#how they connect that narratively with the boys being at a baseball field when mike's being pressured about his supposed feelings for el

[chirpsythismorning]

Fun fact: In the original pitch for Stranger Things, El had a little brother.

After being rejected by almost 20 studios for the Montauk pilot, the Duffers were finally green-lit by Netflix. It was at this time that they began casting and then writing the first season officially, which included reworking a lot of that first episode.

This led to the removal of the brother reference, and with it, removing any sort of arc El could have had about her apparent brother.

But the thing about this moment, is that it might not have been scrapped entirely...

Going into the final season, no one can explain why or how El recognized Will back in 1x02. And while there are plenty of things on the show that are left unexplained, with a small portion likely left that way with the intention to uncover it later, what sets this moment apart from the rest is that there are very few possibilities here.

Because for starters, the story presents El's ability to see people in the void in s1 as requiring either a picture of that person for reference, or having met that person before.

But when El see's this picture of Will, she's never met him before. Or maybe she has, but we wouldn't know because they never showed us. They could have just not done this scene at all, given that it's clearly a copy/paste/edit of something scrapped from the pitch. Or they could have even still included it, but explained it.

One explanation could be that the lab had shown El a picture of Will before, similar to what they did with the Russian agent they wanted to spy on. But then that begs to question, why would the lab show El a picture of Will? Why would they want to see what he was doing? That alone is incriminating in and of itself, implying that Will is more connected to the lab than we realize.

The only other, and frankly most likely explanation, would be that El stumbled across Will at some point on her journey between escaping the lab and Will going missing. This is actually something that happens in The Other Side comic, which explores all the things Will may have experienced during his time in the Upside Down.

Though it’s worth noting the comics aren’t technically canon, and I highly doubt they would outright spoil everything in relation to Will’s time there, years before it was intended to be revealed. But still, let's humor this for a moment given that I do think Will's time in the UD is going to be very relevant in s5, which means it's highly likely they will finally address how exactly El saw him.

Basically, in the comic, Will see’s El walking through the woods, almost apparition like, glowing as she passes by, while also sporting the Benny’s burgers shirt. This means they would have crossed passed within a short span of time, between when El escaped Benny’s when the agents arrived, but before she was found by the boys.

Though it’s worth noting that we’re seeing this all from Will’s perspective. This means from the UD, Will was capable of seeing El on the other side, despite them being on different sides. And not only that, but she also looks back at him.

What confuses me about this, is that it doesn’t make sense for El to be in the woods, only to randomly decide to pop in to the void for a moment. She was trying to escape the lab and everything that came with it. I doubt she had any desire to lurk back there for some reason, not until someone encouraged her to. Not to mention, it would make no sense for her to go there and see Will if she wasn't even looking for him in the first place. And so this would mean Will and El could see each other, with Will being in the UD, and El being on the other side.

While it does seem pretty far off, given that you would think Will and El wouldn't be able to see each other from different sides, it is true in the story that El not only recognizes Will, but knows that he is in danger. She mentions that he is hiding specifically.

Which means she has likely seen him within the last 24 hours regardless.

This, in combination with Will being able to respond to El in the void at the end of the season in Castle Byers, when no one else outside of Terry and flayed-Billy have been able to, seems to imply that there is indeed something special about Will that makes him capable of communicating with El from the UD. Not only that, but El also seems to have an ability to be in this constant knowing state of how Will is doing, without even checking again to confirm. She's just certain of it. And she seems terrified about it.

Going forward, El never uses a picture of Will to find him. She never did. And more often than not, they don’t show us what she see’s either, not until the very end. And that’s the moment they reveal that he was able to communicate with her.

Again, there was really no reason to have El recognize Will. If anything it complicates things. But the fact that they chose to introduce this concept, with a scene from the original pitch that was related to El’s younger brother, with her pointing at his name cryptically, startling Benny, only to revamp it and have El not say anything at all while pointing at the picture of Will, startling Mike… It just really makes you stop and think.

