So, NFL Players are Still Protesting...

From Facebook to ESPN, the nation is currently obsessed with the protests of our National Anthem by highly paid athletes, particularly in the NFL. Everyone with Internet access has suddenly discovered a renewed sense of either patriotism or an antiestablishmentarianism, while the intellectuals bemoan the vapidity of sports. We're all very socially conscious these days, it seems. Aren't we all so evolved?

Despite my jocularity on Facebook, I am deeply interested in this subject. As I reviewed my blog from last year discussing this phenomenon, something struck me. The protests continue, but nobody really even knows why anymore. It was originally Colin Kaepernick's way of protesting police brutality, particularly against African-Americans. Subsequent protests were acts of solidarity on the part of fellow players. This year the protests are far more ambiguous. They are protests against racism and hate. They are attempts at "starting a conversation," whatever that means. They are protests against Donald Trump and hillbillies and the American flag. They are protests against anyone who doesn't like the fact that they're protesting--anti-anti-protesting protests, if you will. As with any political protest that becomes bastardized, it has lost all meaning.

While this year's protests have changed the meaning and form of Kaepernick's protest, one thing that hasn't changed is the good that these protests are achieving. There is none. There never was any, and there still isn't. Kneeling or linking arms or sitting while crowds of partially-intoxicated sports fans belt out the National Anthem doesn't actually accomplish anything. The one exception would be those players who are praying (allegedly) for our country. Prayer has power, but just protesting for the sake of protesting doesn't actually help anyone. It doesn't stop racism. It doesn't unite our country. "Opening up a dialogue" doesn't demonstrably effect any change. If anything, these protests have divided our nation further. Football has always been a uniting force in our nation, but these protests have unnecessarily driven a wedge between fans and teammates alike.

I didn't (and still don't) understand how Kaepernick protesting the National Anthem equaled opposing police brutality or racism. Now that the protests are even more haphazard, I'm not sure it makes any sense at all. We all love cheap sacrifices though. We love to "stand up for what's right," as long as it doesn't actually require anything of us. We love to feel philanthropic without actually doing anything. Protesting the National Anthem has become nothing more than an en vogue way to "stick it to the man" or give Uncle Sam the finger.

Given the national sins of the United States of America (abortion, sexual license, statism, etc.), there are valid reasons to protest the National Anthem. I know people who refrain from acts like singing the Anthem or pledging allegiance to the flag, but, though I respect their choices, I do not choose to follow suit. You see, I love the United States of America. I treasure her Christian heritage and the religious freedoms she still offers. True love for one's country, however, does not blindly support for her policies and actions, but seeks to reform her when she has gone astray. Some people choose to do that by protesting the Anthem. Being free means being allowed to do that (it also means being allowed to fire employees who choose to do it, but that's another discussion altogether). How people work to reform their country will look differently. I don't particularly see any value in not singing the anthem or in refusing to pledge allegiance to her. If your conscience simply won't allow you to voice support for a nation that has aborted millions of unborn babies, I get that, but I don't see how that protest is really accomplishing any reform. True reform requires work. True reform requires things like educating people, living an exemplary life, doing the right thing when nobody else will, and raising children who will change the next generation. That is my protest.

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion . It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate. Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC. I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC. I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did. So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical. Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion. However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table. One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table. You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation. Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward. 1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup." If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup. This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree. Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations. As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae. Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict. What does it mean? Who may partake? What do we call it? These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts. Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention. PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it. I underst...

Always Reforming

Search This Blog