If you haven’t seen the trailer for the movie “42” (about the legendary Jackie Robinson) coming this April you’ll want to watch it:
I am excited about this film. I am a huge fan of the game of baseball. Also, I happen to appreciate the study of history. Many movies have attempted to explore the dynamics of race in our nation’s past. Some have done better than others. I think this film has a good chance at addressing the topic with one particular edge: the Black character should remain the hero. In the movie “The Help” I was quite critical of the film because it made one mistake in my opinion. It made the Black characters the supporting cast when it should have been the opposite. I think “42” will get this right.
If you watch the trailer there is a piece of dialogue beginning at 1:33 that moves me (imagine the whole film). Robinson is talking to Brooklyn Dodgers executive Branch Rickey about the persecution he is facing for being a Black baseball player:
Robinson: “You want a player who doesn’t have the guts to fight back?”
Rickey: “No, I want a player who has the guts NOT to fight back!”
Robinson: “Give me a uniform, and give me a number on my back, and I’ll give you the guts.”
Our culture has debating how we should curb violence. As a Christian being an advocate for peace is an important part of my identity. Many Christians I know have succumbed to a dialogue that presents violence as a given. The only argument is who should be allowed to be violent. I hope a film like this speaks to us, reminding us that there is a third way, active non-violence (or messianic, active non-violence for us Christians).
the archives near Emmaus 
I’m sure in the movie the incident with Pee Wee Reese&Jackie in Cincinnati is shown.
http://baseballdeworld.com/2012/08/19/jackie-robinson-pee-wee-reese-statue-brooklyn/
That little exhibition of virtue love was so meaningful.
I’ll be looking for the movie… sounds excellent! I’ve been an on-and-off baseball fan, too (my Padres are seldom much above avg., occasionally really bad, but scrappers for a “small market” team).
I appreciate your tie to “active non-violence”. It happens I just posted yesterday on “Religion and Attitudes Toward Violence”. Not only is the issue of violence a crucial one itself, on which Christians should have more to say than they typically do, but I believe violence AND attitudes about it are crucial indicators of the developmental level of a given person, group or a religion overall (the last being a problematic category to make generalizations about, of course). I’ll let my article make the case re. this, tho I do it only briefly there as well.
The matter of how violence is treated in the NT has fascinated me for some time… like other things, it’s very complex. As with the “historical Jesus” more broadly, it’s tough getting back to what Jesus may have actually thought, taught and DONE re. this issue. After lots of study, I think the most likely general answer is to put him in your “category” of active non-violence…. It seems he was one among a fair number of varying (as to use of force) apocalyptic prophets or messiah figures who believed direct action, perhaps with some aggression (e.g., “cleansing of the temple”… an unclear event) but not full armed revolt, would prompt God’s assistance in instigating the Kingdom of God on earth. His disciples likely were a bit MORE toward the use-of-violence side (Simon the Zealot, Sons of Thunder, wanting to call down lightening, at least a couple carrying swords, etc.) and he restrained them.
This all pertains to my comments on another of your threads the other day… a context of almost “normalized” violence perhaps even in Jesus’ time, and certainly leading up to and during the 66-70 war (see Josephus). Following the war, there was the understandable care to not write things that might sound like instigation to Roman officials who would inevitably get wind of such writings. Thus, we get coding and a muddled picture in the Gospels and Acts. An excellent book dealing with violence and the Bible, Kingdom of God, etc. that I’ve now read twice is “God and Empire” by J.D. Crossan. Practically unique, to my knowledge, bec. so few tackle this subject in real depth and with systematic research and thought.
Finally, I’m glad you shared your affiliation with a Mennonite church the other day. I have some real respect and a bit of personal connection for them, particularly the less fully traditional/conservative line…. my mother was from a long line of Dutch/German Mennonites, then Prussian, Russian (Georgia area) until migrating, around 1870-some, to the Kansas area where she was born (1915). Her dad (died before I was born) was trained as but only briefly served as a Men. Pastor, and they attended other churches mostly, out of necessity. So my personal involvement is peripheral, though I studied them some later, went to maternal-side reunions that were probably at least 80% Mennonites, etc…. A fascinating and respectable heritage, particularly that of non-violence, peace advocacy and conflict mediation, and of true, broad humanitarian service (along with evangelism… I had several missionary relatives).
Patrick
There is a glimpse of it in the trailer toward the end.
Howard
I read Crossan’s book several years ago and enjoyed it. You are correct that it is hard to discern Jesus’ precise position on violence. He seems to have adopted the Maccabean concept that it is possible that a martyr could move God’s wrath from the people onto the oppressor, but he is different in that (1) he doesn’t adopt any of the militarism of the Maccabeans and (2) he seems to pray for his enemies and intercede for them before God, which is very unique. I presume his apocalyptic mindset influences this. Jesus left it to God the Father to remove oppressors. It may be like Qumran that it is a “timing” thing rather than black-and-white non-violence, but the early Christians, save some of the imagery of the Apocalypse, seem to have come to have seen themselves as “the Church Militant” by means of modeling the Suffering Servant, i.e., God’s conquering victory comes through the self-sacrificial actions of the people of God (on several occasions Paul talks about participating and even fulfilling Christ’s sufferings and 1 Peter seems to advocate this mentality).
Currently I am learning about the Mennonite tradition. I resonate with it since I have been pretty committed to non-violence for about a decade now. I don’t have all the answers to all the hypothetical situations out there (like if I could have killed Hitler to save lives would I?), but on a day-to-day basis I find it a posture worth advocating.
Any ‘bets’ on the World Series next season? (Not asking you to gamble, though I am testing your prophet acumen)
If think that either the Blue Jays or the Angels emerge from the AL and either the Giants or Reds emerge from the NL. In the AL I wouldn’t rule out the Tigers again. In the NL I wouldn’t rule out the Dodgers. If I was putting money down I’d say Giants-Angels rematch from 2002. This time the Giants win.
I’m a fan of the faith of R. A. Dickey, so I guess that makes me a fan of the man (somewhat). Now that he’s a Blue Jay, I checked out the rest of the team:
Jose Reyes at Short S, and probably lead off hitter, followed by Melky Cabrera (even off the juice), Brett Lawrie, Rasmus, Bautista, and Encarnacion …
Arencibia as catcher, except when Dickey pitches (Josh Thole will continue to catch Dickey in Toronto apparently)
Besides Dicky, pitching staff to include Mark Buehrle, Josh Johnson, Brandon Morrow, and Ricky Romero ..
What?! *blink*
Did some kind of management miracle happen in Toronto over the off-season? What the heck happened to Baseball thinking in Canada? AA has somehow re-tooled the Jays to look pretty amazing ..
So I guess I’ll be following the Jays this year ..
As far as I can tell there’s no bench hitter good for less than 15 homers ..