Which brings me to the other aspect of this that might have people doubting, which is that El’s brother was originally younger than her.

We know Will is not younger than El, so how could this apply to him?

Well, it might be helpful to consider that in the original script, El was actually 10 years old, while the boys were always 12. Meaning that for some reason, they decided to age her up to the age of the boys, aka the same age as Will…

Ever since @erikiara80 shared this brother discovery with me, I have been sort of reeling. It then led to other little discoveries of changes they made between Montauk and Stranger Things.

It’s important to understand that the Montauk bible and the original script precedes what we ended up with in the final product, with it finally changing and evolving months, maybe even a year since that original vision. Even casting occurred before writing started for the first season. We know this because casting announcements were made in June and August of 2015, with writing not starting until August going into early 2016, simultaneously while they were filming.

And believe it or not, what I've discovered is that a lot of the changes they made between their original plans and what we see in the final product, have to do with not only Willel, but also Byler.

If you've read the original script for Montauk, you'll know that Mike's crush on Jennifer Hayes was focused on right from the jump, along with the birthmark on his face being focused on, which was the main cause of the bullying he experienced.

This has actually been talked about recently, and some of the claims people make do fit with what I am genuinely starting to consider here, which is that the initial plan for what makes Mike an outcast shifted.

I think when they completed casting, and started actually deep diving into what they wanted this world to look like, both from a short-term and long-term standpoint, they were presented with some pretty interesting discoveries, arguably already hiding in their initial plans without realizing it.

And this is where it sort of becomes a 'chicken or the egg' situation. Because which one came first? Byler or Willel?

I can't say for certain, because obviously this is all just speculation. But in the case that Willel came first, I think Byler would come very naturally after that.

The Duffers themselves are twins. Then they hire Noah, who is a twin. Then they're thinking and planning for El's past and how her family all fits into this, and they're thinking... wait a damn minute... We could totally Star Wars this bitch!

And then when they think it couldn't get any better, they uncover another layer that they hadn't planned or really considered in their initial plans.

While Will was always going to have sexual identity issues according to the Montauk bible, meaning that the writing process for him likely involved sitting down imagining scenarios that encapsulated this arc for Will from the beginning, they were simultaneously now finding very interesting aspects of Mike's character that made it hard not to at least consider the possiblity that Mike is not exactly straight.

Just think about it. The Byers and Wheelers are basically polar opposites on the spectrum of what a family looks like. While Will's discovery and acceptance of his queerness is interesting to explore because he comes from a low-income, single-mom household, all while having been bullied for years based on his perceived queerness, he also has a mother and brother constantly reinforcing that they will accept him no matter what. They've been sort of hitting us over the head with it for years, and so it wouldn't be very satisfying for his entire arc to merely lead up to something we've known all along. It's pretty much a given at this point.

On the other side of the spectrum, Mike comes from a more upper-middle class family at the end of a cul-de-sac, more aligned with what a nuclear family looks like. Mike's family is also presented as being more conservative, and while Karen does give that very queer-coded speech to Mike in s1 (I'm convinced they only wrote this after deciding to explore queer-coding more heavily with Mike), it also comes with comments from Ted and even still Karen that hint that they are probably not as open-minded and accepting as Will's family is to him. Which means Mike's arc would be a lot more about acceptance around him from his loved ones who we have been led to believe might not be as accepting of his queerness in contrast to Will.

And so as they're putting this story together, and they're being presented with something very interesting. Two similar experiences that play out in different ways because of the characters circumstances.

Will goes missing, and his twin sister with a buzzcut pops up and has the ability to help them find Will.

This leads to several moments where El is being compared to as not only a boy, but Will as well.

Now suddenly, their initial plans to have Mike's arc be about having a girl be interested in him and to hopefully have his first kiss and feel like less of a loser, starts to look a lot like what the experience a queer kid in his position might encounter growing up in the environment that he did.

