Why Can''t We All Just Play Ball

Although I do like baseball, I am not a big sports fan. The reason I like baseball is you don't have to be serious to watch the game. You can wash the car in the seventh inning stretch and not miss much. Sports is about having fun. People pay money for towels, toy monkeys, bobble heads, they scream, senseless slogans and sayings, shake and gesticulate for three to four hours. They transfer their anger and frustration on the game officials. A lawyer who wears a suite to work and follows strict protocol in their work can go to the stadium bear chested with half their body painted team colors and can yell and shout and dance, doing thing that in a court room would cause him to be jailed for contempt or be disbarred,  with no consequence. Sports is about letting what therapists would call "the inner child" out. We pay unreasonable prices to eat mounds of food that the First Lady would never allow in federally funded schools. Yes, there are limits: we are not allowed to hurt others, interfere with the game,  be publicly intoxicated. The reason  we watch sports is to escape. For spectators sports has nothing to with character, or politics, or fashion, or entertainment, so are we expecting too much of our athletes to expect sports to be more for them than it is for us? The next time I turn on a sports network, I'd like to here less about the  latest peccadillo of the prominent athletes.

 As the country continues to worship at the altar of "political correctness," sports figures are scrutinized so much that I believe sports are losing there appeal as simply a means of entertainment. Professional sports are being politicized.  It's no longer about letting the inner child out. It about creating a place where people can have fun, be safe, and never offend anyone. They are becoming more like religious services than arenas (although I'm not sure what we are worshiping). Some in the media were shocked by the show of fan support for Ray Rice. I was not. I understand. Fans were not condoning spousal abuse, they were just asking the media a question: "Why can't we all just play ball?" Sports fans are not stupid, crazy maybe, but not stupid, they know that what a person does privately effects what they do professionally. They understand that despite expectations most sports figures are not very good role models? I for one have never pointed my children to celebrities and say "Live like they live." My children's role models are people we know personally and can attest to their character, not people living out a script written by the media. Far from advocating apathy toward  the flaws of sports figure, I think we expect too much of them.

Remember the Miami player who was vilified for a bullying a fellow player on twitter? Grow up. Why can't we just play ball?  Last season James Winston was under scrutiny because of rape accusation. Alex Rodriquez has made the news again for being arrested for use of steroids. Ray Rice has been suspended indefinitely for spousal abuse. Now Adrian Petersen is facing charges of child neglect for apparently spanking his child with a stick. The problem with media coverage of all of these events is that it is out of context and the media is unconcerned for protecting the rights of the accused or the victim, or the sports but only for sensationalism. Why can't we all just play ball? I understand. Sensationalism sells. It is how they make their money. The media will all ways be  the media, but I don't think we should expect league officials to police the private lives of players based on media sensationalism. The difference between responding to media attention and conducting a judicious examination of an event has to do with context.

When we see the video of Ray Rice knocking his fiancé (now wife) out most of us are incensed. Most of us are raised that "you never" hit a woman, ever. I know women who are victims of violence. It damages. However, I also am a pastor and a chaplain. I help people every day who have made a choices to act discordantly with their own beliefs and who do things, sometime serious things, they regret. As a matter of fact, I'm guilty of plenty of choices that are not right, are sinful.Yes, I have regrets. I sure hope there's no video. When I'm caught by my wife or children I am embarrassed and convicted.There have been times I have been furious with my spouse or children. I've never hit, because I have learned to channel my anger in other directions. Not everyone has, though. This is not an excuse for Rice or anyone, but it is an explanation. The apostle Paul spoke of his own life when he said, "For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate... So now it is no longer I who do it , but sin that dwells with in me." (Romans 7:15-17). Those words are true of us all. One of the reasons people are so salacious about the failures of public figures is that when you are criticizing someone else you can easily ignore your own issues.

Public embarrassment is the worst kind. The public is quick to "right people off," to set out to destroy them for their sins. I offer two example from the ministry of Jesus Christ to gain some insight about how to deal with people who have failed. Most of us have heard the story of the woman caught in adultery. It's one of those biblical incidences (like the story of the good Samaritan, or the prodigal son) that have become part of popular folklore, because of that people often reference them without understanding the implications and nuances of the story. Jesus more than anyone in history acted on a belief that anyone could be redeemed, but  the first thing that has to happen is private, personal confrontation repentance, and accountability without salacious publicity. So what does Jesus do when a woman caught in adultery is brought to him (John 7:59- 8;12)?

