Boldness in a Relativistic Age

CWK

“Remember the speeches we spoke over mead, when we our boast won the bench raised: (the boasts of) heroes in hall about hard fight. Now, may the man who is bold prove that he is so!” – Aelfwine in The Battle of Maldon, when he saw men deserting their posts.

***

A definition: BOLDNESS comes from embracing definite/clear/exclusive/ authoritative truth in the heart, and results in proclaiming and defending such truth with fearless freedom.

J.A. Alexander has defined boldness as, “freedom and plainness of speech as opposed not only to a timid reserve, but to a partial and obscure exhibition of the truth.” John Stott (based on the NT word parrasia) defines boldness as, “…speech which is candid (with no concealment of truth), clear (with no obscurity of expression), and confident (with no fear of consequences).” The apostles prayed for it (Acts 4.20-31), and the apostle Paul considered it essential for the full proof of his ministry (Eph. 6.19-20; Phil. 1.20; 1 Thess. 2.2).

If you are reading this, then I take for granted that you are interested in pursuing boldness. First, know this: if you are an American in 2012, you live in a relativistic age: truth is relative; nothing is worth dying for; everything is everything; everything is relative. There are no big T TRUTHS: truths which cover everything and everyone; there is only your truth, or my truth. Even the most illogical and immoral positions may be excused by reference to “personal truth.”

The modern habit of saying, "This is my opinion, but I may be wrong" is entirely irrational. If I say that it may be wrong, I say that is not my opinion. The modern habit of saying "Every man has a different philosophy; this is my philosophy and it suits me" - the habit of saying this is mere weak-mindedness. A cosmic philosophy is not constructed to fit a man; a cosmic philosophy is constructed to fit a cosmos. A man can no more possess a private religion than he can possess a private sun and moon.
– G.K. Chesterton, Introduction to the Book of Job.

My truth; your truth. Upon such a philosophy you were nurtured from infancy. It is the spirit of the age. Such a position is untenable (see Leslie Newbigen’s, The Gospel In A Pluralist Society). Such a position also saps the lifeblood of boldness. Such a position makes us timid: men without chests.

The relativism which is not willing to speak about truth but only about ‘what is true for me’ is an evasion of the serious business of living. It is the mark of a tragic loss of nerve in our contemporary culture. It is a preliminary symptom of death. There is an appearance of humility in the protestation that the truth is much greater than any one of us can grasp, but if this is used to invalidate all claims to discern the truth it is in fact an arrogant claim to a kind of knowledge which is superior to [all others]...We have to ask: 'What is the [absolute] vantage ground from which you claim to be able to relativize all the absolute claims these different scriptures make?” ― Lesslie Newbigen, The Gospel In A Pluralist Society.

One consequence of uncontrolled relativism is an apologetic, weasel-y, cowardly, diffident, and timid demeanor: a non-boldness. After all, if there are no grand truths worth dying for, then there are no truths worth being bold about. When relativism reigns, men are left without grand reasons-to-be, without chests, and without courage to speak up.

 The man who called the cataract sublime was not intending simply to describe his own emotions about it: he was also claiming that the object was one which merited those emotions. But for this claim there would be nothing to agree or disagree about. ....  The Chest—Magnanimity—Sentiment—these are the indispensable liaison officers between cerebral man and visceral man. It may even be said that it is by this middle element that man is man: for by his intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal. ....And all the time—such is the tragi-comedy of our situation—we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more 'drive,' or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or 'creativity.' In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.

— C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man.

Men without chests have a particular communication style. Their voices are mild, just above a whisper; their octaves are high, just above a whine. They often resort to vague metaphors, “It’s kind of like… almost… sort of…” They pile up similes, like bricks, into high walls: not in defense of truth, but in defense from truth. Their speech is full of groping uncertainty, “maybe; perhaps; possibly.” They employ outrageous oxymorons like, “it seems certain.” Seems – certain? They are prolific in qualifying adverbs, but impoverished in action verbs. They wander indecisively along dark streets of meandering prose toward cloudy ‘ideas,’ or, ‘theories.’ They defer decision. They avoid definite assertions; they avoid anything which might offend. Instead, they ask a slew of rhetorical questions with sheepish shyness. They are fond of ‘personal theories,’ and conspiracy theories. Sometimes, they taste a crumb of the truth – and being starved for truth – this crumb nurtures them day and night. From the crumbs of truth, they build vast intellectual empires. And so, “the key to everything,” or, “the secret of life,” revolves around trivialities about, “finding oneself.” Formerly, wise men explained one thing by everything; these wise men explain everything by one thing.

Just as it is the latest fad [of Freudian psychoanalysis] to prove that everything is sexual, so it was the last fad [of Marxism] to prove that everything was economic.  . . .  It is a character of all these manias [from Darwin, Marx, and Freud] that they cannot really convince the mind, but they do cloud it.  Above all, they do darken it.  All these tremendous and rather temporary discoveries have had the singular fascination that they were not merely degrading, but were also depressing.  Each in turn leaves no trace on the true and serious conclusions of the world.  But each in turn may leave very deep and disastrous wounds and dislocations in the mentality of the individual man.— G.K. Chesterton, “The Game of Psychoanalysis”, Century Magazine, May 1923, quoted in Dale Ahlquist, Common Sense 101, pg. 110.

The absence of boldness in public life, or in an individual’s life, can be traced back to the philosophy of relativism. Relativism is a wishy-washy perspective; it makes men wishy-washy in practice. The root of boldness is the seeing of and commitment to authoritative truth in the heart. Where there's no authoritative truth, there can be no boldness. It is common in our present culture (i.e., relativistic America) to hear writers and teachers use soft language, "perhaps, maybe, sort of, almost, kind of." Teachers and even Christian preachers are nervous about saying things in a definite and exclusive way. They want to be inclusive, subtle, and politically correct. Fair enough. But such a disposition is the opposite of boldness. If a man disavows clear defined truth, he will, as the daylight follows dawn, veer toward timidity. The way to be bold is not, first of all, to learn to speak in a grand and fiery manner. The way to be bold is to take hold of some grand and fiery truth. Possession of truth will make you bold. A bold man does not make a thing true. Rather, truth makes a man bold. 

Truth, clear and definite, makes men bold; truth, universal and exclusive, makes men courageous. Truth is by definition exclusive; contradiction of such truth is falsehood.

What success I have had results from the fact that I have always been certain that my military reactions were correct. Many people do not agree with me; they are wrong. The unerring jury of history written long after both of us are dead will prove me correct.
— George Patton, qtd. in Posterity Letters, Dorie McCullough Lawson, (Double Day, 2004) pg. 100.

– such is the conviction and boldness of a man who has got hold of TRUTH. I am right! You are wrong! Relativistic ears hate to call anyone wrong, but if an individual desires to be bold, they are going to have to see that on many, many issues, there is such a thing as black/white. On many, many issues, there is no such thing as a grey area. William Penn, while imprisoned in the tower of London, was strengthened by real truth, and the conviction that right is right, and wrong is wrong. He said, 

“My prison shall be my grave before I will budge a jot; for, I owe my conscience to no man. Right is right, even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it.”

