The sheer amount of layers in the biblical narrative astounds me. Stories echo each other, drawing an invisible thread from one passage to another that connects them all. The Bible is not a collection of independent books about the same nation and the same God thrown together, but a carefully designed series of stories that can only be understood in the context of all the other stories.
Case in point: have you ever noticed the similarities between Eli (the priest) and Saul (the king) in the book of 1 Samuel?
1. Both men were given positions of privilege by God.
2. Both tolerated blatant disobedience towards God's commandments by the people that they were responsible to lead (for Eli, it was the brazen disobedience of his sons; for Saul, the brazen disobedience of his army when fighting the Amalekites).
3. Tragically, both of them had the right to serve God stripped from them AND their family line because of their unwillingness to lead the people under their authority.
4. Both received a promise from God that another, more worthy servant would take their place (Eli was told that God would raise up for himself a "faithful priest" - 3:34, and Saul was told that God had sought out a man after his own heart to rule over God's people - 13:14, 15:28).
5. Both died tragic, violent deaths. Eli heard about the capture of the ark of God in the war with the Philistines, fell over and broke his neck (not a good way to go). Saul lost his life in battle, too, pierced through by his own sword as God's enemies swirled around him. It did not end well for either one of them.
The bridge between these two failed leaders is Samuel. He "learns the ropes" from Eli and watches the failures of his sons. He faithfully leads Israel for his whole life, but ironically begins to resemble Eli - his sons do not walk in the ways of the Lord (just like Eli), and that leads to Israel asking for a king. God is hurt by their request, and the guy that God gives them is Saul, who demonstrates pretty quickly by his actions that he isn't cut out to be the king that God intended to bless His people with. (I believe that God intended all along to give the job in just a few years to a young man after His own heart, David. If only the people could have waited a bit longer - God would have given them their king, and they could have avoided the whole Saul fiasco. There's a lesson in there somewhere, I think!)
I'm not 100% sure what the point is of these similarities, or the significance of Samuel being deeply involved in both of their lives (Eli and Saul, that is), but I don't think it's just thrown together. These echoes are intentional, and there IS a point. Now I just need to figure it out. Or rather, I just need to keep reading.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
N.T. Wright is my C.S. Lewis
Here's what I mean by that: whenever a Christian thinker/preacher/teacher wants to pull out the big guns and shut down any potential disagreement with their ideas, they quote C.S. Lewis, right? Maybe it's the quote about Aslan not being a tame lion (but don't worry, he's good), or the one about our pleasures being too weak (remember the mudpies?), or...fill in the blank. If C.S. Lewis agrees with you, or if you can make something that he said seem to support your idea, then you're golden. Whew! That was a close one. It's like throwing out the "race" card in a discussion about Tiger Woods, or throwing out the "I gave birth to your children" card when you're trying to pick what movie to watch on a Friday night. It trumps everything in a heartbeat. It's settled.
I'm being a bit sarcastic, but I mean no disrespect to C.S. His writings shaped the thinking of an entire generation (or two) of Christian thinkers so completely that it's almost impossible for them to formulate their faith without referring back to his words. He put things in such a witty and succinct (and often funny) way that you put down the book, nod your head, and say, "You tell 'em, Jack!"
So, crazy props to C.S. Lewis. But I'm moving on - to another British intellectual with two initials in front of his name (and this guy actually has had some theological training...smile).
N.T. Wright has been around forever, I guess, but I'm just now discovering him (about two years ago, now). In that time I've read four or five of his most recent books and have thoroughly enjoyed each one(Surprised by Hope literally changed my life - every Christian needs to read this book, agree or disagree) . He writes in this very formal, British style that also is weirdly conversational at the same time. He has shaped my thinking on so many different issues - so much so that I don't think I can express my beliefs or my convictions about what the purpose of life is without echoing his words at some point.
His greatest gift to me has been to help me arrange doctrines into their proper places. For example, I've always believed in the doctrine of the resurrection, and in the coming kingdom of God - but I never realized that those two pieces of the puzzle were inextricably linked together and each inform the other one. Along the way, he's helped me question some of the cliches that have crept into my thinking and challenge them with Scripture.
I'd go into more detail, but that would make this post much too long and ultimately unreadable. I just wanted to come out of the closet, so to speak, and reveal my "theologian-crush" on N.T. Wright.
(But I still like Aslan...I promise!)
