
Is something better just because it is new? Yesterday, I was reading in the newspaper an article by a local sportswriter discussing whether or not Barry Bonds is the greatest baseball player of all time. I honestly don't mind the question. I think it is far to ask (there are a lot of arguments that would support Ruth --in his era, he often hit 30 MORE home runs than the guy in second place...and Ruth was a pitcher. That's pretty tough to top).What bothered me in the article is how the writer flipantly made the comparison how modern teams would mop the floor with the teams of old. He casual mentioned how the Spurs would kill Larry Legend's Celtics. Sure, if we're talking about playing in 2007 but how in the world can you be so disrespectful of the past? Does anyone remember how good those Celtics teams in the 80's were? As a Lakers' fan, I feared that team. Bird could drain it from the cheap seats. Dennis Johnson played lock-down defense. Kevin McHale's was money down low and Robert Parish was a tough rebounder who could get his shot off on basically anyone. This team wasn't sexy but they could simply ball.
How are we so quick to forget the brilliance of days gone by? This doesn't only happen in sports, it also happens in academia. I never read Thomas Kempis' Imitation of Christ until my senior year of seminary. Did you know this book has sold more copies than any other book in history outside of the Bible? Plus, it is simply brilliant. But for some reason, this wonderful book got trumped by the likes of Rick Warren, George Barna and every other writer who is the hotest thing out.
But I have to ask, what is more relevant --things that have stood the test of time or contemporary wisdom that may or may not come to fruition.
I'm the Midwestern Monk and I approve this ad.