In a relativistic age, many truths die the death of a thousand qualifications. We feel the need to hem in every statement, and make excuses for bolder words. The bold man is willing to make a statement, and let it live: to free a truth, and let it stand on its own two feet before the stunned world. The bold man, confident in the truth of his case and cause, is willing to throw his cards down, and let the chips fall where they may. In the annals of history, no one possessed more bold energy than Jesus Christ. He words, like his deeds, are miracles: they come with sudden and bracing light. They fly like bullets, and cut like a knife. Jesus was not shy about saying, "If you do not repent, you will all likewise perish (Lk. 13.5)." He didn't qualify the word "all." He let the word "all" stand. Consider his use of strong terminology, "If anyone comes after me and does not hate your father, mother...even your own, life you cannot be my disciple (Mt. 10.37)." Jesus was not afraid to use all-encompassing strong language. Yes, there is a time to be gentle. But that time is not, "all the time." If we are gentle all the time, then the whole value of gentleness is gone. There is also a time and place to be private, but the gospel is not a private, nor a personal, matter. It is a public truth in the same way that the multiplication tables are public truths.

…the gospel cannot be accommodated as one element in a society which has pluralism as its reigning ideology.  The Church cannot accept as its role simply the winning of individuals to a kind of Christian discipleship which concerns only the private and domestic aspects of life.  To be faithful to a message which concerns the kingdom of God, his rule over all things and peoples, the Church has to claim the high ground of public truth.— Newbigen, The Gospel In A Pluralist Society.

So, clear and definite and exclusive truth makes for boldness – but such truth must be embraced in our hearts. In other words, we must believe; we must hold the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience (1 Tim. 3.9). With a sense of purpose and deliberation, we must set our hearts upon the truth.

We must also develop, by God's grace, what Jonathan Edwards referred to as "religious affections." This means learning to love the right things in the right order. We are to love true, and noble, right, pure, and admirable things. And we must love the best things best. A great hindrance to boldness is a disordered set of affections. For example, if we prefer peace over purity, we will never be bold. Why? Because our sense the value of things is disorderly: James counsels us to FIRST pursue purity, and then peace (James 3.17). Or, as Martin Luther put it, "Peace if possible; truth at all costs." We may also wrongly prefer (prefer = regard with greater love) peace over persecution; again, this is disorderly love, and contrary to Jesus' warning, "Do not fear him who can kill the body; fear him who can throw you, body and soul, into hell (Lk. 12.5)."

One great hindrance to boldness is the fear of man. Or, rather, fearing man more than God. The only way to be free of illegitimate fear is to cultivate godly fear. When Jesus urges us not to fear man, he points us to the proper fear of God, “Do not fear him… fear HIM… (Lk. 12.5).” We might also consider what a silly thing it is to fear weak and ineffectual man. After all, what can man do to me (Heb. 13.6)?

Francis Schaeffer conquered the fear of man by grasping, on the one hand,  the greatness of God, and on the other hand, and the smallness of man. In 1951, while living in Champery Switzerland, he wrote:

I thought how our dear Lord comes into more proper perspective in our thinking in such a place as this- for the higher the mountains, the more understandable is the glory of him who made them and who holds them in his hand. But the other side is also true: man also comes into his proper place. As the Lord gains in greatness in comparison to the mountains, so man diminishes. As it is with space, it is also true of time. My letters from here go to so many countries, and in the last few years I have found friends in many of them. As I have learned the history of these lands from those who tell the history from their hearts, time has come to mean something different to me than it ever did before, when time was measured only by the short scope of the hurrying clock or cold dates on a page of the history book. But as time falls into its proper place, again God seems to grow greater by comparison, and again it has the opposite effect on man. As the mountains shrink him down to size, so also does time…the rectifying process of space and time (has) caused my view of the Lord to grow greater , and my view of man and his works and judgments to grow proportionately smaller… The mountains are too high, history is too long, and eternity is longer. God is too great, man is too small…and if one man and a small group of men do not approve of where I am and what I do, does it prove I have missed success? No; only one thing will determine that – whether this day I’m where the King of Kings and Lord of Lords wants me to be.
— Francis Schaeffer, The Letters of Francis Schaeffer (Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books), 1985.                                                                  

As a closing word, boldness does not mean that we are arrogant, or self-important. Genuine godly boldness begins with humility. Humility, first of all, as we bow before the truth. Humility, second of all, because we understand that boldness, like all issues of spiritual strength, depends first on God’s strength. So, with a sense of need, we walk humbly with God, living in his grace, depending on resources. And we pray,

Acts 4.29, “And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness.”

But if the biblical story is true, the kind of certainty proper to a human being will be one which rests on the fidelity of God, not upon the competence of the human knower. It will be a kind of certainty which is inseparable from gratitude and trust.
― Lesslie Newbigin, Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship.

QUOTES AND RESOURCES ON BOLDNESS

*with hyperlinks.

                                                                         

Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor:

See that the work of saving grace has really and truly been accomplished in your OWN souls...take heed to yourself lest you perish while you are calling others to take heed of perishing...many have warned others that they come not to the place of torment while they rushed to it themselves...Can any reasonable man imagine that God would save a man for offering salvation to others while they neglect it themselves.

J.C. Ryle, Only One Way – Christ!:

Do not be content with hearing, and approving, and assenting to the truth, and going no further.  Seek to have a personal interest in this salvation: lay hold by faith for your own soul; do not rest till you know and feel that you have gotten actual possession of that peace with God which Jesus offers, and that Christ is yours, and you are Christ’s.  If there were two, or three, or more ways of getting to heaven, there would be no necessity for pressing this matter upon you.  But if there is only one way, you will hardly wonder that I say, "Make sure that you are in it."

William Gurnall, “Ministerial Boldness,” (Banner of Truth, vol. 1, 266; italics his):

Great words in reproving an error or sin, but weak arguments, produce laughter oftener than tears.... Let the reproof be as sharp as thou wilt; but the spirit must be meek. Passion raiseth the blood of him that is reproved; but compassion breaks his heart. We must not denounce wrath in wrath, lest sinners think we wish their misery; but rather with such tenderness, that they may see it is no pleasing work to us, but we do it that we might not, be a cruel silence, be accessory to their ruin, which we desire to prevent... A humble boldness, such a boldness as is raised from a confidence in God, and not from ourselves, or own gifts or ability, courage or stoutness... Some helps to produce this boldness. First, a holy fear of God. We fear man so much because we fear God so little. One fear cures another; When man’s terrors scare you, turn your thoughts to the wrath of God; this is the way Jeremiah was cured of his aguish distemper, fearing man: Jer. 1.17... Third, keep a clear conscience: he cannot be a bold reprover, that is not a conscientious liver; such a one must speak softly, for fear of walking on his own guilty conscience... Unholiness in a preacher’s life will either stop his mouth from reproving, or the people’s ears from receiving. O how harsh a sound does such a cracked bell make in the ears of his audience!...consider if thou be not now bold for Christ in the ministry, thou canst not be bold before Christ at his judgment; he that is afraid to speak for Christ will certainly be ashamed to look on his face then. ‘We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ’ 2 Cor. 5:10. Now what use doth Paul make of this solemn meditation? ‘Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men’... It is a very small thing to be judged by men now for our boldness, but dismal to be condemned by Christ for our cowardice... pray for this holy boldness... it was the child of prayer (Acts 4.29ff)... Mark, they do not pray to be excused the battle, but to be armed with courage to stand in it; they had rather be lifted above the fear of suffering, than have immunity from the suffering... If this be thy sincere request, God will not deny it.

