Footballer Kaepernick Continues Protest, Kneeling During National Anthem

The Wired Word for the Week of September 25, 2016

In the News

Throughout the National Football League's preseason games, Colin Kaepernick, a backup quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, has declined to stand during the playing of the national anthem. He explained that he took this action to call attention to what he perceives as wrongdoings against African-Americans and other minorities, particularly when it comes to certain police actions.

More specifically, Kaepernick said he was demonstrating support for the Black Lives Matter cause, sparked by a series of killings by police of young black men. Questioned by reporters after the first time he did not stand for the anthem, Kaepernick said, "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."

While he initially remained seated while the anthem was played, starting with the preseason game on September 1, he opted to kneel during the anthem, explaining the switch as an attempt to show more respect to former and current U.S. military members while still registering his protest. He said he made the decision after having a conversation with former NFL player and U.S. military veteran Nate Boyer.

As Kaepernick's protest continued, some other athletes, including footballers Eric Reid, Jeremy Lane, Jelani Jenkins, Arian Foster, Michael Thomas and Kenny Stills, as well as U.S. women's national soccer team player Megan Rapinoe, have also knelt during national anthem playings at their events. A number of U.S. military veterans have voiced support using the social media hashtag "veterans for Kaepernick," and Kaepernick's jersey was briefly the top-selling jersey on the NFL's official shop website.

While acknowledging some of the criticism, President Obama commended Kaepernick, declaring that he was "exercising his constitutional right" concerning "some real, legitimate issues that have to be talked about." The NFL commissioner, who had refused to allow the Dallas Cowboys to honor police officers slain at a Black Lives Matter protest, ironically was quoted as saying that he supports "players when they want to see a change in society," although he coupled it with a statement that "it's important to have respect for our country, for our flag."

Opposition to Kaepernick's refusal to stand for the anthem has been made in four areas:

1. The desire for politics-free sports. Some people want sports -- as well as much other entertainment -- be politics-free zones. They look upon sports venues as places where people can come together and, for a while, forget about what divides them from each other on a more significant basis than the team they support.
2. An expectation of community. One way people show that they are a community is by joining their fellow citizens in what might be called "rituals of unity": public demonstrations that, despite differences, show that Americans have a basic unity. Thus some view Kaepernick's refusal to stand for the national anthem as a declaration, "I'm not part of your community."
3. A belief by some that the Black Lives Matter movement is basically in the wrong. In particular, that it is harmful to race relations in general and to both black and non-black citizens overall, and encourages divisiveness and animosity.
4. A perception by some that by refusing to stand for the anthem, Kaepernick is being unpatriotic and disrespectful.

The opposition has manifested itself in various ways. One unidentified NFL executive called Kaepernick "a traitor," and some NFL fans have posted videos of themselves burning Kaepernick jerseys. One store uses a Kaepernick jersey as a doormat, providing an opportunity for customers to wipe their feet in protest.

Some people who disagree with Kaepernick have also come in for criticism. At a high school football game in Alabama, Pastor Allen Joyner who was a volunteer announcer, resigned after he was reported to have said, after calling people to stand for the anthem, "If you don't want to stand for the national anthem, you can line up over there by the fence and let our military personnel take a few shots at you since they're taking shots for you." Joyner says that he was misquoted, explaining, "I never said anybody should be shot. My words were, 'If you don't want to stand for the national anthem, please go sit at the baseball field and let some of our folks take a shot at reminding you of the price our military paid for your freedom to sit.'" Whatever he actually said, school officials quickly denounced his remarks.

Kaepernick was baptized Methodist, confirmed Lutheran, and attended a Baptist church during his college years. At a speaking engagement at a local church last year, he said, "My faith is the basis from where my game comes from. I've been very blessed to have the talent to play the game that I do and be successful at it. I think God guides me through every day and helps me take the right steps and has helped me to get to where I'm at. When I step on the field, I always say a prayer, say I am thankful to be able to wake up that morning and go out there and try to glorify the Lord with what I do on the field. I think if you go out and try to do that, no matter what you do on the field, you can be happy about what you did."

