Censoring Faith

There's a report on the BBC today about Wayne Rooney, the Manchester United striker who looks like a club bouncer but plays like most of us can only dream. Despite injury, Rooney scored 26 goals in the Premier League last season. He is the hammer upon which the England team has placed its hopes.

Recently a reporter noticed that Rooney was wearing beads during a training session - rosary beads. When he was asked about this he simply replied, "It's my religion." So, Rooney is a Catholic. It makes sense. He is from Liverpool, one of the areas settled most heavily by Irish immigrants during the Victorian era. Merseyside has more Catholics, in relation to population, than the rest of the UK. Rooney was obviously not particularly bothered by the question; his answer was almost a shrug - "I'm a Catholic. What of it?" But when the reporter made to ask a follow up question, a press officer for the Football Association stepped in. "We don't do religion," he said. And that was the end of the conversation.

How come? When did the FA gain the right to silence people? What is so awful about Wayne Rooney's religious choice that it must remain private? Given his notorious ill-temper, it's almost surprising that he didn't tell the official where he could put his censorship, but he did not. Perhaps it's time somebody did.

Looking at England from a distance, and not having lived there for almost seventeen years, it seems to me that religion (or, at least, Christianity) has become more marginalized over the years. It's not illegal to believe, but it is illegal (in some respects) to bring your faith into the public square. It is not possible to express opinions about the uniqueness of Christ, or the call to holiness of life, or the unacceptability of certain lifestyles, without incurring the wrath of the authorities. Tolerance has been elevated to the highest, some would say the only, virtue. Therefore, any statement that implies exclusivity or questions perceived standards is outlawed. Is this 1984?

Back to Wayne Rooney, the contrast with the US is shocking. US athletes sometimes talk too much about their faith. No one tries to silence them. But, earlier this year, it was deemed inappropriate for college football players to display Bible texts on the black lines they paint beneath their eyes. What is next? Will we soon be seeing a "don't ask - don't tell" policy for Christians?

Maybe it's time for the Wayne Rooneys of this world to refuse to be silenced.

Humility

There's a brief episode, described in Jerome Bettis' autobiography The Bus, that got me thinking. Bettis was playing football for Notre Dame. In the fall of 1991 he reported back for training camp, still not convinced that he could make a career out of football. He had spent the summer working at General Motors in his native Detroit, wearing a shirt and tie and helping out in the tech plant with research and performance tests. Then, in August, he returned to Notre Dame only to discover that his team captain had been moved to tailback, which meant that the fullback position belonged to Bettis. He looked forward to a break out year.

One day, during practice, Coach Holtz did something out of the ordinary. He called the players together from the three practice fields and told them to take a knee. He had something to say to them. "There's a guy on this football team, " he said, "he's going to get our a-- beat. He doesn't have a commitment. I can't trust him and, personally, I don't think his a-- cares. We're going to lose a national championship because of this guy. He doesn't want to win, thinks he's God's gift, thinks he's the next big thing."

By this time, like the other players, Bettis was looking around, wondering who this malingerer could be. Most coaches would have left it at that, leaving every player wondering if mhe could be the weak link and determined to do something about it. But Holtz was not like other coaches. He asked Bettis to stand and publicly castigated him for not being as committed to the cause as he could be. Bettis was devastated. Not only was the criticism unfair it was also deeply humiliating.

Lecture over, Coach Holtz dismissed the other players back to practice, then invited Bettis to join him for a ride on his golf cart. "Coach, why'd you do that?" asked the bewildered fullback. "I just want to get you going" came the inadequate reply.

I've heard sermons like that. I've heard leaders rip into Christians who are just trying to do their best. Usually there is no come-back, no opportunity to make a more measured analysis, no fairness and little grace. Too many Christians have been wounded because leaders are unable to distinguish between humility and humiliation. I wonder whether some of those leaders have not, secretly, revelled in their power. Dangling a poor sinner over the pit of hell may be one way to get a person's attention, but it probably won't win their love. Pointing out faults is, more often, the prerogative of the devil, not the responsibility of the Christian leader.

We do right to hold one another accountable. We do well to counter the culture of narcissism that mutes all criticism and praises the mediocre. We do the Lord's work when we encourage His people to be humble and self-effacing. But we can do untold damage when we rant against sin and do not love the sinner.

It took Jerome Bettis a long time to get over his humiliation. The dressing down did not really help to make him a better player, it merely undermined his self-confidence. For a kid from the dangerous streets of Detroit, already out of his depth intellectually, the coach's actions could have had the effect of sending him backwards instead of drawing him on. And we run the risk of damaging disciples when we fail to balance Law and Grace.

Scripture tells us to humble ourselves, not to humiliate others. And the promise linked to the command is important, too. "Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He shall lift you up." (James 4:10).

Steeler Morality

So, Big Ben Roethlisberger is to serve a six game suspension for his loutish behavior in Georgia in May. Roger Goodell, the NFL commissioner, has come down on Ben like the proverbial ton of bricks, even though charges were never brought by the Georgian authorities. Apparently there was not enough to convict him of rape, even though it's pretty clear that he plied a young college student with drink then followed her into a bathroom. Perhaps he wanted to show her his etchings, or to discuss the niceties of social theory, or perhaps he was just being an arrogant jerk with too much money and no conscience.

I'm glad Ben got fined, even if it does mean that the Steelers are likely to have a less than stellar season this year. It's good that bad behavior has consequences. He could end up losing over $3million because of his little escapade. Presumably that is a drop in the bucket, but at least it should make him think again. Art Rooney and the Steelers organization are also to be commended for taking a hard line. No doubt there will be questions asked as to why they didn't trade Roethlisberger, given that they had just got rid of Santonio Holmes, but I imagine the answer is obvious. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin, but a great deal to do wih the strength of his arm. You don't build franchises around wide receivers, no matter how good. Ben has already brought two Super Bowls to Pittsburgh. He has the potential to bring even more revenue to his adopted city. But he will have to grow up. He does himself no credit with behavior that brings his team and his family into disrepute.

Having said all this, it does sound a little Victorian, doesn't it? The imposition of morality seems so out of place in our postmodern world. Especially since Ben was never officially charged, it makes Goodell look like a stern-faced headmaster, idly flicking the cane behind his back. It seems that Ben's punishment is due to the fact that he put somebody at risk. Would he have suffered if nobody had been in danger?

Recently, John Terry, the England Football player, was stripped of the captaincy of the national squad becuse he had an affair with the ex-girlfriend of a team mate. England's manager, the Italian Fabio Capello, won a great deal of respect in many quarters by taking decisive action. It's worth noting, though, that the action was not strictly speaking taken on moral grounds. Capello judged that Terry's behavior would have a detrimental effect upon team morale, should he be allowed to remain as captain. So, the fact that he betrayed a friend and broke a moral code is of secondary importance?

The problem is, of course, that everyone is afraid to talk about moral standards, except in as much as behavior endangers either health or success. Neither Goodell nor Capello dares to invoke a universal standard, such as the Ten Commandments. They are, nevertheless, making value judgments. It's worth asking "Upon what foundation are such judgments made?" Morality has to have a foundation, a rationale. You can't just keep condemning behavior on the basis of a moral code which society has ceased to embrace. Why should the exploitation of women be regarded as a societal evil? Is the prohibition something we have just decided upon, or is it the consequence of divine command?

Well done, Commissioner Goodell. I hope that you will apply the NFL's code of behavior with equaniminty. I hope, also, that one day someone will have the courage to condemn behaviors not because of any risk involved, but just because they are morally wrong.