J.C. Ryle, “Past and Present Ministries Compared,” (Banner of Truth, vol. 1, 267):

Wherein do evangelical Churchmen fall short of their great predecessors? Let us look this question fairly in the face. Let us come to particulars. They fall short in doctrine. They are neither so full nor so distinct, nor so bold, nor so uncompromising. They are afraid of strong statements. They are too ready to fence, and guard, and qualify all their teaching, as if Christ’s gospel was a little baby, and could not be trusted to walk alone. They fall short as preachers. They have neither the fervor, nor fire, nor thought, nor illustration, nor directness, nor boldness, nor grand simplicity of language which characterized the last century. Above all, they fall short in life. They are not men of one thing, separate from the world, unmistakable men of God, ministers of Christ everywhere, indifferent to man’s opinion, regardless of who is offended, if they only preach the truth. They do not make the world feel that a prophet is among them, and carry about with them their Master’s presence, as Moses when he came down from the mount... Ease and popularity, and the absence of persecution, are ruinous to some. An extravagant and excessive attention to petty details withers up the ministry of others. An absurd straining after the reputation of being “intellectual” and original is the curse of others. A desire to seem charitable and liberal, and keep in with everybody, paralyzes the ministry of others.

Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism, pg. 16-17: 

(Why is it that bible believing Christian colleges, seminaries, and even whole denominations abandon ‘the faith?) There are several different reasons, of course. But giving in to cultural pressure is often a significant factor. In every generation there are popular views in the culture that contradict what the Bible says, and it is so easy to compromise on one point or another... Almost nobody wants to tackle the subject (of evangelical feminism)! It is “too controversial,” which means it will stir up objections and many people will be upset. It is not easy to stand against the culture. It is much easier to give in and say women can do whatever men can do in the church and in the home.

Luther to Erasmus, Bondage of the Will, pg. 66-70:

Now, lest we be misled by words let me say here that by ‘assertion’ I mean staunchly holding your ground, stating your position, confessing it, defending it, and persevering in it unvanquished... And I am talking about the assertion of what has been delivered to us from above in the Sacred Scriptures. Outside this we do not need Erasmus or any other teacher to tell us that over matters which are doubtful, or unprofitable and unnecessary, assertions and contentions are not merely stupid, but positively impious; Paul condemns them often enough! ...What Christian can endure the idea that we should deprecate all assertions? That would be denying all religion and piety in one breath – asserting that religion and piety and all dogmas are just nothing at all...Woe to the Christian who doubts the truth of what is commanded him and does not follow it! – for how can he believe what he does not follow... In a word, what you say comes to this: that you do not think it matters a scrap what anyone believes anywhere, so long as the world is at peace; you would be happy for anyone whose life, reputation, welfare or influence was at stake to emulate him who said ‘if they affirm, I affirm; if they deny, so do I (Ter., Eun),. II. 2.21); and you would encourage him to treat Christian doctrines as no better than the views of human philosophers – about which, of course, it is stupid to wrangle and fight and assert, since nothing results but bad feeling and breaches of outward peace... Fear the Spirit of God, who searches the reins and heart, and is not deceived by stupid speeches... The Holy Spirit is no Skeptic; and the things He has written in our hearts are not doubts or opinions, but assertions – surer and more certain than sense and life itself.

Strunk and White, Elements of Style, 3^rd edition:

 Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.. This is true not only in narrative principally concerned with action, but in writing of any kind. Many a tame sentence of description or exposition can be made lively and emphatic by substituting a transitive in the active voice... Prefer the specific to the general, the definite to the vague, the concrete to the abstract... If those who have studied the art of writing are in accord on any one point, it is on this: the surest way to arouse and hold the attention of the reader is to be specific, definite, and concrete.

Malcolm Muggeridge, Chronicles: The Green Stick, pg. 171: 

It is painful to me now to reflect on the ease with which I got into the way of using this non-language; these drooling non-sentences conveying non-thoughts, propounding non-fears and offering non-hopes. Words are as beautiful as love, and as easily betrayed. I am more penitent for my false words – for the most part, mercifully lost forever in the Media’s great slag-heaps – than for false deeds.

 For preachers, see Richard Pratt, “The Concept of The Kingdom of God: Ancient Near East Backgrounds And Preaching Today,”

"Where two or three are gathered in my name" –  the imagery “in my name" comes from the Old Testament (1 Kings 8:29).  The name of God becomes resident in the temple. Jesus is referring to the "name theology" of the OT. The name of God goes with the temple of God. In the NT, the church is the temple; wherever the church goes, the name goes. "In my name" is temple talk. The temple was royal: it was God's palace. When we are gathered in church, "in the name," it is a royal image - the preacher is the royal herald. The preacher receives the message from the great king of heaven and has the objective of giving the message to the people of God. This is a far cry from the greeter, therapist, politician or teacher. A herald of God must be a holy herald. This is not an ordinary event. Not all things are holy as this is. Also, no herald in the ancient world would have dared to say anything different from what the king said. A royal herald says what the king says, no matter what. Heralds had authority. When preaching is true to the word, it is the word, and thus the people of God are to hear it.

Also for preachers, see The Second Helveltic Confession, Chapter 1:

The Preaching of the Word of God Is the Word of God. Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe the very Word of God is proclaimed, and received by the faithful; and that neither any other Word of God is to be invented nor is to be expected from heaven: and that now the Word itself which is preached is to be regarded, not the minister that preaches; for even if he be evil and a sinner, nevertheless the Word of God remains still true and good.  Neither do we think that therefore the outward preaching is to be thought as fruitless because the instruction in true religion depends on the inward illumination of the Spirit, or because it is written And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor . . ., for they shall all know me (Jer. 31:34), and Neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth (I Cor. 3:7). For although no one can come to Christ unless he be drawn by the Father (John 6:44), and unless the Holy Spirit inwardly illumines him, yet we know that it is surely the will of God that his Word should be preached outwardly also. God could indeed, by his Holy Spirit, or by the ministry of an angel, without the ministry of St. Peter, have taught Cornelius in the Acts; but, nevertheless, he refers him to Peter, of whom the angel speaking says, He shall tell you what you ought to do (Acts 10:6).

 Charles Spurgeon, The Evils Of The Present Time:

The next thing necessary for the present time is that we should have more faith. We need to believe more intensely in God, so as to trust Him more practically and more unquestioningly. The things which we believe must become more real to us. I fear we often use words without feeling their true meaning. This is terrible. It is a sort of willful murder to expel the soul from pious phrases, and still to use them. Let us be honest about the things of God; let us mean all that we say, and say only what we mean. It is a shocking thing for a man to talk all manner of Evangelical, gracious, and sanctifying things, and yet to mean nothing by them. I fear our pulpits are not free from such word-mongers. Let us not hold forth shadows before the people… To us Christ is a real Christ; and the Holy Ghost within a man brings real life from the dead. If we do not preach realities, I pray God we may be driven out of the ministry, in which we are only treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath.

