cjonesdfw

[cjonesdfw]

Is The NFL Protest Wrongheaded?

It is Monday, September 25, 2017, and my Dallas Cowboys are preparing to take the field.  Virtually nothing is on my mind—well, nothing except how badly we played last week.  There they are: ‘Da Boys, America’s team, but wait, their arms are linked and the owner, Jerry Jones, is in the middle of them.  They take a knee prior to the National Anthem.   Then they stand with arms linked for the National Anthem.

The next day I watch Skip and Shannon: UNDISPUTED, hoping to hear something insightful, and wow, I observe just how differently two brilliant sports commentators view the moment. Yes, both acknowledge the mistreatment and senseless murder of African Americans like Michael Brown, Philando Castile, and Tamir Rice.  Furthermore, there is an acknowledgment that the moment is not limited to African American males or even African Americans, but rather to any oppressed and neglect person or community.  Shannon is extremely offended by the brief kneeling and finds it suspect that the players, owners, and coaches would stand with arms linked during the National Anthem rather than kneel, deeming it a pacifying, safer option.  Skip perceives the event more positively, referring to it as a demonstration of unity, and asserting that it contains a major critique of President Trump.  I find merit in both views and cannot wait until Thursday, September 28th, to see the next demonstration.  

Thursday occurs, and sure enough, the teams link arms and Aaron Rodgers, the Green Bay Packers’ quarterback, makes an appeal well in advance for fans to join.  Few fans join, and, I fear, even more were booing.  I am quite sure I heard chants to the effect of put your hand over your heart.  Rodgers speaks later, and the amount of disappointment in his voice is clear.  He states that more work is necessary during a post-game press conference.  He struggles with what this means but wants to make it clear that the linking of arms is not unity just for the sake of unity.  Rather, it is a purposeful acknowledgment of inequality and a step in the direction of remedying age-old issues that continue to plague our society.

Something seems odd with this entire situation.  Not only am I bothered by Colin Kaepernick’s seeming absence; the apparent replacing of the kneel with a standing-interlocking of arms; Trump’s decrying any kneeling, and later expressing pleasured that the players stood Thursday night; the assertion that a demonstration should be welcoming and non-offensive; or even being confounded by what is more disrespectful to the flag: a verbally silent kneel or shouts of expletives as the Star-Spangled Banner is performed?  Or is it that I just heard someone scream to me Kaepernick hates the US because his girlfriend is Muslim?  Or perhaps the bold assertion that Kaepernick hates whites and is racists, leaving me to wonder what his adopted parents, who are white, think of this purported racism flowing through his veins?  Or just maybe the pinning of this movement solely on Kaepernick and using his own problematic remarks and actions against him and the cause, such as his remarks about Fidel Castro, and therefore discarding everything demonstrated as wrong-headed?  Or is it the shift of focus from injustice to the rightness of the type of demonstration?

All of these experiences are disturbing, but what really brought me nearly to tears is that for five straight days I have heard someone say, “If you don’t like this country, get out!”  This wrong-headed, asinine, “love it or leave it” assertion is enough for me to determine that what we are witnessing is more than a momentary controversy, but something that perhaps could be a catalyst for capturing our nation and making it clear just how urgently we need to pick up our efforts to strive for total freedom and justice for all.  Moreover, it is a moment that, if ended too soon, could send a sense of victory for those who both knowingly and unknowingly wish to snuff out a pursuit for fully-inclusive justice.  Furthermore, this moment offers a test of our Christianity, for what is occurring tears at the core of what I believe is the meaning of major Christian ethics.   Likewise, this “love it or leave it” mindset undermines the very fabric of Americanness.

First, as a Christian I am obligated to take seriously Matthew 5:23-24: “So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift” (NRSV). This passage takes true reconciliation, a justice-oriented reconciliation, so seriously that it conveys that one cannot “get it right” with God without first “getting it right” with one’s fellow human.  This is calling for true reconciliation, not a quasi-reconciliation that is a mere getting together or a token acknowledgment/apology after which virtually no true change occurs.  True reconciliation implies that the offended is addressed, and the offender’s agency is somewhat arrested as it relates to devotion to God until he or she “gets it right” with the offended.  Moreover, justice, which is defined as the concurrent realization of individual and collective good, does not have to be detrimental to anyone.

