thoughts and prayers

, , , , , , , ,

Podcast: Prayers and NFL life? That's old news -- but the Damar Hamlin drama was on live TV

, , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Prayers and NFL life? That's old news -- but the Damar Hamlin drama was on live TV

Hello, old folks who are National Football League fans.

If you are a young reader and podcast listener, hang in there with me. I am going to work my way into a discussion of the fascinating and poignant explosion of public prayer and mass-media Godtalk that surrounded the stunning injury and recovery of defensive back Damar Hamlin of the Buffalo Bills. This was the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

The Big Idea? The “Pray For Damar” story got “out of control” because it happened on live TV. Hold that thought, as we begin a newsy flashback.

Back in the 1980s, NFL fans regularly saw something symbolic at the end of games, something so obvious that it even appeared in the background of sideline interviews on telecasts. What was happening? Players from both teams formed circles — often at the midfield logo — on their knees. Mostly, they offered prayers of thanksgiving for a safe game or prayers for anyone who was injured.

I remember that because I tried to write about this phenomenon during my Rocky Mountain News (#RIP) days. Team chaplains and parachurch leaders linked to this movement asked me, quite candidly, not to write about this subject — because it was so controversial with NFL officials.

Soon, TV images of the kneeling players vanished, although I believe that these rites continue to this day. But NFL fans no longer see them, unless they have tickets to the actual games.

In 1988, this topic broke into headlines during the media circus surrounding the Super Bowl. That was the year when I — prophetically, if I say so myself — wrote a memo to my editors detailing why I should be included in the Super Bowl coverage team. To be blunt, I argued that devotion to the Denver Broncos was so intense that it functioned as an organized religion.

Lo and behold, that was the year when the head coaches for the two teams, both outspoken Christians, unleashed a media storm by planning a two-team prayer meeting the day before the contest. I ended up assisting in the coverage — long distance, of course. The New York Times shock headline: “SUPER BOWL XXII; Rivals Will Pray Before They Play.”

Oh. My. God. Here’s the overture:

Most of the Denver Broncos and the Washington Redskins will join Saturday in a prayer meeting that is believed to be the first to bring together National Football League players from opposing teams on the eve of any game — much less a Super Bowl.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

Updates for a very #2020 day: Trump, COVID-19, Twitter, Bob Dylan and words from St. Paul

, , , , , , , ,

Journalists are trained to react to major news stories in a very particular way. A voice inside your head is supposed to say, no matter how earth-shattering the news: What happens next?

Continuing with that line of thinking, in the wake of the news that President Donald Trump and his wife Melania have tested positive for COVID-19, journalists will be asking: What is the next story? And, in particular, how does this affect my beat, the topic that I cover day after day.

You may have seen those mock headlines about the end of the world? What’s the headline at The New York Times for this religion story? "God says world to end tomorrow (story and analysis on page B11)." Or how about USA Today: "WE’RE DEAD!" The Washington Post: "World to end tomorrow; Polls look bad for GOP." The Wall Street Journal: “Stocks are down, market closing early tomorrow.”

Right now, there are political-beat reporters who are being tempted to tweet: “Take that, all of you white evangelicals.”

Surely it says something bad — about me and our times — that the SECOND thing I thought of was this: Blue-checkmark journalists are going to be tempted to show their stuff on Twitter. The THIRD thing was: Brace yourselves for some really bad “thoughts and prayers” wisecracks.

What was my first reaction? I hesitate to share it, since regular GetReligion readers are probably aware that I have been a #NeverTrump guy since his first announcement that he was running for president. I simply didn’t think he was qualified for the office, as a basic issue of temperament and political skills.

But, I confess that my first thought this morning was this: “God is not mocked.”

Yes, that’s a theological reflection and I need to stress that this is actually a pretty good scriptural reaction to all kinds of serious news events, as opposed to being a comment about Citizen Trump alone. For serious believers, that’s a comment about the state of the world — period.

Care for some context?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , ,

Thoughts and prayers vs. reality: New York Times offers a Rosetta Stone for gun-control news

, , , , , , ,

While working my way through what became the farewell to Billy Graham week (which will continue as the funeral approaches), I kept watching the tsunami of press coverage linked to the shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Frankly, I have been stunned. Faithful GetReligion readers will know that I back many forms of gun control that would infuriate the cultural right. (This is simplistic, but I would like to see guns treated like cars, controlled with a training-testing-license formula. Also, I'm from hunting-crazy Texas, but I don't see why civilians need military level hardware.)

What has stunned me is the degree to which some on the left (think CNN) seem determined to destroy any hope for serious compromise. Please read this David French commentary for one view of where all of this screaming could take us.

What does this have to do with religion and religion-news coverage?

Well, check out this New York Times story that ran several days ago under the headline: "Gunfire Erupts at a School. Leaders Offer Prayers. Children Are Buried. Repeat."

As you read it, please ask yourself this question: Is this a news story?

I have been checking, day after day, to see if the principalities and powers at the Times have retroactively put an "Analysis" or even "Commentary" label on this piece. They have not.

If this is a news story (I think it is reported commentary and it should have been labeled as such), then I think it can be considered a kind of Rosetta Stone that media critics of all kinds can use to help break down and interpret much of the "reporting" that is being done linked to this torrid debate.

Once again, we see a basic journalistic formula that can be summarized as "thoughts and prayers" Americans vs. rational Americans who don't want to see students slaughtered.

Think about that. Might there be people out there who believe in the power of prayer, but who also want to see gun-control compromises take place (as well as discussions of mental health, the side effects of many medications, school security improvements, etc.) in this trouble land of ours?

Let me state this as a basic journalism question: If compromise is going to happen -- real change -- then wouldn't it be important to find voices in the middle of the armed camps on the cultural left and right?

Now, with that as prologue, what is happening in this Times sermon?


Please respect our Commenting Policy