Augustine on The Aim of The Orator:

Neither is it a necessity to give pleasure; for when, in the course of an address, the truth is clearly pointed out (and this is the true function of teaching), it is not the fact, nor is it the intention, that the style of speech should make the truth pleasing, or that the style should of itself give pleasure; but the truth itself, when exhibited in its naked simplicity, gives pleasure, because it is the truth.  And hence even falsities are frequently a source of pleasure when they are brought to light and exposed.  It is not, of course, their falsity that gives pleasure; but as it is true that they are false, the speech which shows this to be true gives pleasure.

Soy Un Perdedor: Meaning, Dignity, and The Internal Script

by CWK

Beck famously sang, "Soy un perdedor/I'm a loser baby/So why don't you kill me?" The "soy un perdedor" part was an act of genius in terms of musical instinct. It introduces a little more mystery into an already mysterious song. Translated literally, from Espanol, it means, "I'm a loser."

The mixing of languages can serve many purposes; it can be a tacit demonstration of intelligence; it can get your message out to a larger audience; it can also hide your meaning. In terms of hiding meaning: clearly, if you speak Spanish to a crowd of crowd of English speakers, you can expect some confusion. My own sense of this verse is that Beck was trying to obscure his meaning a bit, and perhaps even to himself. It's unpleasant to call oneself a loser. Saying it in another language isn't quite as condemning; it makes the blow softer. Probably all of us have winced at ourselves during moments of self-doubt, and rants of self-destruction, and I believe that's what Beck is doing with this lyric. Spurgeon was right: no one knows what a kind word can do... or a cruel word. We often consider the value of words about others. Maybe we should stop now and then and consider the value of words about ourselves. We often have an internal 'song' playing in the back or our minds, like elevator music -- but what if we thought about the lyrics of this song? What if the internal narrative of our minds were laid bare? What if  a transcript of our thoughts and consideration of ourselves were manifest before our eyes?

My guess is that many of us would be singing along with Beck, "I'm a loser..." I remember an epochal conversation I had with a friend in grad school. We were talking about the internal narrative in our minds. I fessed up that often, while I was studying, I would get frustrated with myself. If I didn't understand material quickly or accurately, I'd take to verbally flogging myself, "Loser! You dummy. Why can't you get this? Everyone else has no problem with this material. You'll never get it. Moron." I wince now when writing this. Anyway, I purposed after that conversation to quit this sort of self-flagellation. I started paying attention to the "elevator music" in my mind. I noticed that after every failure, small or large, I'd begin this sort of tirade against myself. And I began cutting it off. A friend who works in counseling once told me that we all have a "script" in our minds. We say our "lines" when prompted by circumstances. Somehow the script of my mind had been set in stone so that, after every failure, I began the monologue, "I'm a loser..." Over time I've cut more and more of these kinds of scenes from my internal script. How? First, by being aware that they are there, i.e. by thinking about what I think about. Second, by the grace of God. The grace of God in Christ transforms one to "beloved" status. The gospel is not about self-help or "affirmation" statements; after all, it tells us that all have sinned. Yet, even in that, there is dignity: we are being taken seriously by God as active moral agent for one. Also, part of our problem is that we have "fallen short of the glory of God." Our grand purpose is to image God's glory. We are less than we should be. The accusation of "loser" often revolves around the claim, "You are worthless: always have been, and always will be." To be identified as one who falls short of God's glory does not amount to worthlessness; it calls us to see how grand our lives should be/should have been. Much more could be said about how God in Christ restores our dignity; it is instructive that the first step to restoration of dignity often involves a statement that we have acted contrary to our dignity. Only an individual who has inherent dignity can forfeit it. I've heard that a contemporary of Mozart once lamented to him, "Mozart, you are not worthy of yourself." The title "loser," on the other hand, attributes worthlessness without dignity. It damns, not with faint praise, but with no praise. It may be the sound track playing softly, like elevator music, in the back of many a mind. God in Christ came to teach us a very different tune.

So, what would the transcript of our "self-talk" be if it was displayed before our eyes? Probably not what it should be. That means: we need to start talking to ourselves about ourselves. Yes, we need to start talking to ourselves. What I mean is, we need to start talking (consider, then speaking the right words), not just listening (letting harsh words flow forth), to ourselves.

We need to talk to ourselves, and we need to choose our words wisely. They should be gracious dignifying words. 

“Have you realized that most of your unhappiness in life is due to the fact that you are listening to yourself instead of talking to yourself? Take those thoughts that come to you the moment you wake up in the morning. You have not originated them but they are talking to you, they bring back the problems of yesterday, etc. Somebody is talking. Who is talking to you? Your self is talking to you. Now this man’s treatment [in Psalm 42] was this: instead of allowing this self to talk to him, he starts talking to himself. “Why art thou cast down, O my soul?” he asks. His soul had been depressing him, crushing him. So he stands up and says, “Self, listen for moment, I will speak to you.” 
― D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Here are some quotes/ articles for those wrestling with issues of dignity and the self:

Any attempt at trading a human being implicitly objectifies that which is no object. It is no more legitimate than a con artist “selling” properties that are not his to sell. The logical impossibility of selling a human being (either oneself or another) effectively drives any question of relative worth out of the market. The question of relative worth is therefore given an absolute answer: human life has infinite value. Put away your credit cards, these items are not for sale.

I described dignity as a fancy word for worth and it should be apparent by now that human worth deserves a uniquely fancy word. We do not ask about the dignity of objects, except in an anthropomorphic sense. We humans are uniquely subjects rather than objects, possessing infinite value, which is in turn reflected in the esteem with which we regard the word dignity itself. Dignity as the infinite, intrinsic, inviolable worth of a human being cannot be won or lost, revoked, conferred, promoted or demoted.

- From, "We All Die With Dignity," First Things.

-----------------------------------------------

This is sobering. Not only am I not to murder another person because he is created in the image of God, but I’m also not to curse him or humiliate him for the same reason. And yet those of us who wouldn’t think of murder will all too often let harsh and hurtful words roll off our tongues with hardly a second thought. When we do this, we sin because we have violated the image of God in the other person. 

- From, Designed For Dignity, Jerry Bridges.

-------------------------------------------
“Made in God’s image man was made to be great, he was made to be beautiful, and he was made to be creative in life and art. But his rebellion has led him into making himself nothing more than a machine.”

- From, Francis Schaeffer, Back to Freedom and Dignity.

-----------------------------------------------------

The central thought on which the projected apologetic of Pascal was to revolve as on a pivot, is the contrasted greatness and wretchedness of man,—with Divine Revelation, in its doctrine of a fall on man's part from original nobleness, supplying the needed link, and the only link conceivable, of explanation, to unite the one with the other, the human greatness with the human wretchedness. This contrast of dignity and disgrace should constantly be in the mind of the reader of the "Thoughts" of Pascal. 