And if you don't want to take my word for it, just hear the Duffer's themselves hinting at what they initially planned for Mike and the fact that it changed.

The changes don't stop there.

Believe it or not, 'It was a seven', did not exist in the initial pitch. When the boys went outside bickering over Nancy, they leave right after that.

Another thing that changed from the first script, was Scott Clarke's introduction:

And so you might be thinking, who cares? What does that have to do with anything?

Well, it's interesting because the line we end up with on the show is arguably one of the most on the nose Twelvegate proofs to date. Mind you, this is from the first episode:

Why chuck the original version, which was arguably more interesting and fascinating in terms of it hinting at the mysteriousness surrounding this story, only to replace it with him listing off tips about their upcoming test?

Well, I think it's the irony of it all. Here Mr. Clarke is practically telling us where to look to figure stuff out for ourselves what is going on, with all the kids filing out and ignoring him...

I relate to Scott a litttle too much in this shot here, any time I try to drop Willel evidence.

And the changes go on, as they obviously would.

Things like Terry Ives not even being El's mom, but actually a man who more so aligns with the characterization of Murray.

And one very interesting one I almost overlooked was in Hopper's introduction, where instead of a kids drawing done by who we assume to be Sarah, we actually see a picture on the wall of him and his wife and daughter... Interesting that they decided to switch it something that is a lot less definitive in presenting what Hopper's past looked like...

If you've made it this far, congratulations.

If you still think I'm out of my mind, just remember that El was going to have a brother in the original script, but they scrapped the scene and gave a near identical one to introduce her connection to Will instead 😘

[kaypeace21]

Analyzing the 5 plays in this drama club poster .From the bts pics of stranger things 4.

So... some of ya’ll know I'm going through the st s4 films given to us by the official st twitter + the films reffed in the show itself or mentioned by the Duffers in interviews .

So I decided to look at the plays mentioned here. Because even if we don't see the monologues in the show directly - the Duffers wouldn't name drop anything unless it inspired them in some way. Similar to films name dropped in the show. Tw : for some dark themes .

This is just a quick little analysis I decided to do since we probably won't get any new st content today (3/22). Nothing too deep. Just mentioning things that caught my interest especially cause these plays have a lot of narrative connections to the st s4 movies I've been watching.

Invitation to a march (Authur laurents)

Reminds me of the stancy/jancy love triangle. "A young woman is having second thoughts about doing the right thing and marrying a respectable , rich, kind, young man with good prospects.By way of a prewedding diversion, this woman becomes interested in the passionate but poor and entirely unsuitable son of a local landlord.Basically, the plot concerns the efforts of Norma Brown to choose between a conventional fiance who "puts her to sleep" but is wealthy (like what her own mother did) or go for this new-poor guy. The play is principally interested in how this youthful love triangle affects the three mothers involved (whether the kids like it or not)

12th night (Shakespeare)

 - viola (el) wrongly assumes a family member (hopper) is dead. She dresses up as a man named 'cesario'. A girl named Olivia falls for 'cesario' (violet dressed as a man). "Finally, when 'Cesario' and Sebastian (violet's twin brother: assumed to have drowned - Will) appear in the presence of Olivia there is more wonder and confusion at their physical similarity. Taking Sebastian for 'Cesario', Olivia asks him to marry her, and they are secretly married in a church. Cough if Olivia is 'straight' cause she fell for Viola (as a doppleganger dressed like her twin brother).Mike being into el who multiple characters in s1 said looked like a boy and specifically like Will is...suspish and a hint he's not straight lol. just like Olivia they're both into guys . plus, this play just has a butt load of love triangles (ugh i hated that aspect). There was also romantically coded letters (which was in the s4 films) . One character is also thrown into an insane asylum and framed as 'insane'.'Pretending that Malvolio is insane, they lock him up in a dark chamber. Feste visits him to mock his insanity'. We all know the psych hospital will be narratively important- talked about it more here.

