a weblog about whatever is currently striking my fancy.
More from Dark’s Sacredness of Questioning Everything:
Reading history yields the realization that deeply sincere people have gone to houses of worship, looked after their families, and prayed intensely while also participating in unthinkable atrocities. With this in mind, I read in the hope that I might participate in the redemptive moments of history, the kind that will look redemptive centuries from now. (page 173)
Why do we bother studying history?
I have two answers, both unapologetically Christian, both equally valid.
The first (stolen from the introduction in James Jordan’s Primeval Saints) is that we learn our history to both “carry forward” and “advance beyond” the faithfulness of our fathers. I hear echoes of Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy in this answer, and it creates a demanding standard of judgment: those who merely “carry forward” their father’s faithfulness—who are either too lazy or too comfortable to “advance beyond” it—aren’t true heroes. How’s that for a challenge?
My second answer is stolen from Pastor Vanderveen (who likely learned it from someone else): to ignore our history is to live as if God only cares about us. If we believe that history has a point, that history is the story that God is telling, then we have to believe that the Holy Spirit has been working in and through the last two thousand years of lives, dates, and facts. To act otherwise is an act of ridiculous arrogance.
There are plenty of other valid answers to the above question. These two are merely my current favourites, particularly with their focus on an authored (God-written) history and submissiveness towards the past.
The best thing about reading The Hockey News collection Century of Hockey was a surprise—the surprise of just how many faces and events came back to me.
Take, for example, “Bad” Joe Hall of the Montreal Canadiens. He died of complications from influenza in the middle of the 1919 Stanley Cup Finals—the only finals ever canceled due to illness.
Another was one-eyed Frank McGee, one of the game’s first stars despite losing half his sight thanks to a “lifted puck.” He led Ottawa to four Stanley Cups in the early 20th century.
I could go on and on, but there’s not enough time and there’s something else I’d like to point out. For young fans like myself, it seems hard to look at former hockey greats and see them for who they really are. Who were the bad guys in the 1940s? The 1950s? That all depends on where you grew up (or, if you’re enlightened, what team you root for now).
Dennis Kane, who writes a fun Montreal Canadiens blog, recently lampooned Gordie Howe for charging people hundreds of dollars for his autograph. I happen to agree with Dennis’ assessment—very much so. But what if Guy Lafleur had been the one collecting cash for autographs? Would that have been worth a mention?
I’m not criticizing Dennis. In fact, I have a hunch that he would be more than willing to put aside Lafleur’s past accomplishments and admonish him to respect the fans a little more. But I know from experience that it’s hard to criticize the players I love. Ryan Kesler, for example, has gotten in trouble with the NHLPA for suggesting that hockey players show some willingness to take pay cuts and keep good teams together. I love the guy, and so I immediately write off Glenn Healy, Paul Kelly, and the other union stooges who are a little upset at his comments. But put those same words in the mouth of Sean Avery, and you’d probably see a blog rant about how the guy just can’t keep his mouth shut.
All that’s to say, it’s awful hard to tell who the good guys and bad guys are throughout hockey history. And I think that’s fascinating.