From, William Cleaver Wilkinson, Classic French Course in English (p. 127). Kindle Edition.

Merril Hoge Is "Disturbed" By Tim Tebow, Exclamation Point.

by CWK 

I. Tebow and His Critic

According to Merril Hoge, Merril Hoge is a disturbed man. And it's getting worse. He recently said, "The more I watched (Tebow), the more disturbed I was..." Why do critics like Merril Hoge have such an emotionally unstable response to Tim Tebow? Read the Tebow critics and you'll note among many — not just objective critiques — but bitterness, and an undercurrent of mania. Among such critics, Merril Hoge leads the way with a passive-aggressive style of irritating irrationality and veiled vitriol.

Mr. Hoge has pulled narry a punch (including low-blows) in attacking Tebow. Hoge is an examplar of how prejudice can cloud analysis. Blinding prejudice distorts his perception of Tim Tebow. Hoge is a man who makes small things big. He sports gigantic tie loops on ESPN's SportsCenter. He also sports gigantic verbage to condemn Tim Tebow, the sportsman, who is, by the way, the center of the SportsCenter. For Hoge, every minuscule mistake of Tebow is evidence of a fatal flaw: every interception, proof that Tebow is mentally incapable of throwing a completion; every stumble, an irrevocable fall. For Hoge, every pass — even a touchdown pass — is proof that Tebow can't throw a touchdown pass. Every win is proof that Tebow can't win: every loss, proof that he is a confirmed Loser. 

Merrill Hoge should find a way to read Find A Way: Three Words That Changed My Life by Merrill Hoge (with Brent Cole). It's an uplifting book by Merril Hoge (with Brent Cole) about how, even in the face of failure, it is possible to move on and succeed. I highly recommend it (as do others on Amazon.com). It is a stirring book. It will energize you, Mr. Hoge, and you (gentle reader) in the face of, and even after, profound loss. If you will only endeavor to 'find a way,' you will find success. Who knows? You might even write a book (with Brent Cole) that counsels others to persevere in hardship. You gotta read this book Mr. Hoge. Then, surely your perspective on Tebow will brighten. Afterall, is there a better model than Tim Tebow (apart from Merril Hoge, with Brent Cole) of a man overcoming adversity?  

II. The Analyst Analyzed

Hoge has analyzed Tim Tebow with a merciless searing gaze. He's questioned the mechanics of Tebow's body, and even the maturity of his mind. But, be advised, according to Hoge, it's nothing personal! Well, when does it become personal?  At this point, I believe Hoge could back hand Tim Tebow's momma, and he'd still protest, "Nothing personal." One blogger examined Hoge's Tweets on Tebow, and concluded: 

Also, it needs to be said that the air of condescension is heavy within what Hoge said above. By capitalizing "FOOTBALL" as he did, Hoge was trying to stress (perhaps hide behind) the assumption that his criticisms are football related. It's one thing to say it, but to unwaveringly cling to his position - relish it - as he did, that's when it becomes personal and not just about football. Even in text form, his tweets were sopping with that "passion" (remember all those exclamation points?).

Be ready. Hoge, et al., respond to the accusations of personal attacks with, "I am an analyst. It is my job to analyze, without bias, the player." Now, you can always tell when someone is trying to hide behind their position when they refuse to answer a charge, and use their 'position' to deflect blame. As if, their position renders them above the laws of mere mortals. If you spot a corrupt policeman breaking the law, what will he say, right away? "But I'm a policeman." So what? The position of policeman doesn't suddenly enable an individual to break the law. A man's calling in life is not a hill for him to hide behind; it is a hill for him to defend. Hoge should respond to his critics, in a manly manner, by either, 1) Being a better analyst, or 2) Defending, rationally and thoughtfully, his words and actions. If Hoge were sincere, he'd defend his actions (or repent of them); he would not, as he does, claim that his position exempts him from having to defend his positions.

Well then, what is proper analysis? I'd like to hear Mr. Hoge's definition. I think I already know it, and if I'm right, he's wrong. An analyst is not, as he seems to believe, the all knowing all seeing eye who observes, and then mercilessly criticizes, mortal athletes. Analyzing sports, or anything else, amounts to finding the truth, and when appropriate, telling the truth. The best analyst can be trusted to convey accurate information. On this score, Mr. Hoge is not among the best analysts. So far, his predictions about Tebow have not borne out. (He famously tweeted 'it's embarrassing to think broncos could win with Tebow'). His truth-telling on quarterbacks has been especially untrustworthy (He favored Brian Brohm over Aaron Rogers.) Good analysis is about finding, then telling, the truth. Oh yeah, and this is very important. You gotta be sure of the truth before you can tell it. Then, you have to articulate the good reasons regarding why you know something to be true. In my experience, Mr. Hoge offers lots of opinions (which makes him a 'personality,' but no a trustworthy analyst. Actually, it may be Hoge's thirst for status as a personality that impedes his ability as an analyst). Hoge offers opinions galore, but he is short on reasons why his opinions are true. 

If you search him for a reason, Mr. Hoge's fall back line is, "I watched tape." He knows Tebow can never ever be a winner. How? He watched tape. He is now certain that Tebow has a low football IQ. Why? He watched tape. Apparently, watching tape is a mystical experience for Mr. Hoge. He is able to, while watching tape, transport himself inside the mind of Tim Tebow, see what he sees, and then determine his IQ. Think, Being John Malkovich if John Malkovich were an NFL player. I, for one, don't believe anything special happens when Hoge watches tape. Watching the tape is the easy part; understanding and processing the tape is the important part. My friend Dave's son (Jimmy) has seen The Lion King 100's of times. He can quote every line. Mr. Hoge may be surprised to learn that Jimmy is now 11 years old, and still not a film critic.

So, ya watched tape? I don't care. Don't tell me about WHAT: what you did to arrive at a conclusion. Tell me WHY: why you arrived at that conclusion. Why? What evidence is there for your claim? And no, Mr. Hoge, an exclamation point is not in any way a piece of valid evidence. Fade To: Hoge in front of a Plasma TV; picture is paused, blurry; picture is coming into view; it's Tebow! in throwing motion; key music; Annie Lennox singing, "Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy." 

And now, I present EXAMPLE A of Hoge's inept analysis. Before the start of the 2011 season, Hoge proclaimed to the world via Twitter: "Sitting watching tape off bronco offense from last year! Orton or Tebow? It's embarrassing to think the broncos could win with tebow!!" 