The seagull (Anton Chekhov-russian)

similar to how I believed s4 will show m*#even already broken up since the months between s3-4 : act 3 (s3) ends with Nina begging for one last chance to be with Trigorin before he leaves/moves away. They kiss and make plans to meet again in Moscow.And in act 4 there's a timeskip where it shows they've been broken up for a long time between acts- and its established they never actually loved eachother. Do i even have to spell out why this parallels the m*#even ending in s3? There is also a play within the play (this is common in a lot of the st films- they have plays- or a story within a story- which illustrate certain themes or emotions of the characters within said film : blackswan, children of paradise, highschool musical, Rushmore, book of Henry, welcome to marwen, never ending story, romancing the stone, wet hot American summer, etc).The play is Konstantin's latest attempt at creating a dense symbolist work. There is also alot of love triangles in the seagull. TW!: for se#ual ab*se/su*cidal thoughts/ inc*st (here and in other play segments). The seagull motif reminds me a lot of Jonathan's rabbit story.Konstantin romantically into Nina shows up to give her a gull that he has shot. Nina is confused and horrified . Trigorin sees the gull that Konstantin has shot and muses to Nina on how he could use it as a subject for a short story: "The plot for the short story: a young girl lives all her life on the shore of a lake. She loves the lake, like a gull, and she's happy and free, like a gull. But a man arrives by chance, and when he sees her, he destroys her, out of sheer boredom. Like this gull."  This immediately reminded me of jon's rabbit story and some of the movies on the s4 list . Like in forrest gump- Jenny (who is poor) was se*ually ab*sed as a very young girl by her father. As a child she runs away into a field-away from her alcoholic father yelling at her -there she prays that she can "be a bird so I can fly far far away" .

Jenny as an adult struggles with this unresolved trauma- being with ab*sive partners, doing dr*gs, and having su*cidal thoughts . She as an adult when contemplating su*icide, jokes 'you think i can fly like a bird ?' while looking down at a bridge.God-i'm worried about jonathan (Jenny was also a musician sort of like jon). In another s4 movie example ' mystic river ' :(in the 80s) a preteen baseball playing boy is r*ped by men in the woods. He later says he wishes he could become an undead monster to not feel the pain of that experience - cause quote " if I'm not human anymore maybe the pain will stop" (Will) . slightly off topic but he also has another personality, imagines a alternate word that dissappears when he turns his head. And as a less direct animal parallel to the play - the boy from the film also imagined his perpetrators as monsters and wolves to cope.In 'getout' the photographer character sees a dead deer in the woods and it represents a parent/his own childhood tra*ma relating to his past. similarly in 'prince of tides' the 2 siblings as kids were ra*ed by men. The older brother remembered it and the younger sibling developed DID (so didn't remember but she would draw wolves- as the perpetrators/villains in her picture stories she created . In the film they also had an ab*sive dad and were very poor. She also tried k*ling herself multiple times-but started to get better after remembering the source of her pain and trauma.  There is also the theme of multiple attempted su*cides in the play- and the play ends with yet another attempt- and the audience is left unaware of the artist's fate at the end of the play.

The tempest (Shakespeare)

Prospereo - (the perceived antagonist) is a wizard with monstrous looks, storm powers , and ability to create monster-dogs

He wants revenge on a man who tried ra*ing his family member & revenge on his other family member who wronged him years ago. I mean... pretty much my did theory.But in the end.Prospero decides to show his enemies the mercy that they did not show him twelve years earlier. He tells Ariel to bring the men to him, he will restore their sanity and then renounce magic forever.Prospero breaks the spell that the men are under .

