Alex Rodriguez, Jealousy and Hate

by Ben Howard

Alex Rodriguez is good at playing baseball.

I have no idea how many of you follow sports, but for those of you that do, you know this is an incredibly controversial statement.

Alex Rodriguez is one of the greatest baseball players in the history of the sport. There's no rational argument that can make a case against this statement. He's easily the greatest player of his generation and has been since he was about 16 years old.

Alex Rodriguez is also probably one of the most hated baseball players in history. To be clear, this isn't that kind of friendly-rivalry-hate or that love-to-hate-'em phenomenon that some people have with athletes. There is nothing fun involved in the hatred of Alex Rodriguez and that's probably because people don't hate Alex Rodriguez: The Person, they hate Alex Rodriguez: The Idea.

Rodriguez is hated because he's always been good. He's hated because being good has always looked easy. He's hated even more because that talent that looked so effortless made him the highest played player in professional sports. Jealousy plus a perception of easy money? Yeah, that's a recipe for deep-seated hatred.

It doesn't help that Rodriguez comes off as stilted and awkward during interviews. Something that in a lesser player might be interpreted as a distaste for the limelight is interpreted as Rodriguez being cold and corporate, unable to relate to the common man.

This hatred has nearly boiled over several times including when Rodriguez was nearly traded to the Boston Red Sox, but eventually went to the Yankees instead and several years after that when it came to light that he had used steroids for a short period of time in Texas.

Jealousy + easy money + corporate facade + steroids? That's a recipe for sports fan hell.

This has bubbled up again during the recent postseason. The Yankees have been struggling offensively up and down the lineup. No one is playing well, but most of the hatred has been pointed at Rodriguez. Fans don't want it to be a slump, they want it to be the end of the line. There is this widespread believe, or maybe hope is the better word, that two bad weeks in October mean that he'll be forced to retire in shame.

Even the Yankees manager seems to have bought into this weird, what-have-you-done-for-me-lately mentality replacing Rodriguez with the far less adept Eric Chavez for the two of the last three games.

Why do we do this? Why does this happen?

I don't think any of us is immune to this kind of jealous hate. I know for certain that I'm not. I do it all the time with writers. Some author becomes wildly successful and my immediate reaction is that he must be a sell-out. All of his ideas must be empty and baseless, because no one becomes popular based on substance in the religion and theology racket. Christian best-seller is just another phrase for "Book I won't be reading soon."

This type of thinking is so stupid. I know that I've gone through this very scenario with Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Shane Claiborne, the list goes on. But when I think about it, when I think about what they're actually saying, they're right. It's true and it's authentic and they didn't change. I did, or at least my perception of them did.

So I want to apologize to Rob Bell and Brian McLaren and Shane Claiborne and any other author that I've secretly felt resentful towards because of their success. I'm sorry, you guys are really awesome, I was wrong. I also want to apologize to Alex Rodriguez. I hope things get better for you.

Take this as a call to reconsider why you hate the things you hate and love the things you love. Are they actually as bad as you think or are you possibly jealous? And as for the things you love, are they actually true or do they just reinforce what you already believe? Those are simply two sides of the same coin.

I hope we all find the freedom to say we're wrong and change our minds.

Peace,
Ben

You can follow Ben on Twitter @BenHoward87 or email him at benjamin.howard87 [at] gmail.com.

Also, you can subscribe to On Pop Theology via RSS feed or email on the top right corner of the main page.

A Grace Deferred

Today a guest post from Josh Kiel about the response to grace in Les Miserables.  And a reminder that if you want to write a post on whatever topic interests you, feel free.  I want this to be an open community for sharing and working things out together.  Enjoy!

Peace,

Ben

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

 by Josh Kiel

Grace is a gift that is neither earned nor expected.  When it’s given to us it seems incomprehensible and rightfully so since absolute preemptive forgiveness is an illogical response to transgression.  We have all received grace but to what extent do we actually accept and embrace it?  In Les Miserables (1998 movie) the characters of Jean Valjean and Inspector Javert demonstrate two opposing responses to grace, those of accepting and rejecting that gift

When Valjean is set free at the word of the Bishop in the beginning of the film he is at first unable to understand the act responding, "Why are you doing this?".  After the Bishop explains his action and we see the development of Valjean as a new man he offers an explanation of his understanding of grace to Fantine.  Valjean says that as a part of Gods creation, "In His eyes, you have never been anything but an innocent".  Valjean and the Bishop demonstrate the ideals of how grace should be accepted and expressed in return. 

Ideals are not often met however and for an opposing response we have Inspector Javert.  In one instance when he is offered grace and commanded to forgive himself by The Mayor (Valjean) he responds with, "You must punish me or my life will have been meaningless".  His view is reiterated at the end when he states, "it's a pity the rules don't allow me to be merciful, I've tried to live my life without breaking a single rule".  Javert eventually gives into a single expression of grace by letting Valjean go, but is unable to extend that grace to himself for breaking the rules and commits suicide.

How we accept grace influences how we respond to it.  Growing up, I had the mistaken understanding that to be a Christian meant a continual effort to live a perfect life and that every time I would fail to live up to that standard meant that I'd failed to be a Christian.  In essence I was Javert.  Living as a slave to the rules and subject to the same despair and self-inflicted mental anguish as if actually receiving punishment.  Since I couldn't correctly comprehend grace for myself I didn't correctly apply it to the people around me.  I would in my mind "forgive" them for a particular transgression, but still resent them as the kind of person who would do the thing I had “forgiven” them for.  It was not until I turned my back on God and then returned that I fully understood that grace was not something that I could earn nor was it something that I needed to worry about questioning, but simply something I needed to accept.

As Christians we are called to be conduits of God’s grace and love. In accepting that grace for ourselves we are told to then extend it to others.  We are called to the opposite of Javert’s dilemma.  Since we have been shown mercy we should show mercy in return.  Javert was conflicted because of his role as an instrument of the law.  He was not allowed to be merciful. As Christians we are instruments of grace and therefore have no choice, but to have mercy.  Living in the mindset of that reality we can move towards expressing grace as the ideal demonstrated by the Bishop and Jean Valjean.

We can show grace to others without expecting it in return, but among Christians there exists the potential for an additional level of the freedom given by grace.  Among Christians there can be the anticipation of grace between each other that could allow us to be transparent and open with each other.  In this anticipation we should be free to be open and honest with each other so that conflict would always be short lived among the communities we form and that grace can be an ever present reality of our interactions.