Vince Deagler

 hi out there.  i’m gonna ask you to indulge me for a moment, to make a point about some recent events, and then tie it all together when we get to the end of this blog.

did you watch any of the british open?  i admit i am close to being a golf addict, so i made sure i saw as much as my schedule allowed.  for those who didn’t catch it, 59 year old tom watson (2 month’s shy of 60), held the lead through 71 holes only to bogey the last hole, fall into a tie with stewert cink, and lose in a play off.  here is where that is significant.  golf’s major championships are played on some of the most difficult golf courses.  rarely does someone past their mid-forties win a major.  julius boros won the pga at age 48, nicklaus won the masters at 46, i’m sure there were others since golf has been around for hundreds of years.  but to compete at age 59, only 2 month’s shy of 60, is unheard of.

so what should we make of it all?  here is where you will have to indulge me a bit.  sure, we should recognize tom watson is a special golfer.  that’s obvious.  and perhaps we can make the point that a links style course, like those used for the open championship, are somewhat of an equalizer (remember greg norman last year?).  but, what does it say about the modern crop of golfers?  you know, the one’s who are routinely proclaimed as the best ever, like tiger woods for instance.  could we say, maybe they aren’t quite as good as we make them out to be?  now i’m not saying tiger isn’t a great golfer, obviously he is.  but i am questioning the level of competition he routinely faces.  the historic comparison has always been between nicklaus and woods.  lets look at this.  if you look at who nicklaus competed with throughout his long career you find some interesting facts (he won 18 majors between 1962-1986).  gary player won 9 major’s from 1959-1978, palmer won 7 from 1958-1964, trevino 6 from 1968-1984, watson 8 from 1975-1983, thompson 5 from 1954-1965, ballesteros 5 from 1979-1988, raymond floyd 4 1969-1986, julius boros 3 from 1952-68, casper 3 from 1959-70, larry nelson 3 from 1981-1987, hale irwin 3 from 1974-90, and a number of golfer’s who won 2 (the likes of norman, miller, stockton, jacklin, green, grahm, north, zoeller, crenshaw, langer, and lyle).

now look at the list of major winners that tiger competes with.  my previous list was based on you had to win a major within the span of nicklaus winning majors.  so lets use the same scale for tiger.  tiger won his first in 1997.  that would leave els with 3 from 1994-2002, singh with 3 from 1998-2004, michelson with 3 from 2004-06, harrington with 3 from 2007-08, and several with 2 (the likes of janzen, o’meara, olazabal, goosen, and cabrera). 

now i know some of the guys i just listed might win more.  and there may be guys coming on the scene that will win a number of majors.  but the comparison isn’t even close.  from top to bottom, the quality of the average tour player may have improved (that is what i constantly hear), but the number of golfers capable of winning multiple majors has seriously declined.  tiger may be the greatest ever, but how will we know if he isn’t facing the player’s, palmer’s, trevino’s, watson’s, etc.

now that i have gotten that out of my system, let me explain what i think is an underlying problem with our modern culture.  we are quick to anoint everything new with the label better and best.  this is true across the board and is taken as gospel without anyone even asking any questions.  but everything new is not better, and there is a lot of value in the old, the traditional, in those things that have stood the test of time.  we live in the age of the “emergent church”.  the emergent church is often a reaction to and disillusionment with a previous church experience.  it is their attempt to do church differently.  now, i don’t have a problem with that per se.  for anyone to say the church, as it has existed, is perfect would be ridiculous.  it can be done differently, and many times should be done differently.

but let’s remember who the church belongs to.  it is god’s, it is not mine or your’s.  it is not the property of the traditionalist’s nor the emergent’s.  and since it belongs to god, he has a say, and in fact has had his say in scripture.  the emergents may not always like what god has to say, that isn’t really the issue is it?  does it really matter if i don’t like what god says?  a big part of the problem is the whole past vs present debate.  todays culture, often referred to as a post-modern culture, has been influenced by relativism.  as a result they are highly tolerant and often unwilling to label things as right/wrong, true/false.  previous generations were taught truth was absolute.  that is the premise on which the scripture is presented to us.  and because the scripture is presented to us as absolute truth, i think there are times the emergent church struggles.  it may be new, but how can you say a movement that struggles with truth is better.  if the idea of the church is to influence the culture in such a way that they see us as more tolerant, then maybe the emergents have something.  but we have a much higher calling, we are to convince them they need a savior.  that implies a need.  we know the need is connected to the idea of sin and its consequence.  god has laid out quite clearly, that every human has that sin problem.  how do you address sin in a culture that embraces moral relativism?  how do you point out some behaviors are simply wrong in a culture that embraces a warped idea of tolerance?  i once had a discussion of homosexuality with another christian who felt they would not see me as very loving or tolerant if i held to the views i was sharing.  i asked them, how do you have that conversation?  the only thing they would see as loving and tolerance would be if i agreed with them…which would mean i would have to reject what god has clearly stated.

i am all for the emergents if they are seeking to do church in a more effective way to reach our culture.  paul became all things to all men to win more for jesus.  but if they are talking about changing things that do not belong to them, as in truth which belongs to god, then i cannot endorse them.  i was reading through proverbs last week, and something solomon said seems to make sense here.  proverbs 22:28 says don’t move an ancient boundary stone set up by your fore fathers.  they are there for a reason.  is everything a boundary?  i don’t think so, pews, hymnals, rituals are not necessarally boundary issues.  but doctrine, church governance, our mission, scripture, etc.  these do not belong to us, they are god’s.  we are simply to obey. 

so here’s to seeing the day, when the church works together, as god envisioned, in such a way as the gates of hell will not and cannot prevail against her.  thanks for reading.  blessings.  vince