Do You Love Me?

Here is my message from Sunday. The text was John 21:15-19:

New beginnings can be good things. New starts allow us to reset, to initiate a new outlook and perspective on things. To put the past behind us and maybe even pretend, or even act, as if the past didn’t exist. It didn’t happen. The playoffs for the NFL will be starting soon, and lots of teams know now they don’t stand a chance of winning it all, but just a few months ago, they all had the pretensions that they could be the last team standing. Whether that was actually true or not could be debated, but at was at least the idea. The New Year can do the same thing for us. Regardless of what we did or didn’t do in the last year we get a start to do something different. We can start to exercise, or change diet, or save more, or prepare to take that trip we always wanted, or start reading more, or relaxing more, or whatever it might be. I have to say that last year my resolution was to gain thirty pounds, and unfortunately I didn’t make that total, but I haven’t given up yet. But there is something very strong in Christianity about starting over again, of putting things in the rearview mirror and moving forward, and we do that not only in worship but in our faith itself, at least hopefully.

And so today we begin a new series, a short series, entitled Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene, and for those who are younger there was a folk group from the 60’s called Peter, Paul and Mary, which you may know for either Puff the Magic Dragon or If I had a Hammer, if you know them at all. And not to date myself too much, while I didn’t see them in the 60’s or 70’s, I did see them in the 80s. But, the important part here is that that’s not whom we are talking about. And as I was thinking about this series last spring, I didn’t really think about Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene as being about new beginnings, but in many, many ways they are. And so we’re not going to really talk about who they are or what they did and for why they are famous, except for Mary Magdalene, but instead to look at a very particular episode, how they encountered God in that moment, what it meant for them, and more importantly what it means for us in our faith in the possibility of new beginnings and of God’s amazing grace.

Derogatory Names And Polls

Yesterday the Washington Post ran a headline, based on some polling they had requested, that said "New Poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans aren't offended by Redskins Name."  This was pretty shocking to lots of people and led many sports talking heads to say something along the lines of "well, I guess it's not as bad as I thought it was."

My first thought was about the margin of error, which no one was reporting.  As a political science major in college, I can remember back, vaguely in some cases, to a class I took on political polling, and the one thing I definitely remember was being told that any poll that had a margin of error greater than 3-3.5% was meaningless.

It was meaningless because the sample size was not big enough to actually provide you with information that was readily applicable across the entire spectrum of the polling sample.  There are exceptions to this rule, one of the biggest being for small local samples and local polling.  But, that's not what this poll was for nor what it claimed to represent, which was a cross-section of the entire country and how Native Americans felt about the name. So just on the margin of error I'm going to say don't take this poll to mean anything, and I highly doubt they would have run a presidential poll with a margin of error being this high.

The next thing to pay attention to in polling is the questions that are asked, because it's really easy to sway people to say the things you want them to say simply by how you word the questions. So, my next step was to look at the questions, which the Washington Post was good enough to provide.

If you were going to run a poll seeking the Native American response to a question, what would be the first question you asked? I would think it would be "Are you Native American?" They never asked that question. Let that sink in for a moment.  Instead the first question they asked was "Are your currently enrolled as a member with a Native American tribe?" A decent follow-up to the first question they should have asked, but still only 44% answered in the affirmative.  But they do say that the answers were the thoughts of "ordinary Indians." I guess that's in comparison to the extraordinary ones?

Even more puzzling was the fact that of those polled 56% of the respondents said they knew "not much" or "nothing at all" about the debate that's been going around about changing the name of the Washington football team. I suppose it's possible that more than half really had not been following this story which is decades old and extends to college and high school mascots, including tribes considering the appropriateness of their own mascots as well, but I find that really hard to believe.

Finally, contrary to the headline, 21% of those polled said they consider the word "redskin disrespectful to Native Americans."  If we did a poll that said that only 21% of African-Americans considered the N-word to be disrespectful would we then conclude that it was therefore okay for everyone, especially whites, to begin saying the N-word? Of course we wouldn't because it is still offensive to a not statistically insignificant portion of the population.

