Challenge 2013

In Major League Baseball (MLB), the use of steroids has been implicitly banned since 1971 and banned since 1991.  However, testing did not take place until 2003.  During that time frame, two baseball commissioners (Fay Vincent and Bud Selig) both tried to develop comprehensive testing to make sure the MLB players were not using performance enhancing drugs.  Their efforts were to no avail because the MLB Players Union said this would violate the players privacy rights.  There had been acrimony between the owners and the union for decades with several strikes and lock-outs.  The union had most often prevailed against the owners, so the owners were reluctant to agree.  They also saw a revival in gate attendance because the plethora of home runs which were now being launched by players of all skill level.  These gate revenues allowed them to overlook the now-known fact that the inflated home run numbers were the results of cheating by using performance enhancing drugs.  So from the late 80's through the 90's, players were able to artificially improve their performance through the use of these drugs, and players generously helped themselves to these peds.

Bary Bonds, Mark McGwire & Sammy Sosa (Before and after pictures - notice a difference?)

However, it all came to a head this past week as Hall of Fame votes were taken on players who played during this era.  The all-time home run leader was on the ballot, two players who hit over 60 home runs in a season were on the ballot and a pitcher who won 342 games was on the ballot.  When the votes were counted and the dust settled, not one of those players was elected to the HOF.  The vote became a condemnation of players who either by admission or by association cheated the game by using peds.  There is plenty of blame to be shared:  Fans who turned out in droves to see these towering home runs, owners who financially reaped wealth and players who had cheated.  The biggest blame lies at the feet on the Players Union.  They were given a sacred trust:  To look after the best interest of the players.  Rather than look out for the best interest of the players in the long run, they chose to be self-serving for a short term fix.  Now, every player who played during the "Steroid Era" will appear guilty because the union wasn't committed to the future interests of the players.  That short-sighted view is now costing all the players who paid dues to this union to protect them.  The union needed to protect the players from making these bad choices by joining with the owners to enact tough peds policies and testing.

Rafael Palmeiro telling Congress he has NEVER taken peds four months before he tests positive for peds.  Donal Fehr, head of the MLB Players Union during negotiations - The man arguably most responsible for the HOF debacles now taking place on players who played during the Steroids Era.

One of the side-effects of this neglect is that no player can actually prove his innocence because there is no empirical evidence to back up their claims.  We have listened as players like Barry Bonds have excused their ped use with flimsy excuses of thinking what he used was flax seed oil or Mark McGwire saying he didn't want to talk about the past or Roger Clemens verbally attacking his accusers at a Congressional hearing or Sammy Sosa claiming he didn't know enough English to testify.  We have grown jaded by hearing players life Rafael Palmeiro vehemently deny his use of peds only to test positive lately.  Even outside the baseball world, we are waiting on Lance Armstrong tearful confession to the use of peds to Oprah this week.  Many people have said Craig Biggio should have been elected to HOF because he didn't use peds.  My question to them is, how do you know he didn't use peds?  There is no proof that he didn't.  If peds were as pervasive in MLB club houses as Jose Canseco says, what proof do you have that he didn't use peds?  He may very well be innocent, but he is in a bind because of a foolish choice by his union.

Craig Biggio of the Houston Astros

This becomes a real life parable to the church about the choices we make.  As followers of Christ, the choices we make in the moment will affect our future.  If we choose to compromise now, we will have pain later.  I believe the Church in America has been making bad choices in the short-term.  We have chosen to act just like the world.  We have the same issues in the Church (Divorce, living together, lying, embezzlement, etc.) that are in the world.  We have also compromised the message of the Gospel by the methods we have used to bring people into the Church.  We have spent more time surveying the needs of the community and trying to have non-threatening campaigns to draw the unchurched in.  We have built a dependence on the performance of the band, the "timely" preaching of the pastor and the latest technology to entice those outside the Church to come inside.  The methods have become the driving force of the church rather than holy living.  We think people will be attracted to our coffee kiosks, our kid's ministries, our incredible praise band or our hip/cool pastor who preaches messages which won't offend the "user".  Eventually the chickens come home to roost, you have to pay the piper, you have to lie in the bed you made, you were barking up the wrong tree, you will find it's not all that it's cracked up to be and it has rained on your parade!

Herein lies the problem:  Those who are lost could care less about these things.  They want to see transformed lives.  They want to see the love of Christ being lived out in reality.  They want to see marriages which are thriving.  They want to see friends who deeply care about them.  They want to see people of different races and different ages and different socio-economic standings loving, serving and helping each other.  They want to see people who are as passionate about righteous living as they are singing the latest praise song.  The performance of the Church on Sunday morning is not nearly as important as the performance of the Church on Monday morning:  When the school bell rings, when we clock in at work or when we spend time with our families and friends.  But, alas, our culture sees our Church leaders leading the church to short-term choices which cause long-term destruction.

So the 2013 Challenge for Hillcrest Baptist Church is one word:  "Discern".  The definition of discern is taken from Hosea 14:9 and is two-fold:  (1)  Discern means to understand God's ways and (2) to walk in His ways.  If we don't include both aspects in our lives, we are rebellious.  Read the Hosea passage and you will see it from God's own hand.  We need to discern and make decisions that will benefit the Kingdom of Christ in the long-term.  Yes, that usually means we have to make some serious changes in the short-term.  To discern means to evaluate our living situation in light of God's ways and His Word.  To discern means to evaluate our choices in light of God's ways and His Word.  Anything else is rebellion.  If you would like to hear the entire challenge on-line, you can go to our web page at   www.hillcrestbaptist.net.  Since the 1850's, there has not been a time when the Church in American needs to be discerning as today.  More compromise and sin-justifying theology is not needed.  We need to understand God's ways and then walk in those ways.  If you are a member of Hillcrest and are willing to take the challenge, make sure you sign up at the altar.  If you are not in this area, but would like to take the challenge and have me pray for you this year, please send me an e-mail and I will add your name to the list.  May this be a year where you make the tough decisions which will call for sacrifice now, but blessings in the future.