It is to be understood that those who take a knee, as well as those who stand with arms linked, are giving voice to those who have not had a voice against injustice. Moreover, these demonstrators tell the story of injustices that they themselves may have experienced.  At once, they are loving their neighbor as themselves by identifying with them through the medium of a kneel/linking of arms as well as voicing their own grievances.  They are asking for an acknowledgment and a remedy, both of which are at the heart of requesting a true, justice-oriented reconciliation.  So, considering Matthew 5:23-24, the “get out” exclamation is tantamount to refusing both justice and reconciliation.  Moreover, as a Christian, I should attend to striving for true reconciliation, and as a Christian, I should encourage others to learn from and hopefully participate in this ethic regardless of their faith or lack thereof. Yes, Christians believe many different things, but the need to pause and “get it right” is clear.

Second, what is more important, a symbol or a life?  Clearly, a life, although we must wonder how many Americans believe this given what we are witnessing.   I wish, however, that those who view the flag as being denigrated would ask if the flag is actually being redeemed by taking a knee?  It is being remembered by standing with arms linked?   I content that both demonstrations are signs of respect, for kneeling is showing humility and deference as well as remorse and grief, and the linking of arms conveys unity. Think about it: our flag represents America and its hopes, tenets, and dreams, such as equality and justice.  In light of these values, perhaps it should no longer be said, “This has nothing to do with the flag,” but rather, this is both a defense of life and a defense of the flag since it requests for us to discern whether we are sufficiently attending to what the American flag: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all.  The former, defense of life, is the chief aim, however. Let’s break this down.  

Our flag is boldly waving 50 stars that represent 50 states, and within these 50 states are persons who do not receive equal protection under the law.  Moreover, as these 50 stars wave overhead, they wave while at least one territory that is not represented by those 50 stars languishes, having been ravished by a hurricane.  The outcry on behalf of blacks who have been gunned down is an outcry for equal protection. This outcry is morally equivalent to the outcry by Puerto Ricans who ingest the harsh realities of our government’s limited response to them in relation to its response to Floridians and Texans.  When we recall that Puerto Ricans are US citizens, pay taxes, have sought statehood, and Puerto Rico currently sends more soldiers into our military per capita than any US state, we should ask whether it is conscionable to demand for a group of US citizens not to demonstrate when it is clear the American experience as it relates to equality and justice is very disparate for them.  The African Americans are “on” the flag and are citizens and the Puerto Ricans are not “on” the flag but are still US citizens, but both have a similar struggle: garnering equal protection.  Surely something is amiss.  So as we look at the flag we should both celebrate our progress, but also grieve our failures and vow to keep striving.  Is this not what the demonstrators are doing?

Our flag has red on it for the blood that was shed, blood shed by many peoples who migrated willingly and unwilling to the Americas.  Among them were Europeans who migrated to the Americas to escape insensitive, exploitative, and oligarchic and monarchic regimes in hopes of securing a better future for themselves and their posterity.  They sought a better life in a land that promised limitless potential, while we today close our hearts to those who desire to flee their country in pursuit of that same potential.  The Europe that these Europeans sought to escape told the peasants and indentured servants to shut up or stay in their place.  Today we hear these same words shared by Americans of many different walks of life and “colors.”  How different is “love it or leave it” from “get in your place or else”?  We must see that rooted in America is the constant need to purge itself of oppressive and restrictive thoughts and actions that seek to deny the equality of one in order to protect the “security” of another.  If we do not, we are destined not only to continue in our own mistakes but also repeat the mistakes of other nations.  

Our flag has white for purity of heart and purpose, a heart and vision that strive for equality, albeit openly not living up to that idea for all who stand under her.  And perhaps most importantly for this topic, our flag has blue for bravery, a willingness to stand up to oppressive and insensitive governments and fellow citizens who would deny anyone life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The consequences for such bravery might be death or a loss of one’s job or another painful experience.

Not only these but those 13 bars, representing the original 13 colonies, sit next to those 50 stars.  13 became 50, forming a more perfect union; surviving a civil war, depressions and recessions; as well as grew to include states that were not predominately the majority group or even identify with the same political party as the states that preceded them.  None of these feats/accomplishments was easy or comfortable.  Moreover, many of these periods were filled with chants like “go back to Africa” for African Americans or “get in the house,” "go home,” “this is no place for a woman,” or "just submit” for women who sought equality.  