Diary of a scoundrel (Alexander Ostrovsky-Russian)

-  I suppose this could loosely relate to Jonathan? Glumov, is a young man from an impoverished family lacking status seeking entrance into society's pampered class. A 19th-century Russian scoundrel must scheme his way out of his meager life in a small apartment -whatever it takes.He has a quick mind and some talent for seeing through the hypocrisies of people around him ( Jonathan does make a lot of social critiques about society). That gives him some advantages. A tale of one man's mission to finagle his way into upper-class society and find a cushy job. Set in 1874, this social comedy follows Glumov, a Russian youth who begins his ambitious ascent to social esteem. He progresses by wit, guile and rhetoric. Pitting one stupid person against another, he soon gains his ends. To reach these goals, Glumov will lie, flatter, and cater to the vanities of the wealthy. Unable to contain his disgust with his victims, Glumov decides to relieve his unvoiced satirical comments by recording his schemes in a diary. But he is tripped up by his uncle's wife, to whom he has made passionate love on his way to success. At the end of the play, his diary is stolen and his duplicity exposed, but he can nevertheless suceeds. The author is much more critical about the high society itself than about the main character, so the play keeps attracting generations of directors by opening possibilities for political criticism while also avoiding naming names of the current rulers.The play's aim was to overthrow bourgeois tradition and establish a class-conscious art called eccentricism giving a deliberately comic portrayal of reality.

I suppose I notice some possible commonalities-  besides s3 critiquing the wealthy/capitalism in comedic ways . jonathan since s1 has worried about his family's finances / had some resentment toward the rich . In some of the s4 movies ‘orphan’ & ‘ girl interrupted’ someone reads their diary out loud to get at them (in girl interrupted the winona character’s diary even had critiques of her new friends).  Alot of movies also have someone (usually a teen/young adult) making a documentary about their life -which could narratively replace said diary? A few movies have a poor guy adjusting to snobby rich social circles (or being poor and then getting money)- titanic, kingsmen, karate kid, the craft , godfather,  wardogs,into the spiderverse,flashdance, and many others . And movies like wardogs has a poor-young-character do shady things to finacially support his family . There���s also that whole uncle’s wife thing- which makes me uncomfortable for obvious reasons (but I’m just thinking of Lonnie’s creepy gf who was into him). A few movies had the guy’s step mom innappropriately hit on him- orange county & you got mail. And him trying to avoid her advances. Or...not to mention ... it may be a problematic coincidence /trope. But in enter the void -the guy who needs to finacially support his sibling/ does dr*gs -hooks up with his dr*g dealing friend’s married mom (who would give him money).  Or in gilbert grape- the poor teen-who has to finacially support his siblings/single mom-has his endgame relationship be a girl his own age. But before that he h*oked up with a married woman -who would give him money. Don’s plum -young film guy-propositioned by older female film director (for dream job). Not even mentioning the other films that have the guy hooking up with toxic older women (like ‘the graduate’). Or analyze this-where the therapist accuses him of having an Oedipus complex (not touching that one... but the guy in ‘enter the void’ a 100% had one). It’s possible those movies were just- inspo for s3?  A coincidence? Or s3 was foreshadowing for this in s4- but unlike s3 it will accurately be played as wrong  and a sign of Jonathan recreating past tra*ma caused by Lonnie (cough like the photos) /being desperate for money. And not played ‘comedically’ like how it mostly was in s3. But shown as self destructive  (for Jon) and immoral on the Woman’s end. Like... Billy and Jon are character foils. Both are older siblings into rock music, with ab*sive dads who shoved them into walls. Both lose it (and beat steve to a pulp when Steve accidentally triggers their daddy issues). In s3 it’s established womanizer Billy has mommy issues, than he tries ho*king up with someone his mom’s age, and the characters ref ‘back to the future ‘ and Steve incorrectly says it’s about “alex p keaton trying to bang his mom.” This could illustrate his subconscious issues with parental figures/adults cause of Lonnie’s  possible past se*ual ab*se . One film the friend even says to the guy “you don’t have friends!” guy b: i have friends! him:  no you have acquaintances! ADMIT IT! YOU’RE AFRAID OF MEN!I mean-Jonathan liked Nancy- but he initially hooked up with her cause he wanted to prove he didn’t have ‘trust issues’ from his dad. Also it’s prob a bit of a reach (and maybe a coincidence)- but the fact Murray in the same breath compares Steve (Nancy’s then bf) and Lonnie  ... uh... if you think too long about it ... it’s very sinister .  Especially because in s3: muray tells Joyce  that despite her wanting to be with a nice guy, she’s curious about “the brute” Hopper despite him reminding her of a past “bad relationship”(aka Lonnie). Like- yeah connect some dots.  Quite a few films (other than forrest gump) also have the character who (as a kid) was  r*ped by their dad/parent-  begin to do dr*gs/be pr*miscuous as adults since they never learned to properly cope with their trauma (’girl with the dragon tattoo’,  ‘black swan’, and ‘magnolia’). Unfortunately the whole relative doing such things to kid-relatives is in at least 30+ movies. 

