Email a copy of 'Leading the League in Assists' to a friend

* Required Field

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.

E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...    Send article as PDF   

9 Responses to “Leading the League in Assists”

  1. Martin says:

    Couldn’t agree more Mike. Haven’t heard TGIF expressed that way before! Very hip! Any team sport the lead up work is vital in getting a score on the board. With so much of the church caught up in the false secular/sacred divide this is the unenviable result.

  2. Bob Robinson says:

    Amen, Mike!

  3. Gerard Weldele says:

    Can you help me understand the distinction and connection between “institutions of practice” such as marriage and “institutions of capital” such as corporations or universities?

    The first seems to be the end (the practice of biblical marriage) and the second seems to be the means by which the practice is established in the culture (universities promoting or laws upholding a biblical view of marriage).

    Is there a map of culture that overlays which institutions of capital (the means) best establish the institutions of practice (the ends)?

    Or, are all institutions of capital equal in establishing any/all institutions of practice (biblical living, also known as shalom as you have so thoroughly and wonderfully defined). G

  4. Tim says:

    Very good, Mike. Thanks.

    I have seen this before in your articles, but I do not understand it very well. Can you help me?

    “Albert Einstein said you could not solve a problem inside the frame that created it.”

  5. Tim says:

    Found this on Youtube. Stockton hands out 24 assists.

  6. Mike Metzger says:

    Tim: Einstein recognized we operate inside assumptions, or frames for reality. These frames – just like a picture frame – inform the way we think and act. Inside these frames, there is a logical consistency. But if the frame is wrong, problems result. Einstein said you could not solve a problem using the same set of assumption that created the problem in the first place.

  7. Mike Metzger says:

    Gerard: I’m not sure how you see different types of institutions. I am afraid your distinction between means and ends doesn’t hold (or at the very least it doesn’t make sense to me). By definition, an institution is reality defining and boundary forming. For example, when marriage was seen as an institution, it defined marriage as a heterosexual, monogamous, and permanent union. Fewer and fewer folks consider marriage an institution today (it’s more a choice rather than a covenant), so fewer and fewer folks feel it has any binding effects in how they form their unions.

  8. Julian says:

    Musing on institutions as ‘means’ or ‘ends’ – shouldn’t every institution be a means rather than an end in itself? So marriage is the means to the deepest possible human intimacy, and to procreation and the nurturing of successive generations; government is the means to the just administration and protection of people in society. Surely any institution as an ‘end’ would necessarily be, or become, an idol? Until, that is, ‘a new heaven and a new earth’.

  9. Gerard Weldele says:

    Thanks to both Julian and Mike.

    I should have asked for a definition of an Instituion. I remember an article where JP Morgan was referred to as an institution and another where marriage is also. Both fit Mike’s definition and negates the idea of means and ends.

    To test my understanding of an institution, NFL is the institution that defines reality of what life is like on a Sunday.

Leave a Reply