Did Hoge watch tape, you ask? Darn skippy! He's working extra hard. Merril Hoge was sitting watching (yep, sitting and watching at the same time!) tape with unparalleled enthusiasm, exclamation point. Even more impressive, he was apparently watching tape "off" (not of) the back of the bucking bronco offense. What did he see on that tape? Who knows? Who cares? The important thing is he watched it, and he SAW SOMETHING which only he as an analyst is able to see. After seeing this SOMETHING, he grew embarrassed, and soiled his trousers, because he was thinking about someone else thinking about winning with Tim Tebow! He was shamefaced, and his cheeks grew pink with abject humiliation over this ludicrous concept: winning with Tebow! He was so mortified the occasion demanded (in lieu of explanation of his points) two exclamation points!! Orton or Tebow? Tebow = embarrassing!! Wait!! Then, Orton went 1-4. oops, question mark, exclamation point. Then, Tebow went 8-5, double exclamation point, and led the Broncos to a first round win over the Steelers: the biggest win for the Broncos since 2005, triple exclamation point... Game. Set. Match. 
So, Mr. Hoge? Embarrassing to think the Broncos could win with Tebow? If I were you, Mr. Hoge, I'd be embarrassed by that Tweet!! When will Mr. Hoge take credit for his failed prophecy punctuated by a double exclamation point? When will he provide explanation of his points that led to his erroneous exclamation points? At what point does this man lose credibility on the subject of Tebow? As a trusthworthy analyst? After being wrong, exclamation point? No? What about after being wrong repeatedly with repeated exclamation points? 

Next, I present EXAMPLE B. This example focuses on how Hoge is indeed guilty of personal attacks. (See what I'm doing here? I'm making claims, and then providing evidence. I'm doing what the ancient Romans called analyien). Recently, Hoge was faced with the daunting reality of Tebow's impressive first full season as a starter. No problemo. No longer able to plausibly attack Tebow's arm, he turned to Tebow's mind. 

Hoge asserted: “The more I studied him in an NFL setting, the more disturbed I was that he has no clue what he’s looking at... His IQ as a football player is not very good. That is why they have to come down and make it some of a college-form system that he’s comfortable with in Florida. He can’t execute, from a cerebral aspect, a pro-style system.” 

Wow. Is it possible to say anything more personal, bitter, or insidious? Make no mistake. Meril Hoge is labeling Tim Tebow, in the immortal words of pop psycholygist Charlie Murphy, "a functioning retard."And he is doing so in a cowardly way: couching everything with whimpy distracting qualifiers (“in an NFL setting”; “as a football player”). Why so many qualifiers? Such qualifiers are an underhanded ruse: an attempt to conceal the grievous fact that Hoge just called Tebow a "functioning retard." Such qualifiers also make mild, with tricky convoluted clauses, Hoge's vitriol against Tebow. Man up, Mr. Hoge, and quit hiding in the hole of hollow prose. Get rid of the girl scout qualifiers, and stand your ground. You believe Tim Tebow has a "not very good" IQ, period. Then, say so. After all, if a man is deficient in the "cerebral aspect"... if a man can’t integrate a complex playbook... if a man has a low IQ for numbers and symbols... if a man has no clue what he is looking at on a football field... if a man cannot process advanced NFL concepts — then that man is mentally challenged, not just in the world of the NFL, but in The World, period. Let's recast the above quote in big boy language. Let's take out those impish qualifiers, and get down to the substantial claims. Here they are:

“The more I (Merrill Hoge) studied Tim Tebow, the more disturbed I was that he has no clue what he’s looking at. His IQ is not very good. He can’t execute from a cerebral aspect.” 

"He has no clue... his IQ is not very good... He can't (i.e. will never be able to)." Even if Tebow were the worst possible football player in history, it would still be detestable to say this. How can Hoge speak of another human being like this, and sleep at night? Again, make no mistake, Hoge's words are just as damning as they sound. In Biblical parlance, Hoge is branding Tebow a fool: a hopeless dimwit who will never do or know better. This is a weighty condemnation. So weighty a condemnation that Jesus warned it would lead to condemnation: Anyone who says, "You fool" will be in danger of the fire of hell. In other words, when we say something that is just as damning as it sounds, we are not only damning another, we are damning ourselves. Much more is at stake than Hoge realizes. And not just the potential of hell-fire (as if that weren't enough). What might Hoge's hurtful words do, if taken to heart, to the spirit of Tim Tebow? You can literally destroy a man be telling him he's a moron with "no clue," and "that's all he will ever be." Plus, Hoge has an international forum on ESPN. How might his words impact a young man who is prone to demean his own intellect? You already know: such a man would conclude (if he trusted Hoge as his counselor), "I'm dumb, and that's all I'll ever be." Words are wild things when loosed from our lips. They get out into the world, and do a lot of things we can't foresee. We may die, but our words live on, running all over creation, and working wonders, or disasters. Shakespeare was right: the evil that men do lives after them. Evil lives on, among other places, in the words we have cast into the world.

III. Distressed By A Disturbed Man

"The more I studied him in an NFL setting, the more disturbed I was..." Here, Hoge ridicules Tebow for cerebral failings with a hilarious malapropism. So, he was “disturbed” while watching Tebow? I wonder if Mr. Hoge knows that “disturbed” means “afflicted with anxious uneasiness; emotionally unstable; showing emotional illness; affected with madness” — it doesn’t mean, as he seems to think, “distressed.” i.e., the sane man is (occasionally) distressed; the disturbed man is insane. Indeed, a great source of distress for the sane man is the disturbed man. The sane man is distressed by the actions a disturbed man because the actions of a disturbed man are insane.
Now, if we follow Hoge's diction without discretion we'd conclude that he becomes emotionally unstable, and temporarily insane, when he beholds Tebow flinging a football. He is, sadly, a disturbed man. This is what his words, as they stand, literally mean. There may be some truth to this literal interpretation. I am certainly distressed by this self-titled disturbed man. So, let's consider, for a moment, that in choosing the wrong word Hoge inadvertently chose the right one. Let's slip Hoge a Freudian slip. 
Hoge does become emotionally unstable after prolonged glances at Tebow; such glances render him temporarily insane. Voila, Hoge's lack of sensible pronouncements about Tebow make sense!The disturbance is not with Tebow; it is in Hoge: he loses his mind and rationality, for some reason, when Tim Tebow strides across the plasma screen. In such moments, Hoge's unruly emotions take over, and he's left at their mercy. No wonder an undercurrent of bitterness marks his approach to Tebow. In those moments of madness, emotions like cruel disdain run amok, and Hoge can't help but hurl insults like, "Blasted Tebow! He has no clue, and a not good IQ." You must understand, in such moments, Hoge is not capable of evaluating events, or talent. Hence, in such moments, he makes wildly inaccurate statements like, "If the Broncos start Tebow they cannot under any circumstances win." It's understandable that Hoge has been so often so wrong about Tebow. After all, the mere sight of Tebow causes him to spin in a black hole of madness.

Now, if Hoge meant to say that, when he watches Tim Tebow, he mysteriously morphs into a mad man, and says things he should not say — I truly pity him. Even more, I sympathize with and admire him. Such a confession demonstrates humility, and a sense of one's own shortcomings. Such a confession demonstrates a growing self-awareness, "I am the problem (not Tebow, or anyone else)." Such a confession would break the chains of the prison of self, and mark the first step toward freedom. Aye, such a confession would mark the first step toward sanity. How I wish Hoge had meant to say what he did not mean to say! But, I'm guessing Hoge would rather erase the word disturbed, and type in, "distressed." I'm even guessing that, when he reads this, he'll say: "You are grossly mistaken. You have no clue. I'm not the least bit disturbed. I'm not the least bit bitter toward Tebow. My pronouncements are not wild and inaccurate! How dare you say I'm wrong. I'm never wrong!" To which, I reply: a mad man is never wrong; the mad man is the only man who is never wrong. The mad man believes in and believes himself, and no one else. Yep, I'm guessing that when Hoge reads this he'll lump me in with Tebow as another dimwit. This is my guess. But I'll tell you my hope. My hope is not that Hoge will declare, "I've been wrong!" My hope is, rather, that he will ask one simple question, "Is it possible I've been wrong?"