Personally, i would be MUCH happier if Jon had a age appropriate romance- and had not a single creepy adult near him. A few movies actually imply Lonnie gets yet another ‘new model’  replacing his gf in her 20s with a new gf- who is ‘barely l*gal” and just turned 18. so there’s that possibility as well- that she’s jonathan’s age.I just want Jonathan-happy &safe. GOD. IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK?

[standrewumcspokenword]

God’s Goal II

Last week, we started this sermon series on God’s Goals, talking about what, if anything, we can learn from competitive sports. We talked about how sports gives us sense of justice, of what’s right – from who’s on the field to how we act towards each other. We also mentioned that it’s a way to connect, even with those with whom we disagree.  

Today, we are looking at Philippians 3 and the goal that Paul talks about.  

I want to invite you to look at this passage and then to see how it might apply to one sport in particular, little league baseball.

Pauls’ Goals, though, can be summarized in this one verse.  Verse 13: “… this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead.”  Forgetting what lies behind.  

I remember a professor in my New Testament class in seminary. He was a first generation Korean-American scholar and he recalled a story as he covered this verse. A few years before this class, he had lost his wife. He told us that about six months after she passed, that he went to a family gathering in Korea. One of his family members came up to him and said… “it’s been six months, time to get over it.” It had been years since that happened, but that professor still cried when telling about that. It was so painful.  

When Paul is telling us about forgetting what lies behind, he isn’t telling other people what they have to do.  It’s finding your goal and that upward call for you. For Paul, that meant leaving behind a former life under the Law he knew, especially how he tried to use that to control other people. If anything, forgetting what lies behind says I don’t need to control you.  But I’m here to give us grace to walk together where God is leading us.

If you know someone who’s grieving this election or grieving what’s happening in Washington… don’t tell them “they lost. Get over it.”  That’s not helpful.  

I mean, I thought one of the goals of little league was to teach us to win graciously, not to humiliate the other team.  And we learn to take a loss without forgetting to say “good game.”  We don’t undermine each other’s humanity.  We walk together towards the goal. We feel each others pain and joys.

 Philippians is a great place to remember that.  Paul wrote this letter from prison. You might ask – what was Paul doing in jail?  If you’re in jail, that means you’re guilty, right?  Why was he there?  I guess Paul never stopped resisting the authorities of his day. For Paul, resistance wasn’t futile. Philippians were divided. They weren’t nice. Paul preached Jesus’ grace. But others crept in preaching that now they had to keep the Old Law. All of it. Including circumcision.   Paul appeals to them to be humble, to humble themselves as Jesus left his position of authority and humbled himself even to the point of death on a cross. And he places there hope not in their own victory, not that they win, but in the resurrection.