Let me phrase this another way. What would the response have been if the headline, instead of using the term Native American, had instead said "New poll finds 9 in 10 Redskins do not find the name Redskins offensive"?  I suspect the response would have been one of offense, and so if we don't/won't/can't use it in reference to a group of people in a headline then we shouldn't use it in naming a sports team.

4th Downs, Pitching and the Blame Game

Gregg Easterbrook, who used to write for ESPN until their purge of people critical of the NFL, now writes about football for the New York Times.  One of his constant complaints is about coaches punting on 4th down, especially when it's 4th and short, and definitely when they are on the opposition's side of the field.  It is Easterbrook's contention, and he has the stats to back it up, that possession of the ball is a much more significant to winning the game then is trying to win "field position."  In addition, he says that by going for it, by being more aggressive, that coaches signal to their players that they want to win and trust and believe in the players to get the job done.

But, he argues, if coaches go for it and the attempt fails, the coaches are much more likely to be questioned and take the blame.  Whereas, since punting on 4th down is conventional wisdom, if they punt and the defense can't stop the other team, then it's the players fault.  It's a type of blame shifting that is bought into by the media, and because of them, by the fans as well.

Which leads me to pitching, and in particular the pitching of the New York Yankees.  There is a much lamented refrain in the media this year that the Yankees' bullpen is tired because their starting pitching is not giving them enough length, and so the bullpen pitchers are having to throw too many pitches.  This places all the blame on the pitchers, even ultimately on the bullpen pitchers because "they have to make their pitches" and if they don't it's certainly not the manager's fault.

The problem with this analysis is that it totally dismisses the manager's role in leaving pitchers in or taking them out.  Girardi seems to have the belief that if a pitcher even comes close to throwing 100 pitches that he has to be pulled out of the game.  There are lots of times when he has yanked a starting pitcher who is cruising for seemingly no other reason other than he is approaching 100 pitches.  Then when the bullpen blows the game, it's not Girardi's fault, it's the bullpen because they are tired from having starting pitching not going deep into games.

Similarly, a bullpen pitcher will be doing great when they are yanked and someone else brought in because "conventional wisdom" is to make the move.  I have never figured out why starting pitchers can face both lefties and righties, but bullpen pitchers can only seem to be able to pitch to one of the other.  Unless, of course, they have a specific role such as "set-up man" or "closer" and then can see both batters, but can never be used in any situation other than what their role is.  You absolutely cannot bring in the closer, you're 9th inning guy, in the 8th to face the heart of the order of the other team, because that's not their "role."

That of course is also blame shifting.  It's not the manager's fault if the pitcher messes up, that's all on the pitcher, even if they never should have been there in the first place.  It also signals to his pitchers whether he believes in them or not, and you cannot learn how to pitch out of a jam unless your manager allows you to try it.

The one exception to this rule this year is Matt Williams, the soon to be ex-manager of the Washington Nationals, who is blamed for not bringing in pitchers out of their designated roles.  But Williams is definitely the exception to the rule in this case, otherwise the mantra in sports, and the actions of managers and coaches, is to make the decisions so that the blame goes to the players rather than to the person making the decision, because they did what "everyone else does."

Direct TV and the NFL's View of Manhood

If you are watching TV, by now you have probably seen one of Direct TV's ads for their NFL package staring Randy Moss, Peyton Manning, Tony Romo and Andrew Luck.  (If you haven't you can view them all on youtube).  They build off of their popular Rob Lowe "Don't be like this me" ads of those who have Direct TV and those who don't. Except these are about people who have the NFL Sunday ticket and those who don't.

My biggest problem with these ads is the view of manhood or masculinity that they are portraying. The opposite Randy Moss is short, the opposite Peyton Manning has a high voice, the opposite Tony Romo does art and cooks and the opposite Andrew Luck has cats.  So in other words if you don't fit the narrow, confining idea of who and what a man is in our culture than you aren't a real man, and real men, of course, watch the NFL.