Now, let's assume the counter case, the much more likely case. Let's assume Hoge would replace the word "disturbed" with "distressed." That means he meant to call Tim Tebow a mental midget, while casting himself as the poor bystander, troubled in soul, because he had to gaze on such a doofus. In the former case, I pitied him; in the latter, I pity him more. 

IV. Handicapping Grammar

Also, saith Hoge, with crushing condemnation, "(Tebow's) IQ as a football player is not very good." That grammar right thar is also not very good. "His IQ as a football player is not very good," huh? Not very good...at what? Did you mean "high?" His IQ is not very high? Who knows. Many Hoge sentences are like this: a train wreck of intelligibility. "It's embarrassing," to quote Hoge, for someone (I won't say who) to employ such bad grammar in assaulting another man's intelligence. Oh, the irony. Mr. Hoge demeans Tebow's intellect as handicapped with handicapped grammar. He labels his mind obtuse with obtuse prose. Try to read or listen to Mr. Hoge, but not in public (I am embarrassed to even think someone thinking about reading Hoge in public). You’ll find Mr. Hoge has the habit of fumbling — like a greasy football — the English language. E.B. White would rip Hoge’s convoluted passive weak kneed prose into a thousand pieces, and make him eat it for breakfast. 

What if we treated Mr. Hoge to the same passive-aggressive derision he heaps on Tebow? It would go a little something like this...

V. An Examination Of The English Usage of Merril Hoge

I have just concluded my expert study into the mind of a man named Merrill Hoge who claims to be conversant in English. I have observed him without bias or compassion, like a buzzard eyeing carrion. I carefully studied Hoge, and know all there is to know, by sitting watching his past ESPN segments in super slow motion, and reading his Tweets on a Hi Def IPAD. I can only say, after I mercilessly scrutinized Hoge the communicator (not the person, or the man, or the personification of the man), I became sick to my stomach, and started retching uncontrollably. Then, I studied Hoge the conversationalist — oh, have mercy on me! Somebody please kill me. As I analyzed him like an insignificant insect under the all-seeing magnifying glass of my grammatical superiority, I was profoundly grieved to the point of despising life. As I parsed him like an irregular verb, underneath the onslaught of his irreligious diction, the world grew dark and sinister. I was shaken to my very core, and so distressed, I had to be hospitalized.

As an impartial judge, I offer my verdict on Mr. Hoge's English usage. As a writer, from the English aspect, Hoge can't execute. Adjectives end up executing him in the electric chair of Strunk's Elements of Style. As a speaker, in the realm of Queen Elizabeth's lingua franca, Mr. Hoge can't elocute. This is not a mean spirited mean girl passive-aggressive personal jab: Hoge is a great man. His verbiage, on the other hand, is a great menace. Poor fellow. He just gets lost in logical connectors like a blind man lost in a maze without a map. Of course, even if he had a map, it would be useless. Blind men can't read regular maps (Nothing personal! I'm not saying Hoge can't read! I'm only saying he reminds me of a blind man who has a map he can't read). In short, within the milieu of verbs and nouns being propelled from his tongue or pen in the vernacular of the people’s of the English speaking Isles, he stinketh.

Alas, when It comes to forming words meant to signify meaning en Anglais, on the level of non-mentally impaired adults, with elocution clear and precise…  What was I saying? Oh yeah, Mr. Hoges has no clue; he is utterly, and completely, and totally, 100 percent, without a single clue: clueless. When he contemplates grammatical structure, he goes blind with bewilderment, and sucks his thumb. He does not know what he is seeing out there in the rough and tumble world of linguistics: he doesn't know the difference between a gerund and a participle, and he never shall, not in a million years. 

If their exists a grammar police, I beg someone to call them. Mr. Hoge would be convicted of high crimes against the English tongue. I saw Mr. Hoge massacre, with venomous rage, in cold blood, without remorse, innocent dependent clauses (I hope he knows this is a GRAMMAR issue, not a personal attack). I have seen him, in Shakespeare's vineyard, frolicking like a mad man, and trampling upon the violets blue. I beheld him in a twitter, on Twitter, replacing the deficiency in the lengths of his logic with bawdy exclamation points; with mine own bedarkened eyes, I once witnessed him pile up exclamation points until they blotted out the stars above Whitman's Beach At Night. Please. Somebody. Stop him. Before it's too late. Words fly from his lilting lips like deranged feral bats, and cloud the bright Sun above the Earth (but he's a good guy). I moan! I weep! Poor, wretched, imbecilic, Mr. Hoge. His English IQ is not very good, and it's not very high either (but he's smart in other ways that don't require verbalizing).

Please remember: This is my unbiased independent judgment as a former editor, and expert on the English language. Don't get mad at me, hold me accountable, or question what I say, or expect me to defend my position. I AM AN ANALYST. This is about ENGLISH, only. This is only an evaluation of Hoge's usage (er, misusage) of ENGLISH. Hoge could likely express himself super duper in Italian, or Russian, or the Quendian of Tolkien’s Middle Earth -- but he’ll never stay afloat on the troublesome high seas of the English ocean.

In light of the recent Scripps Spelling Bee, I also contrasted Hoge with other ESPN personalities, and weighed the question on everyone's mind. Who'd be the better entry if adults were allowed to participate? Hoge or Bayless? This is not a matter of choosing among the choice. Skip Bayless is the only choice. He went to Vanderbilt, and turns a sentence like a Porsche turns a mountain pass. Hoge, on the other hand, does not know the difference between: "high" and "good"; or, "disturbed" and "distressed"; or even, "off," and "of." I'm abashed at the mere idea of entering Hoge into a competition which requires placing letters of the English alphabet in the correct order so as to spell a word. I am utterly shamefaced, with self-loathing humiliation, to even think about ESPN thinking about trying to win a spelling bee with Mr. Hoge. I am reduced to fits of self-flagellation when I ponder Mr. Hoge trying to spell guetapens. 

What shall be done for poor, backward, hopeless, illiterate (only with regard to an English setting) Mr. Hoge. I weep for him when I behold his senile adverbs and depraved punctuation. He might prosper — might — if his superiors at ESPN would come down to his level, and provide him with appropriate aids like coloring books and blunt (not sharp!) crayons. Couldn't ESPN simplify things to, say, beginner's level English for foreign language students? He would certainly excel if he wasn't presently saddled with the complex rules of pro-style English texts like St. Martin's Handbook. No doubt, he'd earn gold stars if the head honchos at ESPN were satisfied with him conversing on the level of pre-K. Why? Why must this cruel world batter Mr. Hoge's beleaguered nonverbal noggin with such riddles as subject-verb agreement?