This flag screams a call to grow and include others, for what was once 13 is now 50.  It says include others who are not like you, using justice and equality as the standard that must be fulfilled to become these 50 United States of America.  Today we see inclusion, but we do not see a justice and equality-centric inclusion.  This flag tells the story of persons who preceded these professional athletes, persons who not too long ago would only agree to join this union if they saw how it could afford a better, more prosperous, dignified life.  This flag, our flag has in its fabric the history of individuals that wished to deny equality to other persons for whatever economic, political, racial, cultural, and/or religious reasons.  But, perhaps, more importantly, this flag has in its fabric how these “deniers” of equality were met by supporters of equality.  These clashes to varying degrees have resulted in many strides to make America better.  These clashes, however, are not over.  They continue, even to today.

Third, what is wrong with standing at the gate? Throughout the Old Testament persons would stand at the gate for judgment regarding some unjust manner. This was a visible demonstration of displeasure and gave people an option for resolving grievances.  People received protection from their abusers and redress from injustices.  Is it possible that the demonstrations we are seeing are the contemporary equivalents of standing at the gate?

Fourth and finally, the temple scene in Mark 11:1-26, popularly known as the cleaning of the temple, addresses both how symbols can disappoint and that the true power of transformation lies in the people, not the symbol.  This passage is a Markan Interpolation or Markan Sandwich.   In Markan Sandwiches two items are next to each other not by chance, but rather one helps us interpret the other.  In brief, the fig tree helps us interpret the temple.  The fig tree is seen at a distance and appears to have some substance, some fruit, to nourish Jesus and the disciples.  Upon closer examination, however, it just has leaves.  It looks like it could nurture, nourish, and empower, getting everyone excited, if you will, for something that it did not deliver.  

The temple promised a closer walk with God, and an ushering in of the kingdom of God, but was reduced to a mere exchanging of sacrifices for money so people could give a pure sacrifice.   Again, something was promised that was not delivered.  

The substance that could truly and radically make life better is not found in either, so Jesus curses the fig tree, closing it down forever, literally.  And he closes the temple for normal business, closing it down forever, symbolically.  Outside the temple (vs. 20-25), Jesus looks to his disciples and tells them that they can do what the temple cannot: move mountains.  In other words, what seems impossible is possible with you, but remember, let there be no division among you, so forgive each other.  To be sure, the Hebraic understanding of forgiveness was not a token apology or statement to “get over it.”  It was an attending to the wrongs and a promise to go in the right direction in the future.  

Let me make it clear: I am not equating the US flag with the second temple.  I am not, period.  What I am saying is that we can draw lessons from this biblical passage, one of which says inanimate objects, no matter how sacred or august, cannot replace the unity of people from different walks of life who are called to walk together for a greater purpose.  Christ’s disciples were truly a varied bunch, and they did not always agree, but they were united for one purpose.  This varied bunch, from fishermen to tax collectors, replaced the awe-inspiring temple as the object that God uses to do the good.  The symbol can leave us empty, but the people must agree to move forward and do the good.  

The lesson is this: just like people participated in a temple sacrifice system out of routine but did not really come out much better than they went in, we should ask ourselves are we coming out determined to pursue life, liberty, justice, equality, etc. when we participate in the National Anthem?  I do not pretend to know the heart of women and men.  I, however, will say that statements like “get out” when all someone is asking for are equality suggests that we are not really doing the work.  

Observing this controversy in light of the temple/fig tree can help us in two additional ways.  First, we can ensure that we do not worship the object and value it over the people it is supposed to serve.  When Christ empties the temple, it is so offensive that the powers-to-be are emboldened even more to execute him.  The people valued the temple, which is not a problem, but seem relatively unmoved that lives are neglected, which is a problem.  Do we value a specific tribute to the flag and what it symbolizes in such a manner that we too could be perceived as being comfortable with continued and unnecessary suffering?  

Second, we can ensure a positive legacy for the flag by holding ourselves as Americans accountable to the standards of equality and justice and opportunity for all, and not resting until we realize them and implement policies, traditions, memorial, and structures to ensure that we never forget our mixed legacy and never forget the call to be better than we currently are.  Please hear me, I am not saying the National Anthem should be replaced or even the flag. Rather, I am saying dangerous things occur when we follow traditions without adequately attending to change.  “Love it or leave it” mindsets suggest that things need not be changed or improved but are sufficient as they are.  Since when were inequality and injustice experienced by anyone sufficient?  