I'm being a bit sarcastic, but I mean no disrespect to C.S. His writings shaped the thinking of an entire generation (or two) of Christian thinkers so completely that it's almost impossible for them to formulate their faith without referring back to his words. He put things in such a witty and succinct (and often funny) way that you put down the book, nod your head, and say, "You tell 'em, Jack!"
So, crazy props to C.S. Lewis. But I'm moving on - to another British intellectual with two initials in front of his name (and this guy actually has had some theological training...smile).
N.T. Wright has been around forever, I guess, but I'm just now discovering him (about two years ago, now). In that time I've read four or five of his most recent books and have thoroughly enjoyed each one(Surprised by Hope literally changed my life - every Christian needs to read this book, agree or disagree) . He writes in this very formal, British style that also is weirdly conversational at the same time. He has shaped my thinking on so many different issues - so much so that I don't think I can express my beliefs or my convictions about what the purpose of life is without echoing his words at some point.
His greatest gift to me has been to help me arrange doctrines into their proper places. For example, I've always believed in the doctrine of the resurrection, and in the coming kingdom of God - but I never realized that those two pieces of the puzzle were inextricably linked together and each inform the other one. Along the way, he's helped me question some of the cliches that have crept into my thinking and challenge them with Scripture.
I'd go into more detail, but that would make this post much too long and ultimately unreadable. I just wanted to come out of the closet, so to speak, and reveal my "theologian-crush" on N.T. Wright.
(But I still like Aslan...I promise!)
Saturday, February 12, 2011
The King's Speech - A Date with Fear
Without outside intervention, none of us can conquer our fears. Willpower, hard work, self-discipline isn't enough. It just doesn't work. We must be led. We must be "fathered" into it. We need to hear the words "You have what it takes - you can do it" from someone we look up to before we can believe it ourselves.
So, in the movie, a stuttering king is terrified of public speaking, and he finds someone to help him. Sound interesting? Probably not - and yet I couldn't look away for 2 hours this evening. The king isn't really scared of public speaking - that's a triviality that his fear attaches itself to - he's really terrified of letting down his family, his people, his nation, and ultimately, his father. He is convinced that he doesn't have what it takes, and so all his attempts to improve himself fall short. He doesn't believe, and none of those trying to help him really believe, either.
And then he meets a quack - an Australian speech therapist unintimidated by his persona and title. But this man is different - he believes that the king has what it takes, and just needs to be awoken to that fact. And like a father, he leads this fatherless man down the path to facing his fear and becoming the man and the leader that he was always meant to be.
This is the way that it always happens. You don't just wake up one morning, decide you have to overcome a fear, and then grit your teeth until the job is done. You must find someone who can lead you down that path. You must look for a father, and you must trust him enough to submit yourself to the training, to the grueling process of transformation.
The great tragedy of our time is that we have so few fathers to lead us. To make matters worse, we fearful sons don't trust the ones that we do have. Whenever we actually ARE called to manhood by one of these rare fathers, we're often unwilling to submit ourselves to the necessary training that manhood requires. It's too strenuous, too demanding - and we still don't believe it will work.
We all need fathers. I think we know that. The challenge to me and my generation is this: it is time to stop bemoaning the fact that we don't have fathers and we need to become fathers. We must undergo the training, however we can, as best we can, and then dare to offer whatever we have gained and learned to others - to our friends, and our sons, and our friends' sons. Maybe the greatest gift that we can give the next generation of men is to look into their eyes as boys and believe in them. And then tell them - over and over again - as often as we would have liked to have heard it ourselves. And then offer them training they will need to seize their moments and win their battles.
Maybe then we can put the Enemy on his heels and push back the darkness.
So, in the movie, a stuttering king is terrified of public speaking, and he finds someone to help him. Sound interesting? Probably not - and yet I couldn't look away for 2 hours this evening. The king isn't really scared of public speaking - that's a triviality that his fear attaches itself to - he's really terrified of letting down his family, his people, his nation, and ultimately, his father. He is convinced that he doesn't have what it takes, and so all his attempts to improve himself fall short. He doesn't believe, and none of those trying to help him really believe, either.
And then he meets a quack - an Australian speech therapist unintimidated by his persona and title. But this man is different - he believes that the king has what it takes, and just needs to be awoken to that fact. And like a father, he leads this fatherless man down the path to facing his fear and becoming the man and the leader that he was always meant to be.
This is the way that it always happens. You don't just wake up one morning, decide you have to overcome a fear, and then grit your teeth until the job is done. You must find someone who can lead you down that path. You must look for a father, and you must trust him enough to submit yourself to the training, to the grueling process of transformation.