As someone who is 2" shorter than the average height for white males in America, has a voice higher than I would like and owns two cats, I guess I simply don't qualify to get the NFL package.  Although the truth is it's because of the ridiculous amount of money they charge.  I get 162 games of the Yankees, and every other MLB team, for less than 1/2 the cost of the NFL package which only has 16 games.

It seems sort of surprising in the year 2015 that we would still get this idea of manhood portrayed, and yet at the same time it's not.  But you would think that with all the problems the NFL has had over the past year, as well as their marketing drive to try and get more women to watch, that they would be trying to tone down this idea of ultra-masculinity, rather than pumping it up.  But instead the opposite is being done here.

It's time for other companies, perhaps Dish Network or one of the cable companies, to come out with "Don't be like this Direct TV" and give us some positive role models of men who don't fit the "normal, acceptable" role of masculinity.

Abhorrent Behavior

I'm sure this will come as no surprise to most people, but most professional athletes are extreme narcissists. I might even venture a claim that every professional athlete has narcissistic tendencies that are greater than the general public. Most of this is not their fault however because they have been trained to be narcissists by nearly everyone in their lives from the earliest days that they showed skills greater than the normal youth athlete.

In addition, for many of these athletes there have not really ever been serious consequences for their negative behavior. Instead they have been coddled and protected for nearly their entire lives. When they have done things wrong people have made excuses or looked the other way. It is little wonder that so many athletes at college and in the pros get into trouble, because they never expect to get into trouble. Even when they have it happen once they certainly don't expect it to happen again.

One of the areas that again and again gets athletes in trouble is women. They have little experience being turned down and even less being rebuked, and so when they don't get things their own way they act out in negative ways. We need look no further than Ben Rothlisberger's problems, or those that Brett Favre is now being accused of.

Favre is the perfect example of narcissism gone wrong. Every year he is able to keep everyone begging at his door to come back and play and he is able to stay out as long as he wants to with no consequences. Instead everyone fawns all over him and are so grateful that he deigns to stoop to their level to even talk to them let alone play for them. He is coddled and protected by everyone from the front office to the coaches and most especially the media. It is pretty rare to hear any criticism of Favre's behavior over the past few years. The two who stand out for consistently calling him out are Michael Wilbon and Gregg Easterbrook. Unfortunately they are only two small voices in a much larger cacophony of adulation.

So it would not surprise me at all if Favre actually did what he is being accused of. At this point all there are is accusations and it is still not clear if the woman who supposedly received the inappropriate texts and images will even cooperate. And here is the true tragedy of the situation: If she does cooperate you can be pretty sure that any career she might have wanted to have in professional sports would be over. It might already be over for even having this information brought to light.

Many people are now saying that she must not have been offended by this information at the time because she didn't complain about it then. That is such a false argument on its face, that it shows they don't understand the seriousness of the allegations or the situation. Again, if she, as an employee of the Jets, had brought allegations against their newly acquired future hall of fame quarterback who was finally going to deliver the Jets their long awaited Super Bowl trophy, what do you think would have happened to her?

I'm pretty sure she would have kissed her job good bye. She would probably have been ridiculed and attacked on every front and by nearly everyone, including her employer. That is what sports teams usually do, although we are seeing a positive change on this, and quarterbacks are protected even more than others. This is not some third and long pulling guard, this is Brett Frickin Favre. I'm sure she feared for her job and her reputation, and I'm sure she still does.

It does not surprise me that she didn't say anything, and, if the allegations are true, it wouldn't surprise me if there are others out there who have experienced the same behavior from Favre. These are seldom isolated incidents. Instead they are patterns of behavior that have never been corrected, but instead tolerated, and this is true for more than just athletes.

We need to wake up to the enabling behaviors that we as a society give to professional athletes (and politicians and musicians and actors, and... and... and...), and realize that in order for their abhorrent behavior stop we have to stand up and stop it. And this must happen much earlier than when they cash their first paycheck. It needs to happen in youth sports, high school and in college, and we need to hold the adults in their lives accountable as well.