In light of these four points, as well as others that I simply do not have space for in a blog, I affirm the protest.  Moreover, I hope that we do not do what is comfortable to those who experience greater protection and power, for such an action would continue the negative aspect of America’s legacy.   Such an action is a continued undergirding of subjugation and reinforcing of privilege of some at the exclusion of true equality for all.  Instead, let the protest come from the bottom up.  The call for a true, justice-oriented reconciliation will not rest until we do so.

Since we are speaking about true patriotism here, I recommend for us to wear blue in honor of the bravery required to tackle these matters if we wish to wear something as a sense of solidarity.  The flag is not under attack, so it is prudent for us to avoid actions like waving our flags “at” the protestors or holding our red, white, and blue hats high as if those kneeling or embracing arms are expressing that the US’s identity is being denigrated.  I would discourage reacting by gathering around the school flag.  It is not the flag that we need to see, for we all see it.  Rather, it is each other that we should see, both seeing and asking critically if the promises that the flag reminds us of are being realized today by the person at whom we are looking.

I hope we cease saying “just play the game” and “keep politics out of sports.” The moment you have the National Anthem played in a sporting arena politics are in sports.  The question, then, is not whether we are being political. Rather, it is whether the politics make ones feel comfortable or uncomfortable.  Do I agree with the politics?  To deny someone the right to call for justice and remedy by circumscribing how they can peaceably protest is simply wrong.  Moreover, denying their justified reasons for protesting because it makes one “uncomfortable” is wrong.  Efforts to circumscribe and deny are the epitome of fascism, a fascism that many of us either sought to escape or change or our ancestors sought to escape or change.

Moreover, saying “just play the game” to this Protestant runs counter to the concept of vocation. Our professions and careers are our vocations or calling.  They involve demonstrating the kingdom’s being ushered in by God, and part of this ushering in is through our careers and hobbies.  In essence, a Protestant understanding of vocations says that we should work in such a manner that we leave a positive mark, a godly mark.  

Football is their career, so to expect them not to take a stance for something as core to the Gospel as justice, i.e., the concurrent realization of individual and collective good, is disturbing.  Considering the Christianity of a number of these players, they have no choice but to be political.  And for those who are not Christian, part of what is meant in Christian ethics and general revelation is that the work of God can be done and understood by people who do not share the Christian faith.  Moreover, we, as believers, should celebrate this action because we can see God at work, ushering in a portion of the kingdom.  In addition, when coupling the idea of vocation with Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assertion that our actions are viewed as “co-laboring” with God, we should strive to do more and realize that one of the reasons tension is so great is because time has exacerbated them somewhat since they have not been attended to sufficiently. As King states:

Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. (A Letter From A Birmingham Jail)

We are in a moment like none other in my lifetime.  Let us seize the moment, realizing that concurrent with this matter is the concern of Confederate memorials, treatment of US territories, a president who clearly embodies many forms of bigotry, and a host of other matters.  We must take a position for life.  

Imagine decades later, a young girl asks her dad why many of the football players stand and others kneel.  The dad responds: during my childhood our nation had a habit of injustice, period, including the devaluing of women, less affluent persons, and persons of color.  A man named Kaepernick took a knee in protest, and a year passed and the movement was beginning to lose publicity on the large scale, although others besides Kaepernick were either kneeling or sitting.  President Trump was incensed at the fact that some kneeled and sat during the National Anthem, and being Trump, tried to bully them in a speech to his base in Alabama.  For varying reasons people were emboldened and took a stance.  Some were resolute prior to Trump and demonstrated publicly. Some were resolute prior to Trump but chose not to demonstrate publicly.  Others took a stance after Trump’ incendiary remarks.  Regardless of when and why they protested, they eventually did so with an acknowledge that injustice was wrong.  And for some, they added to the wrongness of injustice that they will resist Trump’s minimizing the value of certain Americans.  So, they unite in different forms, but each form is equally visible.  Some stand in unity as fellow humans and some stand in unity against racial injustice. Some stand for both reasons.  Some kneel for the same reasons.   And some stand with their hands over their heart for the same reasons.  In the end, they seek a single, united humanity that is equally deserving of justice.