary, “Catching Hell” last night, which chronicles the Bartman incident, but also examined the Buckner incident. It was riveting, fascinating and disturbing, watching the fans and lazy sports reporters taking the easy road of blaming Buckner and Bartman for their teams’ failures.
Bartman, a lifelong Cubs fan is now reviled by fans of the team he loved all his life. Buckner was a very good player who played the game the right way and did not deserve to be remembered for this one incident. But the media feeding frenzy and the crucial moments in which these events took place almost inevitably led to them becoming infamous.
But Bartman did not cost the Cubs a trip to the World series. Bad pitching, bad fielding and an aggressive Florida Marlins team did. Blaming Bartman was easy, but not fair. Certainly, Buckner’s error was not helpful and it was a big play, but Boston had already blown the lead with a wild pitch and they had another chance two days later. It was just easier to point the finger of blame than to admit their own failings. Find a scapegoat, pin the blame and absolve yourself.
What’s the Point?
I think we all have a tendency to Buckner and Bartman our problems. It is easy to find a scapegoat, pin the blame and absolve ourselves from all failures. It is not a godly response, nor is it helpful.
We will all admit, I think, that the SBC has some significant problems right now. We are plateaued in growth for the last decade or so, and the last couple of years have shown small numerical decreases that open the door to speculation that we are beginning a decline. At first, some denied the reality of the problem, but most of us admit that there is a real problem now.
So, what do we do in response? We look for a Bartman or a Buckner to blame.
- It’s the Calvinists fault.
- If only those non-Calvinists would stop their false attacks.
- We need to become more culturally relevant.
- If only those hide-bound traditionalists would stop standing in the way of progress.
- Those BI guys are the problem.
- The people who don’t accept “historic” Baptist doctrine are causing us to go astray.
- Our name needs to be changed.
- Those who want to change the name are destroying our convention.
I have opinions about each of those issues. But my point, I believe, transcends them. It is easy to find a scapegoat and pin all the problems on him. Sometimes (as with Bartman), the scapegoat really has little to do with the problem. Sometimes, (as with Buckner), the scapegoat may have played a part in the problem but does not deserve the bulk of the blame we have laid on him. But scapegoating is almost never productive.
Baptist bloggers disagree on almost any subject. But one thing we all agree on – the problem is the fault of the people who don’t agree with me. And the solution is for people to see things my way.
A Better Way
Might it not be better for each of us to look within, at our actions and attitudes, rather that just pinning the blame on the Bartmans and Buckners around us?
- Maybe I should look at my life, and my church, and see what we are doing to make the SBC stronger. The SBC is a convention of churches. The only way it grows is if its churches grow – spiritually, theologically and numerically. Maybe I should focus on what is going on at 4301 Old Lakeport and worry less about what Bryant Wright or Paige Patterson or Al Mohler is up to. Those thing matter and we need to discuss those issues. But the solution is in me and at my church.
- Maybe I should worry less about the GCR and think more about the Great Commission.
- Maybe I should not be so fixated on whether we change the name, but how I represent that name regardless of what it is.
Again, I’m not saying that none of these things matter. I’m just saying that it is intellectually lazy to look at our failures and just pin the blame on “them.”
One thing I think I can say for sure. The problems that the SBC faces will not be solved by finding a Buckner or a Bartman to villify.
It seems people sometimes think the church would transform itself once things went their way. The phenomenon does remain that people believe as real what their mind thinks. But I also know that some ideas and doctrines exist that I don’t wish to hear preached. There are some things I don’t believe in that other Christians do. I don’t want to be taught those things. i know that my beliefs are mine. I own them for a reason. i’ve done research and to me it’s proven. Someone else could have another angle based on work they’ve done. But each has their mind. I believe I’ve read and thought my way through what I now stand upon. So to change would be unthinkable. I suspect it’s like that for most thoughtful and conscientious Christians.
You are right, of course. If I really believe what I believe, then I believe that the church would be better if it believes that as well.
My problem comes with the easy assignation of blame. We have problems because of “them.” Too simple to scapegoat and play pin the blame on the donkey.
“Baptist bloggers disagree on almost any subject.”
Now, you know, DAVID, like all Christians, Baptists can agree that they are in total opposition to satan.
Tolkien would consider all those disagreements “satan’s pay-back”:
“Indeed in nothing is the power of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that divides all those who still oppose him.”
? J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring
And we always think someone’s preventing that model church from happening. Model churches don’t exist. Just churches. Churches just like those of St. Paul’s day.
It is incumbent on those who are stronger to see to the development of those who are weaker.
In my company, when our drafters send drawings to the floor that are confusing or take too long to interpret, it is tempting for the drafters to say that the factory associates must learn to understand the drawings. However, it is agreed that it is the responsibility of the drafters to create drawings that are simple enough to be efficiently and effectively read by the average factory associate.
It is the same in the Church. Those who are stronger in the faith must serve those who are weaker, cooperating with the Holy Spirit in their sanctification. The question then remains, how do we determine the strength of faith of each believer?
Paul addressed something very similar in the meat-sacrificed-to-idols passages. But he never fully answers the question how we can determine who has the weaker faith? It would seem that he indicates that the weaker faith are those who won’t eat the meat. But in other circumstances who eats the proverbial meat and who abstains according to conscience? It’s not always clear.
The answer is that whether you eat the meat or not, you must consider the conscience of those you consider to have the weaker faith. If you would lay blame on someone else, then you must consider that your responsibility is to help them grow in their faith, and this is not by condemning them, but by calling them to a greater faith.
I do this with my wife according to Eph 5. If I’m supposed to lover her like Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her to purify her and present her to Himself spotless, then when I’m tempted to complain about her or blame her for something, it is my place to take responsibility for not seeing to her spiritual growth as I should. And if I see that as cooperating with the Holy Spirit, then I am humbled by the fact that I am greatly outclassed by Him, but it is His desire to use me in that capacity. I need to study God more to understand how He is working in my wife’s life.
If two parties in disagreement with each other think that they are spiritually superior to the other then it is the sacrifice of their spiritual service to each other that is biblically required rather than trying to lord over each other as Christ instructed us NOT to do.
Good stuff.
I think Paul’s point was that the “weak” aren’t so weak and the “strong” aren’t so strong. Neither should judge the other and all should keep matters of conscience to themselves. This is why the subject of alcohol should not be introduced. Yet we continue to set ourselves up as judges of such matters. Each time we do this we’re going against the advice of St. Paul who dealt with these dynamics early on.