The great tragedy of our time is that we have so few fathers to lead us. To make matters worse, we fearful sons don't trust the ones that we do have. Whenever we actually ARE called to manhood by one of these rare fathers, we're often unwilling to submit ourselves to the necessary training that manhood requires. It's too strenuous, too demanding - and we still don't believe it will work.
We all need fathers. I think we know that. The challenge to me and my generation is this: it is time to stop bemoaning the fact that we don't have fathers and we need to become fathers. We must undergo the training, however we can, as best we can, and then dare to offer whatever we have gained and learned to others - to our friends, and our sons, and our friends' sons. Maybe the greatest gift that we can give the next generation of men is to look into their eyes as boys and believe in them. And then tell them - over and over again - as often as we would have liked to have heard it ourselves. And then offer them training they will need to seize their moments and win their battles.
Maybe then we can put the Enemy on his heels and push back the darkness.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
The One Thing I Wish God Had Never Said...
The other night at youth group my pastor was teaching about obedience from 1 Samuel 15. Classic passage, right? "To obey is better than to sacrifice..." We all say "Amen" and move on without too much emotional connection to the passage. We apply it to our children, to our respect for authority, to our requirement to be holy as God is holy - it's all so...obvious (and a little boring, if we're honest). But the actual context of the statement is quite disturbing and shakes me a bit.
The command that God expects Saul to obey completely is this: a death sentence for every man, woman, child, infant, and animal belonging to the Amalekite kingdom. Saul and his soldiers were to be God's executioners. No mercy - just slaughter and bloodshed. Can you imagine the screams? The stench?
For just a moment, I'm going to set aside whether or not it was "right" for God to command this - I'm willing intellectually to embrace the idea that God, as the Judge of the earth, will only do what is right, that no one (not even an infant) is totally innocent, and that these people were just paying for horrifying sins that they had committed as a society.
But if God makes that call, why can't he just carry out the sentence himself? Why ask Israelites soldiers to take their swords and kill women, children, and infants? Wouldn't those images, those sounds, those smells, follow you for the rest of your life? How could you ever look at your own kids again in the eye? If an army were to do anything like this in today's world, they would be villified and judged for it, and rightly so. So, why did God ask his people to play the part of the Nazi? No, not ask - COMMAND.
I know that this was a fairly isolated incident, that this isn't the way that God often handled sin and human rebellion. In fact, I know that God's OT record is much more kind and gracious than any of us deserve. I'm not trying to do the whole "the OT God is bloodthirsty, NT God is sweet and kind" thing. But I just don't understand why God would command his people to do something that in almost any other scenario would be completely horrifying and evil. I understand that God has a right to use people to execute judgment and all that - it just seems totally out of character. Again, maybe I'm just a namby-pamby liberal Obama-loving tree-hugger and all that - but if it was such a great idea to begin with, why doesn't he do it anymore? Why change the way he deals with sinful people in our times?
I just don't know if I could obey that kind of a command. Intellectually, I think I could agree that God has a right to execute any human being at any time because of their sins. Emotionally? When it came down to me breaking into an Amalekite hut and putting children to death? I don't think I could do it.
Ironically, Saul and his soldiers didn't see to have any moral problems with wiping out the women and children - their obedience problem was related to the fact that they wanted to keep the spoils of the cattle and sheep and all that. Saul's disobedience wasn't on any "high moral grounds" - it was because he was greedy and wanted to keep it for himself. But...should he have disobeyed on different grounds? (Bear with me, here for a second...)
When Abraham heard that God had slated Sodom for complete destruction, he negotiated with God on the basis of His justice. The issue wasn't "save the women and children" as much as it was "don't sweep away the righteous with the wicked," but the principle is intriguing. Abraham challenged the way that God had planned to administer his justice, appealing to God's mercy and grace, and God gave way each time. (See Genesis 18 for more details.)
When God threatened (on a few occasions) to wipe out the Israelites, most notably with the whole Golden Calf incident (Exodus 32-34), Moses intervened - "No, God! You can't wipe out your people! You promised Abe, Ike, and Jake! Turn away from your fierce anger..." And God did. Each time. It seems that a common theme, even in the Pentateuch, is that if God is appealed to show mercy and grace to underserving people by men in relationship with God, God allows Himself to be entreated. He backs down.