Kaepernick has several tattoos, with Bible verses among his inkings.

In the United States, one's refusal to participate in patriotic ceremonies and rituals -- such as standing for the playing of the national anthem or refusing to say the pledge of allegiance -- is protected by the 1946 U.S. Supreme Court decision West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette regarding freedom of expression. Writing for the majority position, Justice Robert Jackson said:

To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

More on this story can be found at these links:

The Colin Kaepernick Story Appears To Be Over. Forbes
Colin Kaepernick Explains Why He Sat During National Anthem. NFL.comColin Kaepernick Kneels During National Anthem While Former Green Beret Nate Boyer Stands Beside Him. Los Angeles TimesJelani Jenkins: Why I Knelt During the National Anthem -- And Why It's Time to Stand Up. TIME
Colin Kaepernick: Why His National Anthem Protests Have Touched a Nerve. Christian TodayColin Kaepernick and a Landmark Supreme Court Case. The New Yorker

The Big Questions

1. Should U.S. citizens be expected or encouraged to participate in public patriotic rituals where they are in attendance? Why or why not? What do such rituals demonstrate? What does refusal to participate demonstrate? Would you answer the same way if the question were about church members' participation in Christian rituals, such as recitation of the Apostles' Creed or the communal praying of the Lord's Prayer? If so, why? If not, why not?

2. When, if ever, have you decided that something that was legal needed to be changed and thus, taken an unpopular stand against it? Like Kaepernick, did you find yourself basically supported by the establishment, or, like Pastor Joyner, were you basically opposed by those in power? What did you learn from that process? In what way, if any, were you blessed by your participation? Was there a time you did not take a stand against a popular sentiment that you felt was wrong and later regretted that you did nothing?

3. Over time, some people who at the time regarded as wrong certain protests, such as those in the 1960s over civil rights, have come to view them as a necessary right. Other protests, such as blocking black children from entering previously all-white schools, have come to be viewed as absolutely wrong. Do you think Kaepernick's protest will stand the test of time? Why or why not?

4. What is the story behind the word "Protestant"? In what way, if any, does it apply to this lesson?

5. Are there any ways that Kaepernick could have chosen to raise his concerns that might have been more effective than not standing for the anthem? If so, what are they?

Confronting the News With Scripture and HopeHere are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:

Daniel 3:10-12You, O king, have made a decree, that everyone ..., shall fall down and worship the golden statue, and whoever does not fall down and worship shall be thrown into a furnace of blazing fire. There are certain Jews ... Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. These pay no heed to you, O king. They do not serve your gods and they do not worship the golden statue that you have set up. (For context, read 3:1-30.)

This is part of the narrative that eventually has the three Jewish men, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, thrown live into the blazing fire of a furnace because they refused to bow to King Nebuchadnezzar's golden statue.

We know from the story that God protected the three men and they were unharmed by the fire, but they had no assurance of that in advance when they refused to bow. They were serving Godwhatever it might cost them. When the king gave them a chance to relent and bow, they said, "If our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire and out of your hand, O king, let him deliver us. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods and we will not worship the golden statue that you have set up" (vv. 17-18).

Questions: What is the significance of the young men's assertion that whether or not God delivers them from harm, they will not obey the ruler? What principles might you draw from this biblical story as guidance for when you are considering participating in an act of protest? How certain do you have to be that you are following God? How do you respond and react when others assert that you are disobeying God?

Daniel 6:10Although Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he continued to go to his house, which had windows in its upper room open toward Jerusalem, and to get down on his knees three times a day to pray to his God and praise him, just as he had done previously. (For context, read 6:1-28.)

Daniel was a Hebrew man who had been forced into the service of the Babylonian kingdom. Once there, because of his wisdom, excellent spirit and God's hand upon him, he eventually rose to a position of high leadership and authority. Unfortunately, his success aroused professional jealousy among other leaders in the empire. So they created a decree that outlawed petitioning any God or man other than the king for 30 days, and persuaded the king to sign the decree. The penalty for disobeying was for the offender to be thrown to the lions.