When Urban Meyer at the University of Florida can get off without even a rebuke for the behavior of his players (19 players have been charged with crimes since 2005. Many of them have been charged multiple times) then there is no incentive for him to step in and do anything, nor is their any incentive not to recruit athletes with troublesome pasts. I believe everyone deserves at least a second chance, and sometimes more, but unless someone is willing to say that this behavior will not be tolerated and there are consequences then the behavior will never change.

In addition, we are well past the point where we can just say "it's just boys being boys." Sexual harassment not only shouldn't be tolerated, but it is illegal. Although this is not being charged as a sexual harassment case, that is certainly how it appears, because through his alleged actions Favre had the potential of creating a hostile work environment. The simple fact that the alleged victim probably did not feel safe in bringing any charges against him, shows the power differential that existed and allowed this behavior to exist.

If Favre is cleared of everything, this does not change his overall narcissistic behavior nor does it change the reality of the situation as it currently exists for most athletes. It would be just as easy to replace Favre's name with any other of thousands of athletes (and politicians, etc.) who exhibit the same abhorrent behavior. It is past time for us as a society to stand up and say that this will not be tolerated, because until we do, nothing will change.

Until we say that we will no longer buy the merchandise or attend any game for any team or league that tolerates this, then it won't change. Until we say that we will no longer vote for any politician, no matter how much we like their policies, who exhibit this type of behavior then it will never stop. And until we say that we will no longer pay to see any musician or actor who exhibits this type of behavior it will never stop.

Until we stand up and hold people accountable for their actions and say we are not going to tolerate it any more, then we are just as guilty as they are.

Random Sports Thoughts For The Week

Some people seem to be upset that Derek Jeter faked being hit by a pitch on Tuesday and were wondering whether it was cheating or just gamesmanship. I fall of the second, and not because I’m a Yankee fan. If Dustin Pedroia had done the same thing, I’d still say it was okay. It is the batter’s job to get on base any way they can, plus, and here’s the thing that non-baseball fans don’t really understand, “cheating” is part of the game.

Players are trying to steal signs all the time. Why do you think catchers go through a range of signs when someone’s on second? Because they want to make sure they can’t signal to the batter what the pitch is going to be, and that’s absolutely fine. How often do we see outfielders try and make it look like they made a catch when in fact they trapped it or it had bounced first? That seems to me to be exactly the same as what Jeter did.

In last year’s World Series, Ryan Howard caught a ball at first that had bounced first. The umpire, however, was blocked out and thought it was a line-drive catch, and the Phillies ended up turning a double play that never should have happened. Ryan Howard knew he hadn’t caught it and yet he did not tell the ump he had made a mistake.

When you look in the history of baseball, the “cheating” in the early days was huge. When there were a lot fewer umps, players would sometimes run directly from first to third if the ump wasn’t looking. It’s part of the game. Now do I think there are limits? Of course I do.

Players and coaches trying to steal signs or seeing a pitcher tip off his pitches, that's fine. Putting someone in the bleachers with a radio and calling in the signs (like the Giants were doing in their famous playoff game against the Dodgers. Bobby Thompson could hit a home run because he knew what Ralph Branca was going to throw), that’s not acceptable.

Reggie Bush has decided to return his Heisman trophy rather than having it possibly taken away. This was a great PR move on Bush’s part, but I’m struck by two things: The first was the reaction of most of the commentators on ESPN. Most of them said that in their minds Bush will always be a Heisman trophy winner, because what he is accused of doing had nothing to do with his on-field performance. He wasn’t taking steroids or doing other things that would enhance his performance, instead it is alleged that his parents were receiving special benefits because of who he was. I really expected ESPN to tow the party line on this but they didn’t, and so I congratulate them.

The second is about the money. I’ve written about this in the past, and posed the simple question, how millions of dollars did USC, the NCAA and even the New York City Athletic Club/Heisman Foundation make off of Reggie Bush? Are they going to give any of that money back? Until they do, this is all just a charade.