So, should Saul have begged God to spare the Amalekites? To show them his mercy? To at least spare him from having to take part in their execution? I honestly don't know. When God pronounced his judgment on Moses (that he would not go into the promised land because of his disobedience), Moses begged God to change his mind and he refused. When David's first child by Bathsheba was sick and struggling towards death, David begged God to heal the boy and God refused. Maybe God would have told Saul to stop arguing and send him anyway. But maybe not.
I am grateful that God works differently through the church today - that we are called to suffer and die rather than to inflict suffering and kill. I don't pretend to have all the answers, or to be able to approach God's dealings with sinful humanity from any kind of moral high ground - but this is a disturbing picture, no? Any thoughts or comments, cyber-friends?
The command that God expects Saul to obey completely is this: a death sentence for every man, woman, child, infant, and animal belonging to the Amalekite kingdom. Saul and his soldiers were to be God's executioners. No mercy - just slaughter and bloodshed. Can you imagine the screams? The stench?
For just a moment, I'm going to set aside whether or not it was "right" for God to command this - I'm willing intellectually to embrace the idea that God, as the Judge of the earth, will only do what is right, that no one (not even an infant) is totally innocent, and that these people were just paying for horrifying sins that they had committed as a society.
But if God makes that call, why can't he just carry out the sentence himself? Why ask Israelites soldiers to take their swords and kill women, children, and infants? Wouldn't those images, those sounds, those smells, follow you for the rest of your life? How could you ever look at your own kids again in the eye? If an army were to do anything like this in today's world, they would be villified and judged for it, and rightly so. So, why did God ask his people to play the part of the Nazi? No, not ask - COMMAND.
I know that this was a fairly isolated incident, that this isn't the way that God often handled sin and human rebellion. In fact, I know that God's OT record is much more kind and gracious than any of us deserve. I'm not trying to do the whole "the OT God is bloodthirsty, NT God is sweet and kind" thing. But I just don't understand why God would command his people to do something that in almost any other scenario would be completely horrifying and evil. I understand that God has a right to use people to execute judgment and all that - it just seems totally out of character. Again, maybe I'm just a namby-pamby liberal Obama-loving tree-hugger and all that - but if it was such a great idea to begin with, why doesn't he do it anymore? Why change the way he deals with sinful people in our times?
I just don't know if I could obey that kind of a command. Intellectually, I think I could agree that God has a right to execute any human being at any time because of their sins. Emotionally? When it came down to me breaking into an Amalekite hut and putting children to death? I don't think I could do it.
Ironically, Saul and his soldiers didn't see to have any moral problems with wiping out the women and children - their obedience problem was related to the fact that they wanted to keep the spoils of the cattle and sheep and all that. Saul's disobedience wasn't on any "high moral grounds" - it was because he was greedy and wanted to keep it for himself. But...should he have disobeyed on different grounds? (Bear with me, here for a second...)
When Abraham heard that God had slated Sodom for complete destruction, he negotiated with God on the basis of His justice. The issue wasn't "save the women and children" as much as it was "don't sweep away the righteous with the wicked," but the principle is intriguing. Abraham challenged the way that God had planned to administer his justice, appealing to God's mercy and grace, and God gave way each time. (See Genesis 18 for more details.)
When God threatened (on a few occasions) to wipe out the Israelites, most notably with the whole Golden Calf incident (Exodus 32-34), Moses intervened - "No, God! You can't wipe out your people! You promised Abe, Ike, and Jake! Turn away from your fierce anger..." And God did. Each time. It seems that a common theme, even in the Pentateuch, is that if God is appealed to show mercy and grace to underserving people by men in relationship with God, God allows Himself to be entreated. He backs down.
So, should Saul have begged God to spare the Amalekites? To show them his mercy? To at least spare him from having to take part in their execution? I honestly don't know. When God pronounced his judgment on Moses (that he would not go into the promised land because of his disobedience), Moses begged God to change his mind and he refused. When David's first child by Bathsheba was sick and struggling towards death, David begged God to heal the boy and God refused. Maybe God would have told Saul to stop arguing and send him anyway. But maybe not.
I am grateful that God works differently through the church today - that we are called to suffer and die rather than to inflict suffering and kill. I don't pretend to have all the answers, or to be able to approach God's dealings with sinful humanity from any kind of moral high ground - but this is a disturbing picture, no? Any thoughts or comments, cyber-friends?