When Paul says that he forgets what is behind, he is referring to a point in his life when he was headed down a road to Damascus, Syria.  He was riding a horse, ready to persecute Christians and any who didn’t follow the Law. Ready to persecute refugees.  But then Jesus took hold of him, knocked him off his horse, and asked, “why are you hurting me”?  

Forgetting what is behind was Paul’s way of saying that at that moment, he no longer needed control. That God changed his thinking. And that his fears, fears of Christians, fears of the other were calmed.  He began to trust in the resurrection power of Jesus. That resurrection power wasn’t a Get out of Jail Free Card just a “get into heaven free” card only for him.  His personal salvation wasn’t his only goal. It was an assurance that the work of God in the world wouldn’t end. That God would bless the poor. That God will bless peacemakers and comfort those who mourn. That we would learn to walk with God’s grace and not under the Law.    

Reading this scripture about God’s goal, I’m convinced that maybe we need to go back to Little League. Back to those sports that some of us learned as children. Instead of wanting to control what other people say and do, maybe we can go back to learn how to play together again.

Ok, timeout here. Let’s huddle up. When I say “we need to learn to play together again,” that doesn’t mean strong opinions are bad.  The times I’ve grown is when somebody talks to me personally, maybe gets in  my face and asks “what were you thinking?” That can be about immigration, homosexuality, equality, feminism, you name it. Their witness knocks me off my high horse and gives me a chance to know Jesus again.  “Play together” doesn’t mean be quiet or don’t disagree.  

I say that because the rest of the sermon, I’m going to ask you to listen to somebody that some of you might call your worst enemy.

It’s Mike Matheny, coach of the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team. Before he became the Cardinals coach in 2012, Matheny coached a Little League Team.  Ok, Cubs fans, here’s our only dig of this sermon – maybe he still does.

Because the principles that Mike Matheny developed when he became a Little League coach are ones he still uses. He wrote down what he wanted from the kids and parents.  It became known as the Matheny Manifesto. He started with, I always said the only team I’d coach would be a team of orphans.

Well, let’s let him say it in his own words. Apologies for the offensive shirt.

Three things stood out to me in this video and in what he wrote about. Three “C”s - first is about control, the second about changing thoughts, and the third is about calming fears.

1.       Control

The first thing I heard from the video and reading is how much parents try to control what happens on the Little League field. There are statistics to back this up, too. Parents get so enmeshed with the kids that every move is criticized and critiqued.

The place we most often see this is when kids are batting.  I was surprised to learn that many kids don’t want their parents to cheer when they are in the batter’s box.  Matheny explained it like this – hitting is hard. When you’re about to hit, you’re concentrating on that pitch. What if you were needing that concentration, about to get into it and all of the sudden, you hear this roar behind you. It’s distracting.

Instead of being about the goal of letting kids have fun, letting them develop their own drive and grit, parents make their goal to win.

Matheny says – make it about the kids.  Make it about them.  Don’t make it about you.  That’s good when you’re talking to somebody about a loss in their life. Don’t tell them, “get over it because it’s making me uncomfortable.”  Don’t make it about you when you’re trying to understand how you can talk about Jesus.  Listen to them. Churches get this wrong.

Churches say – we want more young people in worship. We want more young families on committees. What if families would love for you to join them on Sunday. On the Little League field. What if you asked young families – what could we do?  Change our meeting time?  Provide childcare?  Or maybe they aren’t even bought in to the idea that committees do anything.  Make it about them.

To reach God’s goal, maybe we can give up trying to control each other.

Now, we’ve got two other experts in our congregation whom I consulted for this sermon today.  Hailey and Marissa have won a national championship for their Softball League.  So, I asked them whether they want their parents to cheer.  Here’s what they said:

When I am about to make a play or hit the ball I want my parents to cheer for me and I feel their support no matter the outcome.  I would not want them to look disappointed if I made an error.  - Hailey

 I want my parents to believe in me and cheer me on 100% when I am making a play or up to bat.  I do not want them to yell at me or make me feel embarrassed if I was not successful.  – Marissa

 I like how they disagree with some of the ideas from Matheny.  

