Recently I’ve been watching ESPN Films’s The Last Dance, which is essentially a history of Michael Jordan’s career as the best basketball player of all time. There is more going on in the documentary (“Last Dance” refers to the Bulls’ final championship run in 1997-98), but it is truly all about Michael Jordan. Anyone who knows me well knows why I would love this documentary – not because I love Michael Jordan but because the non-pastoral/theological part of my mind lives and breathes basketball. It always has, and I bet it always will.
What Jordan Said
Before the documentary aired, Jordan is on record as having said that people won’t like him as much afterward. Speculations arose over whether or not the culprit to changed opinions would be his hypercompetitiveness, his well-chronicled gambling practices, or perhaps mean-spiritedness toward his teammates and Bulls management. All of these topics feature prominently in the doc.
To some peoples’ surprise (not all peoples’, and certainly not mine), the main reason seems to be political, and it came out in episode 5. In a 1990 North Carolina Senate race, a black democrat named Harvey Gannt opposed a longstanding white republican named Jesse Helms, who had long been regarded as a racist. Jordan, though living in Chicago at the time, is from North Carolina, and he was pressed to make an endorsement of Gannt. Keep in mind that Jordan is almost at the very height of his powers in 1990. Instead of making an endorsement, he said infamously, “Republicans buy sneakers, too.”
People who were paying attention back then remember this well, but I would imagine a significant amount of those watching the documentary were unaware until the other night.* Jordan appeared politically disinterested, and his disinterest wasn’t received well by many progressives and members of Black America. Finally, Gannt lost to Helms, leaving people to wonder if Jordan’s endorsement would have secured former’s victory.
In the doc, Jordan said he made the sneakers statement in jest. But he also said in a roundabout way that he has never wanted to be too participatory in politics. One can begin to see why he might think that people will not look too kindly on him after the documentary airing in this political climate.
Media Response
While the response to Jordan’s statements are far from monolithic, my listening to sports talk and podcasts has suggested a similar conversation structure:
-Host: How should we feel about Jordan's disinterest? Should Michael Jordan’s legacy be tarnished because of his lack of activism?
-Responders: Maybe; but truly, no one is a perfect person, and his play is so iconic for sports and cultural that we should let it slide.**
It seems that most recognize that his lack of political engagement is a bad look. But most are also arguing that Jordan is such an iconic sports and culture figure that it is hard to fault him especially when he’s done so much for the black community.
The Day's Inconsistencies
I want to approach this from two angles:
First, it is always interesting to me to hear people talk about the concept of “goodness” in people, ie. “I try to be a good person,” or, “You are not a good person.” Where does the concept of goodness come from in the first place? If a person is absolutely good, they’re perfect. But even one of the podcasters said that no one is perfect, and surely all people agree. I wonder why (though I have my speculations) people never ask the question, “Why do we care so much about what is morally right, and yet we just accept that none of us meets the standard perfectly?” Moral righteousness as a concern existing paradoxically alongside our general inability to meet it is an accepted norm, but relatively few question why it is so. You can probably see where I’m going with this – Christianity alone answers the “why.”
But from a second angle, one must remember exactly what post-Christendom (our current cultural moment) is. Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor has suggested that the post-Christian West has kept the good things that Christianity gave the world but has cut them off from the transcendent God who gave foundation for them. To give two examples:
1. Before Christianity the individual didn’t matter near as much as the tribe or society; with Christianity came the dignity of the individual, so that all people should be respected.
2. Before Christianity, the gods ruled, such that humans are fated, and their choices thus are unimportant; with Christianity, since humans have dignity, what humans do with their time and resources matter.*#
In a post-Christian time like ours, activism is considered paramount especially of those who are famous. But Taylor would suggest that the late modern mind has kept activism but cut it off from the God who gives it its foundation. The upshot is that people will talk about others’ moral responsibilities, instead of considering why the speaker thinks the others have those responsibilities.
True Foundations
My point is this: Why does the world judge that Michael Jordan has to do anything politically, unless the world is willing to provide the ideological foundation for why? It won’t do to just say, “Because that’s the way it is,” or, “Because everyone knows it,” because apparently there isn’t consensus, and even Jordan himself disagrees! (He said in one of my favorite quotes in the documentary that maybe people shouldn't be looking to him as a role model.) So a person might concede, “Okay, maybe these are just things that I think people should do, but I can’t fault someone for not doing so. No one is perfect.” But this leads us back to the original question: Why do we care so much about goodness and it’s mature form, perfection, when no one is?
This is where true Christianity comes in. It says that no one is good (Mk. 10:18) and that no one in their own power does good (Rom. 3:12). At the Fall, something happened to humanity to ruin it and bring it into a lower state of “righteousness” than its original state. Therefore, unrighteousness touches everything about us. That’s why, if you’re honest, you’re a walking inconsistency, just like everyone else you judge (Mt. 7:1, Jn. 7:24). Even Christians call Jesus “Lord, Lord,” but don’t obey him (Lk. 6:46; notice Jesus says this shortly after telling his followers to be careful not to judge others, 6:37.)
But if you look at Jesus as the Gospels present him, one thing is clear about him. He’s perfect. There is never a mistake, never an imbalance, never a fault. I once heard Tim Keller preach that because of the rules of philosophy, a preacher could never present a watertight argument for why one should embrace Jesus, because people will always poke holes in an argument. But the preacher can indeed present a watertight Person, and it is Jesus Himself. If you look in the Gospels, He is utterly watertight. And Christianity, in the simplest terms, is knowing Him (John 17:3, Philippians 3:8-10.)
The Perfect Man
If Jesus is perfect, then that fact demands your attention. As one old preacher said, we are constantly pointing fingers at others expecting perfection but never noticing that as we point, our other three fingers are pointing right back at us! That is parabolic of the fact that our charges of inconsistency in others will always be at best just a step ahead of counter-charges back against us. Michael Jordan, though almost perfect on the basketball court, isn’t perfect in real life, and no one should expect him to be, unless they’re willing to consider where they got the standard in the first place.
The only way one can begin to consistently discuss peoples’ moral obligations is by starting with Jesus, the perfect Human. Otherwise, we will invariably be hypocrites ourselves who break the standard which we impose on others. Let me be clear: to be a Christian is not to be morally consistent or upright (although Christians are to pursue perfection, Mt. 5:45). Christianity is to know Jesus Christ, the God-man, who is perfect. And once you know him, athletes, politicians, actors/actresses, and any other public figure can be known in their proper light: Mere humans. Maybe humans endowed with great gifts and talents, but humans. So we can enjoy their gifts but can't expect their perfection.
Jordan brought the people of Chicago six championship rings, but he could never die for their sins and bring them to God. Jesus could, and Jesus did.
*It should be noted that Jordan did make a financial contribution to Gannt’s campaign.
**For example, the first part of that response was Kevin O’Conner’s response on The Ringer NBA Show, and the last is essentially Stephen A Smith’s response on ESPN’s First Take.
*# Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, 278; quoted in Tim Keller, Preaching, 128-29.