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Sigh...The 2000's were nice to us...Final Chapter
Not that anyone is really paying that much attention, but I thought I would at least post the rest of my list of favorite Boston-area championships from the 2000's. The more time that passes, the more bizarre it is that one city/area could win 6 different world championships and play for two others, all within a ten-year window. The collective psyche of the Boston/N.E. fan is a TOTALLY different thing than it was just 10 years ago. Like Florida and the North Pole. Or Baghdad and Las Vegas. It's hard to explain unless you've lived through it. Anyway, here goes...
6. The Boston Red Sox defeat the Colorado Rockies, 4-0, (October of 2007).
5. The New England Patriots defeat the Philadelphia Eagles in Superbowl XXXIX, 24-21 (February 2005).
and now, without any further ado...
4. The New England Patriots defeat the Carolina Panthers in Superbowl XXXVIII, 32-29 (February 2004). This championship was fun for a lot of reasons: the defense was always coming up with timely turnovers and stops to stomp the hearts out of the opposition, Brady was consistently good, the 12 game win streak to end the season, playoff defeats of BOTH of the Co-MVPs of the league that year, Steve McNair and Peyton Manning (still fun to remember the facial expressions and body language of the Oreo guy during that one). Vinatieri made a dozen clutch kicks in the playoffs ALONE. The Superbowl was a GREAT game (overshadowed somewhat by the whole Janet Jackson fiasco) - it went back and forth in a frantic fourth quarter that saw some CRAAAAZY pass plays between Jake "The Man" and his gifted wide receivers. When journeyman wide receiver Ricky Proehl tied the game with just over a minute left, it looked destined for overtime. But, we had seen Brady do this before...and we believed. We really did. Somehow he got us deep enough into Carolina territory for Adam Vinatieri to attempt a 41 yarder, and it sailed through. It felt good to be back on top of the mountain...and we realized that this Brady guy wasn't a one-year wonder or fluke: in his 3 seasons, he had brought us 2 Superbowl wins and 2 Superbowl MVPs in dramatic fashion. We started to wonder...what could be the ceiling for this guy?
3. The Boston Celtics defeat the Los Angeles Lakers, 4-2 (June 2008).
Now this one was fun. For my whole childhood/young adulthood, the Celtics franchise had rested on the laurels of its celebrated past. There had been some playoff appearances and memorable players who had come through Boston, but none of them had even gotten close enough to sniff the Finals, let alone the Championship. That all changed when Danny Ainge managed to swing deals to bring Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen to Boston to partner with Paul Pierce. (What is often forgotten is the strong young nucleus that Ainge had assembled to complement these guys - Rajon Rondo, Kendrick Perkins, Glen Davis - all drafted and developed by Boston in the previous two seasons.) It was so fun to follow a team that played with ferocity and fire every night. I experienced for the first time what it must have been like to follow the Celtics back in the mid-80's or even back in the mid-60's. We were the best team in the conference, everyone knew it, and the team delivered. This team wasn't resting on its storied past, but was starving for its own accomplishments, its own glory. The Playoffs were anything but a formality. I remember everyone freaking out (myself included), wondering if KG was going soft, if Ray Allen had forgotten how to shoot 3's, if Rajon Rondo would ever be able to make a jumpshot, if Doc Rivers would ever develop a playoff rotation that worked, etc. The freaking Atlanta Hawks took us to 7, then LeBron (notice I didn't say the Cavs) took us to 7 before we woke up. We defeated Detroit pretty handily (considering they were the best team we had played so far), and then it was time for a rematch - Boston vs. LA. Dream matchup. I have every single game recorded, and I've watched them all several times - each game had something special...
Game 1: Pierce hurts his knee, goes into the locker room, hobbles back into the game, makes big shots down the stretch to put the game out of reach.
Game 2: Celtics winning BIG in a laugher, only to have a FURIOUS Laker comeback fall just short in the fourth quarter. I almost urinated on myself at the end there - and suddenly didn't feel so confident about the next three games in LA.
Game 3: The officials over-react to the free-throw disparity in game 2 by pulling a "Michael Jordan" and gift-wrapping Kobe 18 free-throws all by himself. Whatever.
Game 4: The Celtics pull off the biggest comeback in NBA Finals history (something like 23 points), and change the complexion of the series.
Game 5: The Celtics ALMOST pull off another huge comeback. Paul Pierce plays like a man in his hometown, but the C's waste an opportunity to put the Lakers away on the home floor.