VI. The Plays and The Player

The previous section is a parody of Mr. Hoge's perspective on Tebow with Hoge on the receiving end of the treatment he doles out to Tebow. It's my attempt to cook up, for Mr. Hoge, a taste of his own medicine. I call this concoction Condescension/ Passive-Aggressive/ Overstatement/Condemnation/Unkind Apple Pie. Mr. Hoge may not like the taste, but I promise, it's nutritional.

Now, parody aside, does Merril Hoge have a less than stellar mastery of English? Yes, he does. Do I believe this fact makes a mockery of his mockery of Tebow? Yes, I do. Questioning a man's intellect in obtuse prose is, well, obtuse. But do I really believe Hoge can never be an effective communicator? No, I don't. I believe Hoge can greatly reduce his fumbles of the English football, and score Shakespearen touchdowns. I hasten to add: I've read a little about Mr. Hoge, and I know he has encountered an uncommon array of hardships, including cancer. He's pressed through hardships, and achieved an uncommon array of achievements. He's been a pro athlete, and he's now a well known figure on the World Wide Leader in sports. His success, on many counts, is admirable. I sincerely mean it when I say it is nothing personal. Sure, Hoge's language skills need some work. But I know Mr. Hoge, if he so wishes, can become a superb writer and clear communicator. 

Herein lies the difference between my critique of Hoge, and Hoge's critique of Tebow. I believe Hoge is able, with work, to grow past his grammatical challenges. I wholly condemn the bad grammar, but not the man as wholly bad. I condemn the weak prose of Mr. Hoge, but I commend Mr. Hoge. I believe in Mr. Hoge. I believe he is stronger than his weak prose. Hoge, on the other hand, does not believe, in any universe, under any circumstances, that Tebow can overcome his challenges. He condemns the bad plays, and he condemns the player as bad. He condemns, not only the mistakes of the man, but the man himself, as a man of only mistakes. 

This is all the more tragic because Merrill Hoge wrote a book (with Brent Cole) called Find a Way: Three Words That Changed My Life. The thesis of this book? You can, just like Merril (with Brent Cole), overcome any challenge as long as you are willing to persevere, and 'find a way.' Are you kidding me? Does Hoge believe his own book? I do. I believe Tebow can find a way to be a great quarterback. I believe Hoge can someday write a book without the professional assistance of Brent Cole. I even believe that, if he set himself to it, Merrill Hoge could be the next John C. Hodges. I believe he can 'find a way,' and I know, in that arduous journey, three words will change his life: Strunk and White. The question is: does Hoge believe in his own book? Does he believe it applies to Tim Tebow? Or, does this book apply to everyone in the world except Tim Tebow? Actually, I didn't need to write a parody of Hoge. He is heckled by his own book.

VII. Intercepted by Hope

Back to football. Mr. Hoge, the more I listen to your studies of "the football setting," the more I am distressed, and the more I truly believe you are correcto mundo when you term yourself ‘disturbed.’ So, you think Tebow is not mentally capable of executing a pro-style system? You doubt his mental ability to comprehend complex NFL scenarios, eh? That's a pretty serious charge. How do you know this? Oh, ok — because, you watched tape and beheld Tebow throwing mind-boggling interceptions against the Bills. Apparently, you transported yourself inside his mind, and viewed the game from his (albeit moronic) perspective, and saw that he will never be able to comprehend an NFL defense. Guess what? He did throw interceptions against the Bills. In fact, he threw 9 interceptions in his first 23 games. Tell me, then, what think you Peyton Manning, and his football intelligence? He threw 30 interceptions in his first 23 games. That's right: Manning threw 3 times more interceptions than Tebow in the equivalent number of starts. Yet, Hoge never accused Manning of mental midgetry. 

The fact is: every quarterback, even the greats, throws occasional mind-boggling interceptions. Sometimes it's the result of rookie blues. Young players have a learning curve. Cam Newton threw 17 interception in his first 16 games. I think that's pretty good. Tebow threw 8 less interceptions in 6 more games. I think that's terrific. Every quarterback throws the occasional pass which, even as he throws it, he wishes back. Montana did (139 total interceptions). Drew Brees does (pretty often, 146 in 11 seasons). Tom Brady does (He's had 6 games with 4 interceptions). Eli Manning does (25 in 2010). Brett Favre did, lots (336 total). My point is: there's no way to condemn the career of any quarterback based on a few, or even a slew, of bone-headed interceptions. And such interceptions surely do not prove a man a mental midget.Tebow may never be as great as any of the QB's above. I'm just trying to demonstrate he's not any worse. Especially, not worse for having thrown a few INT's. 

In saying all this, I am not saying that Tebow will definitely be the next Joe Montana. I am also not saying that he has the same level of natural talent as the great QB's of history. His level of talent has been hotly debated, and I won't enter that terrain here. I'll simply note that, for whatever it is worth, he had enough talent, in his first full season, to lead a dismal team to an 8-5 record, and historic playoff victory. I don't know how good he will be. Much depends on his health (many great quarterbacks are cut down before their prime by injury). Much depends on his desire. Much depends on the quality of coaching around him. I'm not saying we have conclusive evidence that proves he will be the next great QB. I am saying we have no evidence, as of yet, that proves he won't. At this point, while the trial is just getting underway, Hoge would decare Tebow guilty. I would declare him innocent until proven guilty. Hoge would have us believe that it is literally 100 % impossible for Tebow to excel as a quarterback. He is trying to deliver a verdict while a witness is on the stand. That's prejudging, i.e. prejudice. Meanwhile, I'm simply asking that Tim Tebow given a fair trial. As it stands, I don't know what the verdict will be. However, based on the evidence so far, I would note some signs of a positive verdict. Tebow is a hard worker (is there any more important trait?). He has knack for winning. His accuracy on the deep ball is impressive. His leadership skills are exceptional. In short, it's too soon for a verdict on Tebow, but it's just the right time to be hopeful about his future.

I have shown that Tebow's 9 interceptions do not disqualify him as a QB, nor prove him a simpleton. Why, then, is Hoge so skeptical of Tebow? Wherein lies the difference between Tebow and other young quarterbacks who make baffling blunders? Why is he so different than the rookie Manning, or Cam Newton. Look closer, Mr. Hoge! Can you see the difference? Is it not plain as the gigantic loop in your tie? Still don't see it? Then, look up, in the mirror. There's no difference in these men. The difference lies in the way you see them. The difference lies in your eyes. If you looked less at Tebow, and more at yourself, you'd see even Tebow more clearly. Take heart. I believe you can mature as a self-aware analyst. But then, I also believe that Tim Tebow can make a fine NFL quarterback. My faith in both circumstances has nothing to do with being fanciful. It has everything to do with being hopeful. The hopeful man is the true realist in the world. He sees men for what they may be because he sees that men may be something other than they are. Reality constrains us to confess that whatever a man is, he may change, grow, or even transform. Such things happen all the time. And so the blasphemer Saul became a preacher. When it comes to Tebow, who knows? Strange things have happened in the world, and are even now happening. Tim Tebow may grow into an excellent quarterback. I can't guarantee he will. I can certainty hope he will.