Sports, Religion, and David Brooks
David Brooks in "The Jeremy Lin Problem," his column this past Friday--yes, I'm about 72 hours behind in my reading:
[Jeremy Lin is] a Harvard grad in the N.B.A., an Asian-American man in professional sports. But we shouldn’t neglect the biggest anomaly. He’s a religious person in professional sports.
The ethos of sports, David argues, is "in tension" with the ethos of religion.
The moral universe of modern sport is oriented around victory and supremacy. The sports hero tries to perform great deeds in order to win glory and fame. It doesn’t really matter whether he has good intentions. His job is to beat his opponents and avoid the oblivion that goes with defeat....
Ascent in the sports universe is a straight shot. You set your goal, and you climb toward greatness. But ascent in the religious universe often proceeds by a series of inversions: You have to be willing to lose yourself in order to find yourself; to gain everything you have to be willing to give up everything; the last shall be first; it’s not about you.
For many religious teachers, humility is the primary virtue. You achieve loftiness of spirit by performing the most menial services....You achieve your identity through self-effacement. You achieve strength by acknowledging your weaknesses.
Sports and religion, in permanent conflict.
This doesn't strike me as quite right, but, I have to confess, it doesn't strike me altogether mistaken, either.
You?
- Comment (72)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments:
Oct '11
Re: Sports, Religion, and David Brooks
This thread is marvelous. I'm glad we can still come together over something in this awful primary season.
Raconteur, Mitt is a doofus for defending Romneycare, and for conflating his corporate sinecures with business experience. He knows about as much of the foundations of our wealth as he does of the foundations of our liberty. Don't worry, I'll still vote for him - better a clueless doofus than the guy that Darth Pantscrease from the Times is going to support.
"Straw locomotives" - I'm still laughing.
Edited on February 20, 2012 at 6:53amAug '10
Re: Sports, Religion, and David Brooks
Or at least this Monty Python clip, at about three minutes in.
May '11
Re: Sports, Religion, and David Brooks
One achievement of Western civilization was to unify Athens and Jerusalem, not to mention Rome. Athens, as a warrior culture was concenred with kleros - the immortal glory of heroes. So desired was this, that it appears commonly in names: Pericles (somewhat famous), Sophocles (famous for his wisdom), or just Cleon (famous or glorious). The Greeks thought the only way to be immortal was to be remembered by acts of tremendous magnitude. Athens and Jerusalem were harmonized, but it took almost a millenium before the warrior ethos of Germanic karls was tamed by Christian values. This synthesis is Chivalry. This harmony of Olympic excellence and Christian humility lived for almost a millenium itself.
A century ago Progressivism, aware that to bring about their progress they needed to eliminate those pillars of tradition, classicism and religion, turned first on classicism. By removing it from education future generations would be cut off from the classical world-view. They have been successful. No one so far recognized Brook's comments on sport as particularly Greek or Classical in outlook, nor quoted any classical sources. No Pindar, no Homer. Athens and Jerusalem were hard to synthesize (many hundreds of years required) but easy to sever.
Aug '10
Re: Sports, Religion, and David Brooks
Your loyalty is sweet. But I think you're taking our teasing too seriously. We like to tease and disagree around here, but I wouldn't call it "punishment" or "contempt" -- at least not from most of us.
Besides, David Brooks should be thick-skinned enough to take it. After all, he already writes for the NYT.
Un-demonizing them? Possibly. Actually explaining them in a way that would make the most sense to his audience? I have my doubts.
Not that the fellow is a bad writer, or utterly devoid of insights -- there's some stuff he's written here and there that I've found spot-on and really funny. But I often find his explanations of conservatism to outsiders... lacking. Just sayin'.
Jan '11
Re: Sports, Religion, and David Brooks
I'm wondering what Vince Lombardi would have said.
Jul '11
Re: Sports, Religion, and David Brooks
MFR, I just read your post on practicing to my 9 yr old throwing a fuss about us making him take one ski lesson. It went over well.
Aug '10
Re: Sports, Religion, and David Brooks
Aww... blush.
I still remember what it's like to be a 9-year-old kicking up a fuss over that stuff. It took me a long time to learn better -- I'm ashamed of how long -- but I am so glad the lesson eventually sank into my thick skull!
May '11
Re: Sports, Religion, and David Brooks
Raconteur, your dear Mr. Brooks has had far more success luring conservatives into the Times' reading room than he has had in recruiting the Times' soft-handed readership over here to operate the ammo presses. This article is flat-out stupid, and I notice that you do not defend it, but attempt to shame those who call it so.
May '11
Re: Sports, Religion, and David Brooks
Brooks' major malfunction is not that he misunderstands sport, but that he understands neither sport nor religion. He may as well make his argument a conflict between religion and life itself. How does a writer get to work at the Times?
Edited on February 20, 2012 at 11:07am(edited: I phrased this poorly the first time and wound up saying the opposite of what I mean.)
Apr '11
Re: Sports, Religion, and David Brooks
It is very, very rare for a team or an athlete to go undefeated. Teams strive, the majority unsuccessfully, to have a winning record, that is barely more wins than losses. A great batting average is .300 or seven failures out of ten, the top team in the NBA shoots .474, that is more misses more than hits. Most top athletes play with injuries and pain and the possibility of individual and team frailty and failure always in front of them. Top athletes have spent much of their live in training - diets, endless repetitive physical conditioning and practice. You get to be a top athlete the same way you get into Carnegie Hall.