And why is Bush being singled out? Certainly he is not the only player to have done this. Study after study shows that people stop committing crimes when they think they will be caught for what they did. Going after one high-profile case does absolutely nothing other than make the NCAA feel good about themselves. And as long as we’re talking about “justice” in this situation, how is it that we allow the NCAA to be the judge, jury and executioner? Where is due process?

AJ Green has been suspended for selling a game-used jersey, his jersey, on Ebay. He has “profited” off his status as an athlete. I just did a quick search for “game used jersey” and found several different sites that will sell you a game used NCAA jersey. So apparently what the NCAA is upset about is that he was trying to cut in on their business.

As Michael Wilbon points out in this excellent article, Georgia and the NCAA are making millions off of Green as well, including selling 17 different jerseys with his number on it. As one head football coach said to Wilbon about major athletic programs, "They're now fully engaged in robbing the poor to give to the rich."

While these students are receiving free tuition, etc., how many of them actually graduate? The number, especially for basketball and football, at most major schools is rather pathetic, and universities are held little accountable for this. It has been proposed, and I agree, that there should be a minimum floor level for athlete graduation rates, and if you don’t hit that target then you are not eligible for post-season play. If that were to happen, which it never will, then maybe we’d return the student to the student-athlete equation for many of these teams.

Although the NFL has made the issue of concussions more of a point, including issuing a poster of it (way to get tough NFL, although, as I said earlier, at least it’s a start), apparently this has not sunk through to many teams. On Sunday, the Eagles had two players, quarterback Kevin Kolb and linebacker Stewart Bradley, receive concussions. As if that is not bad enough, both were sent back into the game.

Now I know that there are some issues with diagnosing a concussion, but there is absolutely no way that Bradley’s concussion could have been “missed.” He was so “punch drunk” as they used to call it, that he couldn’t even make it off the field, but fell down on his stumbling way to the sideline, and yet he was sent back in just a few minutes later. (here is the video) The Eagles are now following the NFL’s new protocol on concussions in having independent doctors confirm what the team doctors are saying, but they are still trying to get both players back for this Sunday’s game.

NFL, if you would like to get tough on concussions and show that you are serious, here are my recommendations.

1. Anytime a player gets sent back into a game who has a concussion, the team gets fined $10 million dollars with the money going to fund research into concussions and advertising about their dangers to college, high school and pop warner football players (and the fact that they are finding significant brain damage in football players as young as 19 should itself be enough to terrify us). This fine is per infraction, so the Eagles would have to be writing a check this week for $20 million.
2. Every head coach who sends a player into a game who has a concussion will be suspended for 4 games, per infraction. That means that Andy Reid would be looking at sitting out for 8 games. I know the head coach is not making the diagnosis, or even the decision to send him back in in some cases, but he can be the one who sets the tone for what is going to take place on his team. If the same thing occurs when an interim coach is in place because a head coach is already suspended, then the interim is out 4 games. This goes on until they are no longer any coaches on the field.
3. Every player who is diagnosed with a concussion must sit out of games and practices for a minimum of two weeks. This can be extended at any time by medical personnel who make all decisions.
4. Any team caught violating this policy, or who try and exert pressure on medical personal to clear a player to play will be fined $100 million dollars and the GM and head coach will be suspended from all team activities for 1 calendar year.

Football players take on enormous risks in their lives, and most with live with constant pain and injuries for the rest of their lives. But there is a big difference between having knees that ache when you are fifty because of playing football and not knowing who you wife and children are at fifty because you suffered permanent brain damage when playing football.

There has even been recent work that many head injuries suffered by football players and boxers are masking themselves as ALS. Is it possible that Lou Gehrig did not have the disease named for him, but instead suffered brain damage from the concussions he sustained playing football and baseball? Maybe.