As a faithful Jew, Daniel wasn't willing to stop praying to God, and so he chose to respond to this decree in a faithful, nonviolent way. He had already been in the habit of praying to God three times a day, so he continued that practice.

But he did his praying in front of an open window where he could be clearly seen disobeying the king's command. This is recorded in verse 10, quoted above, but it is one place where the original Hebrew can be interpreted in a couple of slightly different ways. One of them is as the version above has it, which makes it sound like he had always prayed in that location. The other possible reading has it that he now made a point of doing his praying at the window -- that he took deliberate measures to be seen breaking the king's command.

In the end, it doesn't matter whether he'd always prayed in that spot or not. The fact was, now knowing that he could be executed for praying, he took not a single step to hide his practice. He continued to pray thrice daily, just as he had always done, and he did it where he was certain to be seen.

In other words, Daniel committed an act of civil disobedience. His prayer practice became not only an act of spiritual devotion, but also a strategic tactic against the decree.

Biblical commentator John E. Goldingay contrasts Daniel's action here with Jesus' instruction to pray in private (Matthew 6:5-6). But Goldingay reconciles the two, saying, "When prayer is fashionable, it is time to pray in secret, but when prayer is under pressure, to pray in secret is to give the appearance of fearing the king more than God." (From John E. Goldingay Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary, 131.)

Daniel here is a model of a nonviolent resister. Note the following:

• He was a good and valued citizen in every other way.
• He realized that he could not be faithful to his God if he let this decree go unchallenged.
• His method was really nonviolent.
• When Daniel decided to defy the decree, he accepted that he would be likely to suffer bad consequences.
• His action was a testimony to what was right.
• Daniel's action brought about a change in the heart of at least one person, the king himself.

Questions: In what situations today might Daniel serve as a model for you? Why? Under what circumstances might you decide not to take a public stand? In what other ways could you communicate biblical truth without taking a public stance? How would you determine what a particular situation requires?

Luke 10:10-11
But whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, "Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near."(For context, read 10:1-12.)

This is among the instructions that Jesus gave to the 70 missionaries he sent out in pairs to the places where he intended to take his message.

Note the word "protest" in Jesus' instruction. While not quite the same as a refusal to stand for the national anthem, the shaking off of the dust from one's feet is, like not standing, a symbolic act intended to convey a message.

Questions: In what ways have you "shaken the dust off your feet" to show you do not wish to be associated with a particular movement or popular opinion of our day? Was your expression of disapproval noticed? What was the reaction? When has someone's symbolic act caused you to rethink your opinions or actions? Did any change ensue? When have you committed a symbolic act to send a message? What was the outcome?

For Further Discussion

1. Read Nate Boyer's open letter to Kaepernick, and discuss it as a group.

2. Respond to Kaepernick's comment regarding his symbolic action: "To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way."

3. Consider India's struggle for independence from the British Empire. While there were incidents of violence in that struggle, it was the nonviolent acts of civil disobedience led by Mahatma Gandhi that led to the end of British rule there in 1947 and India's independence. Gandhi said he "found much consolation in reading the book of the prophet Daniel in the Bible" and declared Daniel to be "one of the greatest passive resisters that ever lived." Gandhi appears to have been especially impressed with the matter of Daniel's faithful prayer by the open window, and he used that theme when he was helping the Indians in South Africa with their struggle against the discriminatory "pass laws" in that country. Gandhi said that the Indians there should "sit with their doors flung wide open and tell those gentlemen [the South African authorities] that whatever laws they passed were not for them unless those laws were from God."
            Others have noted that the fact that it was the British who were the target of the protests meant that Gandhi was not just eliminated outright. Had it been against a more traditional conqueror, Gandhi might not even have been a footnote in history books.

Responding to the News

This is an appropriate time to consider whether there's anything you should do to advance justice for all in our nation.

Prayer

Help us know and respond faithfully, O Lord, when you are calling us to act. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Other News This Week