"You achieve loftiness of spirit by performing the most menial services. (That’s why shepherds are perpetually becoming kings in the Bible.) You achieve your identity through self-effacement. You achieve strength by acknowledging your weaknesses. You lead most boldly when you consider yourself an instrument of a larger cause."
The very definition of sport particularly team sport.
Feb '12
Re: Sports, Religion, and David Brooks
The piece finishes with Brooks straddling the middle, unable to stand firmly on one side or the other. Most fitting.
Mar '11
Re: Sports, Religion, and David Brooks
The ethos of Brooks being a commentator is in tension with the ethos that he needs something intelligent to say. Again.
He probably should go back to his insights on trouser creases.
Sep '10
Re: Sports, Religion, and David Brooks
Exactly! He is too torn to write definitively about something like this. Better to have written a piece saying he loves the guy. He's good at that. (Welcome to Ricochet, Mr. PJ TV star!)
Feb '12
Re: Sports, Religion, and David Brooks
Like he does in most of his thoughtful exersizes Mr. Brooks is too clever by half. The modern professional athlete has achieved their position through hard work. Granted there is more than a fair amount of talent, but the play ground and prison courts are full of talented individuals who had the talent without the discipline. The Christian faith is formed through discipline and self denial. This is a fantastic congruentcy between sport and faith. I have seen Mr. Lin's personal 'testimony' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6bmaynTY_E) it includes a personal reflection of a turning point in his personal and professional life where he was challenged by a mentor to devote one hour per day to study of the Bible.
Edited on February 20, 2012 at 2:34pmThere is a verse in Ecclesiastes and I am paraphrasing but it says the race is not to the swift or the strong but available to all those who preserver. Granted there are a few exceptions but the vast majority of the athletes that we see receiving glory today are the practitioners of hard work and perseverance. Finally, as Mr. Lin's testimony reveals and any reflection on Tim Tebow shows religious Christian athletes are refreshingly humble.
Sep '11
Re: Sports, Religion, and David Brooks
Dave Molinari is absolutely correct. The point of NewYorkTimes.com is to sell page views to advertisers. Nothing drives page views like a controversial column--and newspapers have known that for hundreds of years. This column is a perfect example of trolling for site traffic--and it's worked. When I looked at the article it had 326 comments on the NYT site--and it's generated 40 here.
Years ago I wrote a column for a programming magazine. My editor said that for every letter or email I got, I should figure there were at least another 100 people with the same question or perspective--if not more. I'm sure that holds true for comments on web pages.
In other words, this "controversial" column is doing what Brooks intends: score major ad revenue for his employer.
Jan '11
Re: Sports, Religion, and David Brooks
Raconteur:
We are all imperfect. I am astonished and disappointed that here on Ricochet somebody like David Brooks can be called a "doofus." That is, in my humble opinion, disgraceful. Has anybody on Ricochet called Mitt Romney-- who is far to the left of David Brooks-- a doofus?
As to that, let me just say that you have pointed out the problem of being misunderstood when phrasing politely, as in numerous cases here on Ricochet, so allow me to be more direct: Romney is a doofus.
Dec '10
Re: Sports, Religion, and David Brooks
David Brooks is caricaturing faith the way someone impressed by Barack Obama's pant crease might be expected to, as if faith is incompatible with competition and excellence. Does he not know that Christ won the Ultimate Victory over Satan up on that Cross? That Jesus' victory came after a rigorous life of teaching, preaching, and healing, not to mention personal suffering and ultimate self-sacrifice? Does Brooks not know that God did this so that we might flourish, using the talents God gave us to enjoy the fullness of life -- to give greater Glory to Him, to battle against temptation, and to model ourselves after the victor?
Faith and life are paradoxical, not irreconcilable. If Mr. Brooks had read even a little Chesterton, he might understand that. Here's an instructive example: David Brooks is intelligent, sometimes witty, and a gifted writer. He is simultaneously unwise.
Re: Sports, Religion, and David Brooks
Anon: Raconteur:
We are all imperfect. I am astonished and disappointed that here on Ricochet somebody like David Brooks can be called a "doofus." That is, in my humble opinion, disgraceful. Has anybody on Ricochet called Mitt Romney-- who is far to the left of David Brooks-- a doofus?
As to that, let me just say that you have pointed out the problem of being misunderstood when phrasing politely, as in numerous cases here on Ricochet, so allow me to be more direct: Romney is a doofus. · 20 minutes ago
Come on, really? Let's elevate the discourse a bit. There are much more interesting and even elucidating ways to discuss what we think about columnists and political candidates.
Feb '11
Re: Sports, Religion, and David Brooks
Chariots of Fire: "Jenny, I believe God made me for a purpose. But He also made me fast. And when I run, I feel His pleasure."
Watch it. Inspiring. Beautiful. A fig for David Brooks and his foolish misunderstanding of Christianity.
Feb '11
Re: Sports, Religion, and David Brooks
And this clip, also from Chariots of Fire: "Eric, you can praise the Lord by peeling a spud if you peel it to perfection. Don't compromise. Compromise is the language of the Devil. Run in God's name. And let the world stand back in wonder."