Bubba Watson's tear-filled celebration upon winning this year's Master's sparked an internal question:  what are my favorite "cry" moments in sports?

To make the list below, the tears must be those of victory, not of defeat.  They may well contain some larger pathos (see Michael Jordan in 1991) but the overriding emotion is that of celebration.

So here they are . . . my Top Five Tears Of Joy moments in sports:

5.  Michael Jordan wins 1991 NBA title.  All watching knew that Jordan's tears -- and the ferocity with which he held on to the trophy -- had as much to do with losing his father as with winning it all.



4.  Andre Agassi wins 1999 French Open. He'd been on top in 1994.  He'd been on the bottom -- and, we later found on, on meth -- in 1997.  These are the tears of redemption, gratitude, and awe.



3. Bubba Watson wins 2012 Master's.  How can you not love this?



2.  Dick Vermeil tells Kurt Warner he loves him.  Too bad there aren't more Vermeil clips available.  If there were, he could have tear-filled list all to himself.



1.  Roger Federer's first Wimbledon 2003.  Who knew there would be (at least) five more?  The tears flow in full about 2:00 minutes in to this clip.

If you ask most people who are even remotely connected to church life -- Methodist or otherwise -- "what is it that distinguishes the Methodist church from any other church?" you'll get answers that focus on the practices of our denomination as opposed to its beliefs:

They move their pastors every four years.

They have a method to their worship services.

They have pastors who wear robes.

They take communion on the first Sunday of the month.

They have United Methodist Women.

They do good works as part of their faith.

Sadly, describing Methodist distinctives in these ways misses the mark because it ignores the richness of our theological heritage . . . a theology that I believe is uniquely prepared to speak to people in the 21st Century. 

And it's saddest of our when our own people describe our movement with these kind of phrases.  I think our real dilemma is that our churches know the practices of Methodism but not the theology of Methodism.


It’s interesting . . . I’ve served two appointments in 22 years of UMC ministry. The first appointment was a charge (pastoring two churches simultaneously) that included one church founded in 1885 and another founded in 1913.

But out of all those years and all those pastoral appointments and all the trappings of Methodism in both (UMW, hymnals, montly communion), neither church knew basic Protestant theology, much less Methodist distinctives. What had they been hearing all those years?  I'm not sure.

I’ll always remember a conversation with a dedicated church leader, one of the finest men I’ve ever met, in which he first “got” salvation by faith. Throughout his church-centered life he had assumed salvation went to the good.

I don’t know how my pastoral time at that church reversed the tide of theological ignorance, but I hope and pray we took first steps together.

The second appointment is here at Good Shepherd -- as the second pastor of a congregation founded in 1991. This church has almost no trappings of Methodist practice (no UMW, no hymnals, and no acolytes) yet I inherited a body of people who had been well versed in the essentials of our thought: salvation by grace, holiness of heart and life, and the calm consideration (and rejection of) predestination.

Why?

Because Claude Kayler, the founding pastor, was theologically grounded and eager to pass on what had been passed on to him.

Whenever that time comes, I can only hope I will pass on a similar gift to the third pastor of this church.

The first 2/3 of James 1:27 brings great comfort to those of us who believe in showing our faith through good deeds:

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this:  to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

We get the orphans and widows part.  That's why we support orphanages, celebrate adoptions, and love on widows who keep coming to church even when the music gets too loud for their tastes.

But "keep oneself from being polluted by the world?"  That's different.

That implies, first of all, that the world -- not so much the physical creation in which we live but the values, attitudes, and philosophies that surround us -- is infected with soul pollution.  James regards that as accepted fact without need of explanation.  I suspect that those of us who watch television, read the newspaper, or log on to the internet would agree.

So how do we keep ourselves from being polluted by a polluting world?

It's not enough simply to guard your mind and shield your eyes.

To keep yourself free from pollution, you will want to fill your mind with its opposite: beauty.  God's beauty.

What's your reading list like?  Does it include a heavy dose of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?  What's on your iPod?  Do you fill it with some of the glorious songs we've been singing on Sunday?  And what's on your viewing schedule?  Programs that ask nothing of your mind or programs that engage and interest?

It's why Paul is yet again a marvelous complement to James.  Look at Philippians 4:8:

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable -- if anything is excellent or praiseworthy -- let your mind dwell on these things.

That's the best antitode to world pollution yet.