Skip to main content

Waiting Their Whole Lives

Generations lived and died, waiting for the Cubs to win the championship of baseball. My Cardinals have won it 11 times since 1908. Think about that. And now, all the waiting is over.

I live and die with every pitch, so I get it. Then again, I never could. Winning is tradition in St. Louis. A season without a playoff appearance (like this last one) is a total loss, and it'll be going on 6 years since the last championship. The natives are getting restless, if you can believe that.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry to all the beleaguered fanbases out there. Winning does nothing, if not breed the desire for more winning. The fans in Chicago will get arrogant. Fans always do.

On the other hand, if you're a die-hard, the other teams in the way always seem bigger and badder than they probably are. Your team is unlucky, behind the 8-ball, opposed by the umpires, et cetera. I have never seen a team in my life that didn't talk about "adversity." Even if they won 103 games.

Still, baseball is a hard game. A team isn't lying when it talks like this. Even if they go rampaging around the league. And that's a fitting way to end 108 years of futility. The raw emotion of the thing, that's because baseball is more than baseball; it's family.

And now, generations of families can add more than aspirations to their bonds of love. It's the stuff of reality. And no one can take it away.

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