Tampa Bay, and probably soon to be former (once the lockout ends) Tampa Bay Buccaneer defensive back Aqib Talib, is in a bit of trouble. Shooting guns at people in suburbia doesn’t usually pass for good behavior. Of course Talib denies ever firing shots at his sister’s ex-boyfriend; his Mom did all the firing. At least that’s his excuse. Wonder why more people don’t use the “my mom was the one who fired the gun excuse?” Probably because of the plausibility factor, but that’s only speculation.

You may have heard of the sins of the father being passed down, but here’s a snapshot of the affect of the sins of the mother. The article chronicles Talib’s violent behavior over the years and the influence his mother clearly had on him. How many guys have had their moms spend 8 months in prison for stabbing someone over an unpaid debt when you’re 10 years old? Of course that’s not an excuse to hit a helpless cab driver, or attack a teammate using a helmet as a weapon, both of which occurred after the Bucs drafted him in 2008.

The article suggests Talib clearly needs to separate himself from his family. That would be a tough one to argue against, and if guilty of firing shots, law enforcement will “help” him out there.

Seems like an ethical dilemma: do I break ties, at least for a season with my family or continue to hang out with them, ignoring their harmful influence on me? Is it loving toward my children (I think it mentions he has two of them) to bring them around Grandma, when she has no problem hurting people?

Two thoughts:

1.) The reality is that Jesus requires our ultimate allegiance, and there will be times when following him will look unloving toward your family. That sounds crazy in suburbia, but that’s only because our children are our idols. It’s really not that crazy if you think about it. So whether you choose separation or healthy boundaries, allegiance to Jesus may necessitate a drastic action if bad company is truly corrupting your faith (I Cor 15:33). Such action might be necessary regardless of how it is interpreted by your family.

2.) For Talib to love his children, and that usually means doing your best to stay out of prison, he might need to break ties with Momma Talib. So then is he not loving Momma, loving her less, or loving her in the way she needs it? I would probably go with the latter, without letting myself off the hook.

My wife and I have discussed this ethical dilemma, though not in relation our Mom’s, as neither of ours own guns to our knowledge. But there are times when we have to make choices of how we love others and even at times who we love. Because when you consciously choose to love with actions and in truth, not just with words (I John 3:17), you are at the same moment, not actively loving someone else. For instance when we spend time with someone, or give to someone or some ministry in need, you are choosing not to love someone else. And that’s OK. You just can’t actively love everyone and don’t need to feel bad about it.

The problem occurs when we fall back to our normal default mode of loving those we like, who we are like, or who like us (Tim Keller). When those become the sole parameters of who we choose to love, then it is not OK.

Despite the fact that the NFL owners and players have been greedily negotiating their lives away on and off for the last several months, the NFL combine went on without much of hitch. It’s a time where athletes show up to display skills like how high they can jump (while standing still mind you), their broad jump (again while standing still), and how fast they can run. Quarterbacks get to throw without pads to receivers without pads without any lineman (hypothetically also without pads) chasing them. 

The problem is quite obvious: this is not real life. These are not real situations. In games, players jump with pads, run with pads, throw or catch or block with pads. And yet scouts often salivate over players who stand out not in real game action but at the combine. It doesn’t seem much different than the sorority rush weekend at Furman University where girls in ONE weekend were picked or not picked based upon short conversations, (brief interviews), non real-life situations (40 yard dash) and external impressions like appearances (how the players looked in full body spandex).

When it comes to the draft in April, one or two teams always fall prey to this sort of combine crush. Wide receivers who didn’t necessarily excel in college like Troy Williamson or Darius Hayward-Bey have cracked the top ten simply because of their 40 yard dash times. Both have been busts.

I think very often the church falls prey to this type of “combine” thinking when selecting its leadership, particularly in regards to elders and deacons. We, and I’m guilty of this myself, tend to look for people who talk the loudest, sound the smartest, teach the best.

But a good way for a church to base its selection is not by how good they look in un-realistic situations, like teaching a class, but in how their real life (most everyone looks good at church) is conducted during the week. Are they “eldering” and “pastoring” people already; they won’t just magically start to do so. Do they like having say and control? Do they pastor their families well? Are they already well thought of by outsiders and do they open up their homes? Do they have any hidden agendas? Do they seek to learn in community and share with others, or do they do everything by themselves? Do they naturally teach and desire to train others or do they reserve it only for Sunday School? Good teachers and smart people don’t necessarily make good elders.