Matt’s Marvelous Mailbag seeks to provide marginally adequate answers to much better questions about politics, economics, social life, theology, or any potpourri you see fit to have answered. Send questions to mailbag.bereans@gmail.com.  

Well, enjoy this mailbag because I’m taking next week off. A good friend is getting married soon, and I’m MCing the whole shindig so I need to have my A-game ready. But rest easy, everyone. While I’m watching the happy couple begin their lives together, I’ll be thinking of you guys…or rather all the questions I have to answer when I finally return. Anyway, let’s get to it.

Q: Yoda of the North Country, Lord Provider of the Paternal Order asks: “Greetings, Marvelous Matt!  Your multi-faceted musings make for memorable moments.  In looking back at your momentous first year, I see that the right honorable Dr. Smith asked a burning question in his introduction of you, one that remains unanswered, from what I can see.  So what is the best political movie ever made?  Since it most certainly is not recent, I shall rely on your monumental memory to answer this smoldering question.”

A: Hmmmm, something seems very familiar about this Yoda figure of the paternal order…

Not to correct a member of the paternal order, but I actually did answer this question in a mailbag shortly after the Zounds! article, but I’m not above repeat questions. For me, it’s a tie between The Death of Stalin and Dr. Strangelove. The Death of Stalin has a fuller cast in my opinion and is simply the funnier of the two. Dr. Strangelove is the cleverer movie, however, and Kubrick makes better use of his themes than Iannucci. Death of Stalin has themes, but it’s wittiness comes more from well-crafted jokes than thematic brilliance. Dr. Strangelove also is the more quotable of the two in my opinion. Regardless, they are both exceptional movies, and I could watch them any day of the week.

Q: Sam asks: “What’s your opinion on the innovation by the Rays, and what other changes should be made to make baseball more mainstream.”

A: Alright, if you’re a baseball junkie, you’ll appreciate this analysis of what went down the other night at the Rays-Red Sox game. The tl;dr is that the Rays made a very unusual substitution to help win a game against the Red Sox, and the Red Sox protested the game. The larger context and explanation of this is that the Red Sox and the Rays are fighting each other for a possible spot in the AL Wild Card race, and, at this point in the season, you start taking extra measures to eek out those little advantages that will give you wins. The general tenor of the season quickly moves from, “Oh, let’s just enjoy the warm summer days and the competitive yet friendly spirit of the game” to “I will sell my soul for win,” particularly if you’re in a tight race for a Wild Card spot.

So, as the article lays out, the Rays made an unusual but ultimately legal substitution so they could pitch righties against righties and lefties against lefties (common baseball strategy). The main confusion was over how the batting order looked at the end of their substitutions, and the Red Sox were not tracking with what was going on, so they ended up protesting the game. My take of it is that they protested too early since there was no effect on batting order (the Rays were on defense), and even if they had waited they may not have had a case since the Rays finished the substitution in a legal manner. Anyway, when people talk about innovating the game, they’re probably not thinking of this, though you could classify this one under “novel.”

As far systematic changes to the game go, there have been a couple of suggestions. Some have proposed shortening the game to 7 innings, which I understand, but as with a lot of these changes I’m kind of the die-hard nostalgic. Those extra inning slogs are wonderful for me. One that could work well is introducing AI-backed strike and ball counting; you basically take that load off the home plate umpire. The MLB has announced some changes to speed up the game (which is the main complaint generally) including requiring pitchers to face at least three batters, shortening commercial breaks, and reducing mound visits. Ultimately, though, baseball is a slower game by its nature, and if you don’t like sitting still to appreciate a long game, these probably are not going to make baseball more appealing to you. It is a game that requires patience and rewards long-suffering…..especially if you’re an Indians fan.

Q: Sergei asks: What three languages would you love to learn?”

A: Out of pure desire:

1. German
2. Russian
3. Italian

For usefulness:

1. Russian
2. Chinese
3. Arabic

And just for kicks:

1. Elvish
2. High Valyrian
3. Klingon

Q: Marcus Aurelius asks, “Is morality absolute or is it subject to change by divine fiat?”

A: I think I’ve had a question like this before which is more or less another take on the Eutyphro dilemma. I wonder if the questioner would find it more reasonable to say that morality is objective but not necessarily absolute. It is generally wrong to kill another human being, but there can be circumstances where it is justifiable and even necessary — self-defense for instance or stopping a terrorist attack; for some the jury is still out on the death penalty (pun very much intended).

The problem I have with questions like this is that they tend to be poison pills for the questioner. If you’re going to posit morals, then you need to posit a moral law. If you posit a moral law, then you positing a moral lawgiver. I need to know what or who your moral lawgiver is, and I don’t think the morality we experience makes sense without a person giving and defining the moral law. I’ll concede that evil is a problem for Christians and theists more broadly to tackle, but the mere act of recognizing it as a problem creates its own question for the questioner. We don’t classify many things as evil. Hurricanes aren’t considered evil; it’s just a part of nature. Animals killing each other aren’t considered evil; they’re just acting out of their instinct. But as soon as we start discussing personhood and human interaction, evil slips into the conversation. Why?

TL;DR: Morality is objective, not absolute.

A Final Reflection:

On my way to church, I was listening to a sermon, and the preacher made mention of the fact that righteousness is generally a word we reserve for religion. We don’t use that word much of anywhere else, unless perhaps you’re a West Coast surfer dude describing the “righteous” shredding you just pulled off on that last wave. With how we generally understand “righteousness,” it’s fitting that we reserve it for religion. Traditionally, it means moral goodness or justness, and there is an element of that in the word. We say God is righteous in that He is good and just.

What the fine pastor explained, however, is that there’s a broader connotation to that word. Righteousness isn’t just about moral goodness but also means that one is relating rightly to others around him or her. That gets one thinking about how we rightly relate to others. For instance, we have ‘righteous’ ways that we relate to our family that would not be ‘righteous’ were we to interact with complete strangers in those ways. “Yes, thank you, Mr. Mailman. Your point is?”

My point is this. I personally find it very easy to sink into trying to find “the one way” that is right in how I act, and I suspect many others do this too. It’s a very easy trap for Christians to fall into because it’s based on a truth. There is objective morality, and we have basic commandments that shape our actions. Ultimately, though, we can’t call that list exhaustive. The principles/commandments remain, but how those get applied are matters of wisdom, which is why the Bible devotes so many pages to wisdom. The Christian walk is not primarily about correctly matching the verse to the situation but is more properly about living out the principles given by Christ and learning over a long train of successes and failures how to live “righteously.” For me, that’s why grace is so powerful. It’s not a license to sin whenever I want; it’s a calm assurance that mistakes need not be final.