First, he delays. He writes something unknown in the sand. I've heard all kind of speculation about what he was writing or drawing. That speculation misses the point. The point is Jesus puts some time between the heat of the accusation and his response. He enables everybody to take a breath, to calm down and put things into perspective. He creates some emotional space, not only for the woman but for the accusers. This diffuses anger. It calms people down. Jesus does not react impulsively.

Second, he deliberates before judging. His statement to the Pharisees is brilliant on a number of levels: "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. Once again we are not told what he wrote, because that's not the point. The point is he took bright light of publicity off her. His first action was to create some time and space between the accusation and the adjudication. This is why in publicly charged situation the media demand for an immediate swift punishment helps neither perpetrator nor victim.

Look at some recent public events: The publicity surrounding the recent shooting of Trevon Martin in Florida, for one. Immediately, the Pharisaical leaders of the civil rights movement brought George Zimmerman to the public square, figuratively speaking, for his stoning. They played the 911 tape on the media over and over again and demanded he be punished for murder. The President fueled the flame,saying, "If I had a son, he would be Trevon." Alas, as time passed, all was not what it seemed. It was clear Zimmerman was no saint. He was  a complicated man whose actions were questionable. He was not all his defenders claimed. Yet, wait a minute, not so fast-- Martin was far from the innocent child just walking home from school "minding his own business." He attacked and brutally beat Zimmerman when confronted. Time and the privacy of the court system made a difference in how this was adjudicated.

We are seeing similar events in Ferguson, Missouri. When a white police officer shot an unarmed black teen six times killing him. The media and civil rights leaders brought him into the public square and demanded his stoning. The Attorney General fueled the flame , saying, "I can only view this as a black man."  The media immediately labeled Michael Johnson "the gentle giant," and began demanding the police officer face murder charges. Well as time as passed and as the context of the shooting has been revealed. There is some new information.  Michael Johnson is anything but "a gentle giant." His actions that day were aggressive and violent. Darryl Wilson's, the officer, conduct is questionable. We need to know whether it was necessary to shoot the man 6 times! Was he surrendering or charging? You see context is important and that's why a rush to judgment based on a video is usually injudicious.

But professional athletes are "role models;" they are public figures. Jesus also teaches us how to respond to the fallen public figure. In John Chapter 21:15 - 24 Jesus confronts Peter's public betrayal of him. After having breakfast with the disciples on the beach Jesus addresses Peter alone. He takes him out of the public arena where the betrayal had happened.  Three time he questions Peter's love for him, a definite allusion to his three denials as well as a demand for accountability and confession. Three times Peter affirms his love. After each affirmation Jesus gives Peter a new task. He begins to rebuild trust and relationship and move toward reinstatement. In the final exchange Jesus reinstates Peter as head of the church, and tells him what the cost will be for his loyalty and duty. Peter under the weight of guilt begins to question his own ability. Like Paul he knew he was flawed. He looks around and spots another disciple whom he believed to be impeccable, he said, "Lord, who is he that is going to betray you?" When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "and Lord what about this man."

Peter  knew his own track record of failure. He saw himself in comparison to other people whom he believed were more competent than he, and he began to waver, to go back, to say, "Who is going to betray you?" I did it once whose to say I want do it again. (I have heard media moguls say it about Ray Rice. He hit her once. He will do it again. That's what the research shows, they say. He' hopeless unredeemable,  She's pitiful. He should never play football again.) Again, Jesus statement was brilliant, "If I want him to remain until I come what is that to you?" Peter had forgotten that John had his own problems. He had arrogantly tried to use family influence to manipulate his way into power. This is Jesus' point! Peter you have to focus on you to deal with you. In the case of Peter there were not accusers standing around. He was his own accuser; he had plenty of reason to be guilty. The introspective focus on himself blinded him to the reality that he was no worse or no better than anyone else. Beside what John had done was relatively private very few people knew about it. Peter's betrayal took place in the public arena. His reputation was destroyed. Jesus took him to a private place and brought about redemption just as he did  to the woman caught in adultery.

His third and concluding remarks to her were the most redemptive words ever spoken. He writes on the ground, ignoring their scorn and derision. "... they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones and Jesus was left alone standing before her. Jesus stood up and said to her, 'woman where are they? Has no one condemned you?' She said, 'No one Lord." And Jesus said,'Neither do I condemn you.' " Jesus removed her from the destructive light of accusation. Jesus being God, knows what the Pharisees don't (or at least he cares about what they do not). He knows the woman's story, the context from which she has come. For that reason he can neither condemn her, nor excuse her actions. Although everyone is influenced by their environment few of us are victims of it. We are responsible for our own actions. It was true of Peter, and and of her. He says to her "... go, and from now on sin no more."