The NFL is looking into an incident in the Jets locker room in which Ines Sainz of Mexico's TV Azteca was greeted by catcalls as she waited to interview Mark Sanchez. She reports that she felt “uncomfortable” and rightfully so. Other players later came out and showed their inner Neanderthal which only got them more in trouble and increased the coverage on the story.

I have two thoughts. The first is that I hope the NFL does something about this. I thought we were way past the time when this was an issue. The second is that Sainz does have to look in the mirror a little bit. I have obviously never seen her reporting, but have seen pictures of her, and maybe they were cherry picked, but all of them showed her wearing clothes in which she was greatly showing off what God had given her in the way of physical attributes. This is not a “she was asking for it” thing, because she does not deserve to be treated this way no matter how she looks.

I have two daughters. I want them to be able to do whatever they want to do, and since they will grow up watching a lot of football and baseball so that they will know more than most of the men they will be around, that might include sports reporting. But I can’t help but notice that most TV female sports reporters are also very attractive. I’m sorry, but that means they are using sex in order to help them. This is not true of all reporters (and ESPN seems better about this then most). Maybe it’s the networks who are pushing them to wear what they do, but at some point one of them also needs to stand up and say I want people to respect me for what I know and the job I do and so I’m not going to wear something that takes the emphasis away from my reporting, and puts it on my physical attributes. For the sake of my daughters I want us to be better than we are.

And finally, the Romeo, Michigan high school football team won their game last week on the strength of their kicker, Ashley Flinn. After their regular kicker went down, the team coach, Jason Couch, who is Flinn’s uncle, asked her to come kick for them “as a joke.” As a joke? Are you kidding me?

The article on this then goes on to say that he shouldn’t have been surprised, because he had seen her kick before. Flinn’s brother was an all-state kicker and she used to go to kicking camps, with Couch, although she did spend most of her time shagging balls rather than kicking them. Are you kidding me?

Clearly Ashley was the after thought for the coach because she was just a girl, and you know girls cannot be any good at sports, especially sports that boys play. Again, I would like to think that we are way past this, but I know were not and these stories just highlight it even more. Good job Ashley, now I just hope you can kick some sense into those around you.

Do you know what NCAA 1-A team fielded the first female football player? It was my alma mater, the University of New Mexico. Katie Hnida was also a kicker.

Concussions

Last December Chris Henry, who played for the Cincinnati Bengals, died after he fell out of the back of a truck following an argument with his fiance. As part of a study supported by the NFL, his brain was removed and sent to the Brain Injury Research Institute at West Virginia University.

The researchers there found that Henry had "chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) -- a form of degenerative brain damage caused by multiple hits to the head," which was unrelated to his death. What was even more concerning about this discovery in Henry's brain was the fact that he had never been diagnosed with a concussion during his playing career.

Concussions have been suspected as the leading cause of the brain impairment that many former athletes who have played violent sports have developed, but this finding says that it may be more than just concussions contributing to the problem. All violent hits to the head, whether leading to a concussion or not, cause damage and the cumulative effects may be devistating. Henry's family is now wondering whether the CTE even helped contribute to his death by causing his brain not to function properly leading him to become involved in the situation that led to his death.

Although the NFL, as late as three years ago, was denying any link between concussions and later brain impairment, they are now changing their tune and yesterday released a new poster which will be put in all locker rooms talking about the dangers of concussions.

In particular, it states that "Traumatic brain injury can cause a wide-range of short- or long term changes affecting thinking, sensation, language or emotion. These changes may lead to problems with memory and communication, personality changes, as well as depression and the early onset of dementia. Concussions and conditions resulting from repeated brain injury can change your life and your family's life forever."

Michael Wilbon, who is a columnist for the Washington Post and also works for ESPN, has said that his concern is so great that he will not allow his son, who is two at the moment, to play football because of the long-term ramifications. My brother has stopped watching football because he cannot morally justify watching a sport which does permanent physical damage to its participants as a form of entertainment. I struggle with the same issue, but I like football too much at the moment to take that step.