Game 6: Complete annihilation. We had geared ourselves up for a clash of the titans, and the game was over halfway through the second quarter. The Lakers were soft, and they had no heart. Or I should say, the Celtics ripped it out of their chest and left it to die slowly on the Garden floor. So sweet. Sooooooo sweeeeeetttttttt. Ray Allen couldn't miss - KG wouldn't lose - and PP wouldn't allow his team to let up until he had grabbed banner #17 for a whole new generation of Celts fans.
Just an amazing turn of events. And it all changed in one season. One season. I'll never get over that one.
2. The Boston Red Sox defeat the St. Louis Cardinals, 4-0 (October 2004).
The World Series was anti-climactic. This will always be known as the year we finally beat the Yankees. Finally. FINALLY! After Tim Wakefield's 12th inning pitch landed in the Yankee Stadium bleachers in 2003, we felt like it was never going to happen. Down 3-0...and it was once again defeat and resignation. I didn't even have the heart to be mad after game 3. We were the little brothers, and we were always going to be that. Game 4 played out predictably - we were going to end up just a bit short...one run lead for the Yanks, Mariano Rivera in to shut it down (see game 7, 2003 ALCS). Then...Millar walks. Roberts steals second (barely). And I'll never forget the shock waves that went through my body when Bill Mueller hit that ball back up the middle and drove Roberts home. It was like Rocky 4 all over again..."YOU SEE? YOU CUT HIM! YOU HURT HIM! YOU SEE? HE'S NOT A MACHINE, HE'S A MAN!!!!!" And then...Big Papi. And the next day...Big Papi again. He not only came through in the most desperate situation, he did it on back to back nights against the freaking New York Yankees. And then Schilling came out with the bloody sock. I get chills just remembering the first time the TV cameras showed us the closeup (sadly, it's likely his decision to do this crazy procedure on his ankle hastened his inevitable decline). And then Johnny Damon exploded on the Yanks for a pair of huge homeruns in Game 7 that made it inevitable. The greatest comeback in MLB history. And we got it against the Yankees. And then the Cardinals were nice enough to lay down for four straight games and let us steamroll them into oblivion. This victory leaves me dumbfounded. Shoot, if the Sox could win, after 87 years, and numerous well-documented choke-jobs, ANYONE could. And we were the champs. At last...
1. The New England Patriots defeat the St. Louis Rams in Superbowl XXXVI, 20-17 (February 2002). This, of course, was the year that the legend of Tom Brady was born. Humble All-American backup QB is called into action to replace the injured Pro-Bowler starter, and just refuses to lose. He's a 6th round draft choice (#199 overall) who doesn't blow you away with his numbers...at all. But he's a winner. And we love him almost from the very beginning. New England was starved for a championship. Larry Bird had last delivered us one in 1986, and it had been 16 years of humble pie and disappointment over and over again. Somehow, the team that had gone 5-11 the season before turned into an 11-5 division winner. We beat Oakland in a crazy snowstorm, then went to Pittsburgh and beat the Steelers (that was fun - Drew Bledsoe got back into the game after Brady went out with an ankle injury and willed the team to victory - it was great to see him get one last hurrah with the Pats). The Pats were 13 point underdogs in the Superbowl to the "Greatest Show on Turf" St. Louis Rams (and rightly so). I'll never forget Ty Law picking off Warner and running it all the way back for a TD, and thinking, "Could one of my teams actually win a championship in my lifetime?" (Pause) "Naaaahhhh." Then we score again...14-3. "Hmmmm...Maybe..." Then we tack on a field goal... "You know, I'm starting to think..." Then, mid-way through the 4th quarter, Warner gets a cheap TD on a QB sneak, and the Pats offense predictably goes three and out. Warner wastes no time at all throwing the game-tying touchdown to...who else?...Ricky Proehl, and momentum has completely shifted.
New England had the ball at their own 17 yard line with 1:30 to play. Madden told Brady to take a knee and start over in OT. Brady had other thoughts. 83 seconds and at least four "there's no way THAT worked" plays later, Brady had spiked the ball at the St. Louis 30. When Vinatieri kicked the ball through the goalposts, I was stunned. I would love to tell you I believed all along, but I didn't. Not for one second. I was conditioned to think that it couldn't happen, that it would never happen. Nobody believed in this team - not even their own fans. But they did it. They single-handedly reversed the bad luck and disappointments of a whole region of the country. They paved the way for the 2004 Sox and the 2008 Celts. Without Tom Brady and Bill Belichick, I'm convinced that the Red Sox and the Celtics would still be toiling away in mediocrity. They gave us our pride back. They forced us to expect more from all our teams, to demand a level of commitment and excellence that led to five other area championships in the next 7 years. The Pats gave us hope for the future, and they did it in the most dramatic way imaginable.