There's a lesson here from this great story that applies to both Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson and that is the reason the NFL may not have applied and appropriate penalty to Rice was they did not see (or at least they did not consider) the video. Like the 911 call in the Zimmerman case and the testimony in the Ferguson Missouri even what we know from the video has a greater context, which the media ignores. There is no excuse for what Ray Rice did. He can only solve his problem by dealing with his own issues. Regardless of what happens to his football career we want him to go and sin no more. But we also understand that their is a context beyond the video. He and his fiancé, now wife, had been fighting. She had hit him and spit on him. His response was inappropriate, contemptible. As ignominious as his actions were his wife understood that not even she could "throw stones" at Ray. I have never heard her excuse him. But she obviously knows there's more to Ray than just this incident. She also knows she bares some responsibility for the conflict (not the attack, that's on him). She married him, and asked the public to let them live their lives. If that means create a private, structured environment where they can process their stuff and learn to manage their anger then I say, "why can't we all just play ball?."

Here's what the biblical counsel I would offer NFL, NBA, MLB  or any corporation in the public arena when it's personnel publicly embarrasses them.They should help to create a quiet  redemptive space. Instead of intervening in public they should work to separate the player, the league and the fans from the destructive light of public scrutiny. The league and the teams are not  responsible for the actions the players take in private. The leagues can not and should not parent or police the players off the field lives. They are responsible to mediate the damage done to the reputation of the game. Any player accused of violence should immediately be suspended indefinitely and required to undergo the  care of appropriate, legal, psychological, medical and spiritual practitioners. The league should require that the player and family  go through whatever steps are necessary to get the help they need.

No one should expect the organization to investigate and penalize. They are affected by the events and not impartial. Their main concern is going to be to protect their profits. There should be no internal investigations, no owners meetings.  They should provide no statements, no publicity, and should not answer to anyone in the media regarding their actions. They should insure as Jesus did with Peter and the woman that the player acknowledges their responsibility for  their actions, and that they change the behavior. The Bible calls that repentance: not just confession, saying your sorry or acknowledging what you did, but a thorough going change in life direction.  Why should  executives and leadership who did not commit the offense be scrutinized by self-righteous hypocritical media: why should we let the game be destroyed by self critical perfectionist expectations imposed on public figures? One can only speculate the roll the league culture plays in things that happen off the the field. Managers and coaches protect their organization  from the scrutiny of the scandal and let law enforcement and helping professionals do what they do best. Once law enforcement and helping professionals inform the league that the person is ready their reinstatement should be reviewed on a case by case basis. Why should they do it that way, because that's the way Jesus did it. Think about it:

What do you suppose would have happened if Jesus had have said to the Pharisees that day. "Okay gentleman. we must be compassionate but we also must be concerned about the great injustice done to this woman's husband. That's the right thing to do. Let's appoint an investigative committee to find out what happened. Let's make sure that she doesn't get away with it" This would have spun into multiple committees. Each decision would have been appealed. By the time it was over every one would know that being married to this guy would make anyone wander. The longer it went on the more the counterfeit spirituality of the Pharisees would have been promoted and the despicable, adultery of the woman would be remembered, and her husband's life would have been destroyed in the process. Who would have been helped; who would have been changed?

Or what about Peter? Suppose Jesus had said, "Well Pete. Let's discuss this with the boys. This is really an internal problem. Our organizational culture contributed to an environment where you failed to stand strong under persecution. Also let's be honest this event shows that we really need to examine whether you have the right skill set to be leader of the church. We need to review our leadership culture and management philosophy  as well as your competencies and background so this will never happen to you or us again. We need to understand how our ministry culture puts people in situations beyond their ability to endure." Do you think John who had a reputation of scheming and manipulating to unseat Peter would have taken advantage of the situation? This sounds like Peter is a victim here rather than being responsible for his own actions. How is an internal investigation going to help?

What Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson need is for he who is sinless to cast the first stone. What the NFL needs to do is get out of business of being a parent to its players. Although the players personal lives affect their performance on the field, the league is not in the business of managing their player's personal lives. One of the first thing I do  in the morning is turn on Quick Pitch on MLB. I have no desire to hear about the latest gossip on the players. It's not that I don't care. It's that I'm not watching the game  to analyze their character mine or anyone else's.  I'm not doing it for personal transformation, but to let a little of the "inner child" show through. Of course, the performance of the player is affected by his character. I am not at all surprised that Tiger Woods is not near the player he was before his  mea culpa. A person who is out of control off the field will be less than effective on the field. To the extent that it affects their performance the league needs to respond. But as far as what goes on off the field I say; why can't we all just play ball?