But I do have serious concerns about the long-term impact it has, and the more information that is discovered the more scarry this reality becomes. So, I applaud the NFL for their change in attitude towards this issue and for making this move. It is a step in the right direction, but it is only a small step. I hope that similar posters are also displayed in every lockerroom in America, especially in high schools.

Everything Changes... Part 3

Dez Bryant, a rookie wide receiver for the Dallas Cowboys, is receiving widespread news coverage lately, but, depending on whose reporting, maybe not for the right reasons. It has been tradition for NFL rookies to carry the equipment of older players. This is just one of many different "traditions" that rookies must undergo. But, on Monday Bryant refused to carry the pads of fellow wide receiver Roy Williams, which were left for him.

"I feel like I was drafted to play football, not carry another player's pads," Bryant said.

Williams disagreed, as did much of the sports media. "Everyone has to go through it," Williams said. "I had to go through it. It doesn't matter if you're a number one pick or the 7,000 pick, you've still go to do something when you are a rookie. I carried pads. I paid for dinners. I paid for lunches. I did everything I was supposed to do, because I didn't want to be that guy."

Another sports reporter, whom I like, said that people a lot better then Bryant have had to carry shoulder pads and do other things so he should basically just do it and shut up.

My take on this is that this is hazing, a very mild form, but hazing none the less, and as we've all seen hazing can have serious negative consequences. It is William's last line that speaks volumes. Hazing takes place, and is allowed to continue, because no one is willing to step up and be "that guy" and refuse to do it. Everyone wants to belong to the group on the inside that is perpetrating the hazing. And then once you are on the inside you become the perpetrator, if for no other reason than the one that Williams said, "I did it, and so you are going to have to do it too."

Studies have also shown that people will self-justify these sorts of incidents on the back end in order to make them seem necessary and important. Because if they were unnecessary and unimportant then you have to face the realization that their only purpose was to demean, humiliate and degrade you, and who wants to say they intentionally chose to do that for no good reason? And so we justify it, and say it's about building "team", "camaraderie", "tradition" and other catch phrases to make them sound good. But ultimately it's not, it's about demoralizing another person in order to make yourself feel better and more important. And hazings finally stop when when someone is brave enough to stand up and point out how wrong the behavior and activities are, that their only purpose is about power and to show who has it and who doesn't.

Sadly to say, this behavior also takes place in the church, and especially in the ordination process. I have experienced things and have witnessed it for others, which I will not share for my own protection and those of the other victims, that should not have ever taken place but did. Although I have not been told this by the perpetrators, but other elders have said it to me, it happens all to often simply for the reason that those now doing it had it done to them, and so they are simply passing it down the line. When does this stop?

My position, and others in hazing situations are a little different than Bryants, because Roy Williams does not control Bryant's future. My future as a minister rests in the hands of a small group, the vast majority of whom use their power with good judgement and kind hands, but there are some who abuse it. And, they can abuse it with impunity because there is no method of redress or recourse for those of us in the process, and so far no one who is "protected" by being an elder in full connection has stepped forward to publicly address it.

There have been some who work through back channels, but unfortunately until someone steps forward publicly and says "this is ridiculous and it needs to stop," it will never stop. We will continue to have to carry other people's pads, and then some of us will force those behind us to do the same in order to justify our own treatment.

Similar things also happen in the local church. I know one pastor who was hounded by a member of the SPRC because she was not working enough or spending enough time at the church. But, what was really at work was that the SPRC member's husband had also been a minister and routinely put his family and other responsibilities on the back burner in order to work at the church. And so now the woman either had to say that her husband had been wrong in the decisions he had made and that he should have spent more time at home rather than making his ministry his primary concern, or she was going to have to prove that he had made the right decisions by forcing someone else to do the same.

In order to justify our own victimhood, and to put a positive spin on what we went through, we perpetuate negative situations and cause the hurt and the disgrace to continue. So, although my opinion doesn't make a difference in this situation, I say good job Dez Bryant, you have made the right decisions and you have my support.