Skip to main content

The Greatest

Boxing is probably my second favorite sport, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that my favorite fighter is Muhammad Ali. Rarely has such a skill set been seen among heavyweights, if ever. And he came to us in the TV age, at the height of American post-war decadence, on the eve of our times of turmoil. He was in many ways the first sports superstar in the way we know it today: ubiquitous, a topic of conversation.

Sports matters precisely where it intersects with life lived, which perhaps tells us nothing. Yet if it does, Ali certainly did that. You can read all over that he was polarizing, and I guess that's so. The liberal consensus of the time says that he got a raw deal in '67, and he did. That same consensus gives blacks a free pass on some of the extremism and hatred of the Nation Of Islam, because, after all, (or so the thinking goes) White America gave them a full measure of it, beginning from the time we landed until now. This is mostly true. Don't think for a second that Ali would get that free pass if he were not a sportsman, who entertained millions. But in popular culture, we like our icons monochromatic, whether heroes or villains.

And that's exactly what he is, an icon. More than a man, but not a god. I suppose I'm as guilty as any; I like his phrases, his bombast, his athleticism. I'd like to think I'd like him, but I can't back that up. There are detractors lurking about, whose opinions are as real as they are unconsulted. I am moved to pray for Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr. (With all due respect, I don't think God calls him 'Muhammad') that this colorful life does not end in eternal death, and the fire of Hell. That sounds harsh, I guess, but we all must seek mercy, not presume upon it. May we find it, and with our friend, triumphantly shout, "I am the king of the world!" in the presence of our Father.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un