What can I say? The first one is always the sweetest.
6. The Boston Red Sox defeat the Colorado Rockies, 4-0, (October of 2007).
5. The New England Patriots defeat the Philadelphia Eagles in Superbowl XXXIX, 24-21 (February 2005).
and now, without any further ado...
4. The New England Patriots defeat the Carolina Panthers in Superbowl XXXVIII, 32-29 (February 2004). This championship was fun for a lot of reasons: the defense was always coming up with timely turnovers and stops to stomp the hearts out of the opposition, Brady was consistently good, the 12 game win streak to end the season, playoff defeats of BOTH of the Co-MVPs of the league that year, Steve McNair and Peyton Manning (still fun to remember the facial expressions and body language of the Oreo guy during that one). Vinatieri made a dozen clutch kicks in the playoffs ALONE. The Superbowl was a GREAT game (overshadowed somewhat by the whole Janet Jackson fiasco) - it went back and forth in a frantic fourth quarter that saw some CRAAAAZY pass plays between Jake "The Man" and his gifted wide receivers. When journeyman wide receiver Ricky Proehl tied the game with just over a minute left, it looked destined for overtime. But, we had seen Brady do this before...and we believed. We really did. Somehow he got us deep enough into Carolina territory for Adam Vinatieri to attempt a 41 yarder, and it sailed through. It felt good to be back on top of the mountain...and we realized that this Brady guy wasn't a one-year wonder or fluke: in his 3 seasons, he had brought us 2 Superbowl wins and 2 Superbowl MVPs in dramatic fashion. We started to wonder...what could be the ceiling for this guy?
3. The Boston Celtics defeat the Los Angeles Lakers, 4-2 (June 2008).
Now this one was fun. For my whole childhood/young adulthood, the Celtics franchise had rested on the laurels of its celebrated past. There had been some playoff appearances and memorable players who had come through Boston, but none of them had even gotten close enough to sniff the Finals, let alone the Championship. That all changed when Danny Ainge managed to swing deals to bring Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen to Boston to partner with Paul Pierce. (What is often forgotten is the strong young nucleus that Ainge had assembled to complement these guys - Rajon Rondo, Kendrick Perkins, Glen Davis - all drafted and developed by Boston in the previous two seasons.) It was so fun to follow a team that played with ferocity and fire every night. I experienced for the first time what it must have been like to follow the Celtics back in the mid-80's or even back in the mid-60's. We were the best team in the conference, everyone knew it, and the team delivered. This team wasn't resting on its storied past, but was starving for its own accomplishments, its own glory. The Playoffs were anything but a formality. I remember everyone freaking out (myself included), wondering if KG was going soft, if Ray Allen had forgotten how to shoot 3's, if Rajon Rondo would ever be able to make a jumpshot, if Doc Rivers would ever develop a playoff rotation that worked, etc. The freaking Atlanta Hawks took us to 7, then LeBron (notice I didn't say the Cavs) took us to 7 before we woke up. We defeated Detroit pretty handily (considering they were the best team we had played so far), and then it was time for a rematch - Boston vs. LA. Dream matchup. I have every single game recorded, and I've watched them all several times - each game had something special...
Game 1: Pierce hurts his knee, goes into the locker room, hobbles back into the game, makes big shots down the stretch to put the game out of reach.
Game 2: Celtics winning BIG in a laugher, only to have a FURIOUS Laker comeback fall just short in the fourth quarter. I almost urinated on myself at the end there - and suddenly didn't feel so confident about the next three games in LA.
Game 3: The officials over-react to the free-throw disparity in game 2 by pulling a "Michael Jordan" and gift-wrapping Kobe 18 free-throws all by himself. Whatever.
Game 4: The Celtics pull off the biggest comeback in NBA Finals history (something like 23 points), and change the complexion of the series.
Game 5: The Celtics ALMOST pull off another huge comeback. Paul Pierce plays like a man in his hometown, but the C's waste an opportunity to put the Lakers away on the home floor.
Game 6: Complete annihilation. We had geared ourselves up for a clash of the titans, and the game was over halfway through the second quarter. The Lakers were soft, and they had no heart. Or I should say, the Celtics ripped it out of their chest and left it to die slowly on the Garden floor. So sweet. Sooooooo sweeeeeetttttttt. Ray Allen couldn't miss - KG wouldn't lose - and PP wouldn't allow his team to let up until he had grabbed banner #17 for a whole new generation of Celts fans.