But it sounds like they still want that safe space to grow and develop.  

I wonder if as people of faith that starts by giving space for people to be gripped by Jesus. By not demanding that everybody else follow the rules, the Law as Paul might have said in Philippians, but by giving each other grace.

What can you give up control of today? How can you cheer what someone else is doing?

 2.  Changing Thinking

In the Matheny Manifesto, coach Matheny writes that “every boy on this team will be worked as a pitcher.” He focuses less on mechanics and how to think in the game of baseball.  He wants them all to think like a pitcher, even letting them do their own pitch calling. Learning pitching helped every player in every position learn the game. After a pitch in practice, he’ll stop the kid pitching or batting and say… “ok, what were thinking during that pitch? What were you thinking during that bat?”

I wonder if for us as Christians, changing our thinking can happen as we learn to ask each other what our real values are.   If we can stop and say… what are your real thoughts about Jesus?  Where we act like coaches towards each other, helping the other person make their own decisions, develop their own relationships.

It isn’t one bright light, but repeated coaching that lets someone say they were able to forget what was behind.  To press on.

Is there a place you can let yourself be coached as you change your thinking?

 3.       Calming Fears

A few years ago, Julia and I met a coach who has coached Olympic athletes and professional sports players. The one thing he did wasn’t about running faster or stronger, but to stop a narrative. That narrative of failure that plays like an old tape so that the fears invade sleep and their performance. He worked with them to calm down, separating that narrative from what’s happening right now.

If we’re so afraid of losing, I don’t think we’ll see the opportunity that is here.  

There is an opportunity.

Back to our resident experts, Hailey and Marissa.  I asked them, in the championship games for Blast - were you ever afraid or nervous? What did you do about it?

 Hailey:  I can honestly say that I have never felt afraid, but I am nervous every game.  I use positive self talk and tell myself that I have the skills to do well.  I also know that no matter what happens I will always do my best and there is always another play to be made.  

 Marissa:  I have been afraid!!  During one of our games at Nationals I came up to bat and knew that I needed to get a hit or our team may lose.  I didn't want to let my team down.  I told myself that I was going to crush the ball and I did!  I hit a double to right center.  

 How can you calm your fears to see the opportunity that is here?

  Three C’s

I admit, I’m afraid. I’m afraid when our Congressman feels like we need to spend money on a border with Mexico even though the majority of immigrants now come from China and elsewhere. I’m afraid when the legal provisions that allow refugees and other immigrants.

I had a press conference with Jim Wallis, editor at Sojourner Magazine, a few years ago about immigration. With the cameras rolling, he started by pointing to all us behind him and saying, “if you get Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims all saying the same thing, you know you’re in trouble.”  All have put out statements welcoming refugees.  Every one of them.

I don’t trust in the power of statements.  Statements never changed anybody’s mind. I don’t trust in anything from above except that light of Jesus that takes hold over every one of us.  And I do believe there is an opportunity for us to go towards that upward goal.  A journey we take with our  neighbors, our Muslim neighbor. Our refugee neighbor. Our neighbor who’s afraid. Our neighbor who’s angry.

But I trust in the resurrection power of Jesus Christ above anything else.  And I believe there is an opportunity right now.  There is a chance to build connections.  

But I trust in the resurrection power of Jesus Christ. Who can take our fears. Who can take the stuff we think is crumbling and make something new out of it.  God who created out of chaos makes us whole.

What opportunity is in your life today to step out from the fear of failure and into the goal God has? The goal of changing our thinking, of learning how to connect and what someone else might be feeling?  It’s a goal we don’t control, one we can’t demand everybody else play like we want. But we press on together, creating a space where we can challenge each other, where it’s ok to be challenged, where we can push each other in ways we never imagined, but we know that it’s to make us better and stronger.

Where we as a church grow towards the goal of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.