Just an amazing turn of events. And it all changed in one season. One season. I'll never get over that one.
2. The Boston Red Sox defeat the St. Louis Cardinals, 4-0 (October 2004).
The World Series was anti-climactic. This will always be known as the year we finally beat the Yankees. Finally. FINALLY! After Tim Wakefield's 12th inning pitch landed in the Yankee Stadium bleachers in 2003, we felt like it was never going to happen. Down 3-0...and it was once again defeat and resignation. I didn't even have the heart to be mad after game 3. We were the little brothers, and we were always going to be that. Game 4 played out predictably - we were going to end up just a bit short...one run lead for the Yanks, Mariano Rivera in to shut it down (see game 7, 2003 ALCS). Then...Millar walks. Roberts steals second (barely). And I'll never forget the shock waves that went through my body when Bill Mueller hit that ball back up the middle and drove Roberts home. It was like Rocky 4 all over again..."YOU SEE? YOU CUT HIM! YOU HURT HIM! YOU SEE? HE'S NOT A MACHINE, HE'S A MAN!!!!!" And then...Big Papi. And the next day...Big Papi again. He not only came through in the most desperate situation, he did it on back to back nights against the freaking New York Yankees. And then Schilling came out with the bloody sock. I get chills just remembering the first time the TV cameras showed us the closeup (sadly, it's likely his decision to do this crazy procedure on his ankle hastened his inevitable decline). And then Johnny Damon exploded on the Yanks for a pair of huge homeruns in Game 7 that made it inevitable. The greatest comeback in MLB history. And we got it against the Yankees. And then the Cardinals were nice enough to lay down for four straight games and let us steamroll them into oblivion. This victory leaves me dumbfounded. Shoot, if the Sox could win, after 87 years, and numerous well-documented choke-jobs, ANYONE could. And we were the champs. At last...
1. The New England Patriots defeat the St. Louis Rams in Superbowl XXXVI, 20-17 (February 2002). This, of course, was the year that the legend of Tom Brady was born. Humble All-American backup QB is called into action to replace the injured Pro-Bowler starter, and just refuses to lose. He's a 6th round draft choice (#199 overall) who doesn't blow you away with his numbers...at all. But he's a winner. And we love him almost from the very beginning. New England was starved for a championship. Larry Bird had last delivered us one in 1986, and it had been 16 years of humble pie and disappointment over and over again. Somehow, the team that had gone 5-11 the season before turned into an 11-5 division winner. We beat Oakland in a crazy snowstorm, then went to Pittsburgh and beat the Steelers (that was fun - Drew Bledsoe got back into the game after Brady went out with an ankle injury and willed the team to victory - it was great to see him get one last hurrah with the Pats). The Pats were 13 point underdogs in the Superbowl to the "Greatest Show on Turf" St. Louis Rams (and rightly so). I'll never forget Ty Law picking off Warner and running it all the way back for a TD, and thinking, "Could one of my teams actually win a championship in my lifetime?" (Pause) "Naaaahhhh." Then we score again...14-3. "Hmmmm...Maybe..." Then we tack on a field goal... "You know, I'm starting to think..." Then, mid-way through the 4th quarter, Warner gets a cheap TD on a QB sneak, and the Pats offense predictably goes three and out. Warner wastes no time at all throwing the game-tying touchdown to...who else?...Ricky Proehl, and momentum has completely shifted.
New England had the ball at their own 17 yard line with 1:30 to play. Madden told Brady to take a knee and start over in OT. Brady had other thoughts. 83 seconds and at least four "there's no way THAT worked" plays later, Brady had spiked the ball at the St. Louis 30. When Vinatieri kicked the ball through the goalposts, I was stunned. I would love to tell you I believed all along, but I didn't. Not for one second. I was conditioned to think that it couldn't happen, that it would never happen. Nobody believed in this team - not even their own fans. But they did it. They single-handedly reversed the bad luck and disappointments of a whole region of the country. They paved the way for the 2004 Sox and the 2008 Celts. Without Tom Brady and Bill Belichick, I'm convinced that the Red Sox and the Celtics would still be toiling away in mediocrity. They gave us our pride back. They forced us to expect more from all our teams, to demand a level of commitment and excellence that led to five other area championships in the next 7 years. The Pats gave us hope for the future, and they did it in the most dramatic way imaginable.
What can I say? The first one is always the sweetest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)