I can not understand how a writer can pen an autobiography about Josh Hamilton which is a story about redemption and then do this borderline, hatchet-job piece on Michael Vick.
Is one story really any more remarkable or laudable than the other?
Is one more worthy of redemption than the other?
Are we back to measuring the "likability" of the person to determine who we deem worthy of redemption or second chances? Sure seems like it.
I would hate to think there is something more sinister at work here but it is impossible not to note that Josh Hamilton is white and Michael Vick is black.
There were quite a few stories in the sports blogosphere about the comeback and I suppose if Vick of football, we may not have "heard" as much about it.
But the people who celebrate the story and "get" why it's important to "all" of us are not the problem here. We would have found ways and means to trumpet the glory of the message without the MSM's help, thank you very much.
Perhaps more introspection is in order, Mr. Keown. Apparently you don't get it.
I've included two other stories that do a much better job of explaining why the story whether it be about Vick or Hamilton is very important to all of us.
You can talk to Steve Young, he seems to get it. He made the connection between Vick becoming a good person first and then becoming a great QB second. The character question. We've gone over that one here ad nauseum, but it bears constant repetition for those kids coming up who do look up to Michael Vick. He may not be your choice or my choice as a role model, but he is for some kids out there.
And how good is a story is it to have them see this guy blossom into everything that everyone envisioned him to be, only after he became a good person. Steve Young is one of the few taht I heard make that connection. I know Tony Dungy would have.
Sorry, for some of us, there is no conundrum (conundrum defined: a riddle, a difficult problem) as you define it. For me, the conundrum is why more people just don't get it. CHARACTER COUNTS.
from the good folks at espn.com
The Michael Vick conundrum
We should resist the urge to make it something more than a fabulous football story
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=keown/100928
It's a great sports story, and a story of a great athlete whose gifts are both resilient and singular. But everybody always wants more than that. It has to transcend sports. It has to be about heartbreak and redemption. There has to be a moment of clarity for Vick, when he saw the error of his ways and redoubled his efforts to regain everything he lost. And if there are visions of suffering dogs running through his mind as he pushes himself to run that extra set of sprints, all the better.
We do black and white. Gray has a tendency to elude our grasp.
That's the problem Mr. Keown, we do black and white a little too well. We don't do redemption well enough. Or maybe you should look at the percentage of the prison population broken down by race as well as the recidivism rate (redemption, redemption anybody??) and get back to me. Then maybe you get a bogey on the story.
It's already starting. The post-Sunday dissections included a healthy scoop of false Americana. You know the routine: "We're the land of second chances" and "We're a forgiving nation." Aside from being laughably wrong -- we do intolerance and rigidity when it fits our purpose -- it doesn't pertain to Vick in the slightest. He's not playing that game, and he doesn't seem interested in watching you play it, either.
It seems like the pot calling the kettle black here? Or am I missing something?
The point is, no announcer would ever think of saying that about Vick. (And no, this isn't about race, because Donovan McNabb looks more like someone I want to root for than Gradkowski. He's sure as hell easier to watch play the game.) Vick, by contrast, is nobody's role model. He committed some truly repellent crimes, and his apologies have been more perfunctory than vein-opening. There's a wariness about him that suggests a man who understands just how much of himself he can afford to parcel out to the public.
He seems to know, maybe better than we do, that America is a great land for second chances only as long as you perform. We're a country that values winners over the redeemed. The redemption we're seeking is often just the excuse to feel good about rooting for someone whose past is thoroughly distasteful.
Vick doesn't want to be your feel-good story. He just wants to be the bad-ass who happens to be the most riveting performer in the NFL. Let's keep it that way, shall we?
ESPN The Magazine senior writer Tim Keown co-wrote Josh Hamilton's autobiography, "Beyond Belief: Finding the Strength to Come Back,"
Seems like you are equal parts mind-reader and sports writer. You have no idea what is on Michael Vick's mind or what's in his heart. Neither do I. The difference is one of us seems more willing to give him a chance to prove himself. And one of us has already made up his mind.
This guy has a pretty good read on it. In our own ways we are all just like Mike. We can weigh out our sins on some scale that favors us all we want but in the end, all are sinners. And all need redemption at some point.
Michael Vick's American Redemption
By Nick at The Mockingbird Blog
http://www.revelife.com/733558651/michael-vicks-american-redemption/
Vick described becoming a Christian in high school, but said that "the more success he achieved on the football field, the less he needed God." He said, of his time of incarceration, "I got back to my roots. The only thing I could do in prison was fall back on God. I wanted to do things right, that I didn't do the first time." This is a typical story: the disgraced celebrity who finds Christ in the joint. But why does it rub us the wrong way?
We prefer American redemption, the kind that Vick is enjoying on the field. We like success stories: people who play well. We want winners. As for God's redemption, we wish that our disgraced athletes would talk about their faith and reliance on Christ before they get disgraced, when it seems like they're just doing it as a P.R. ploy. Much like American redemption, we want winners. We want people who live their lives well. We prefer Kurt Warner and Tony Dungy to Michael Vick.
But aren't we Michael Vick?
Isn't it when we're desperate that we become serious about our faith? When life is treating us well, we don't talk about our reliance on Christ. It is when we are disgraced that we fall back on God...just like Michael Vick. In our strength, we have no need of him.
Michael Vick's American redemption is a redemption story on two fronts: a wonderful football player who seems to be playing wonderfully again; a longtime Christian who seems to have rediscovered his profound need for a savior. These are redemptions we can get behind. Maybe some attention will be taken from Vick's American redemption and given to his Christian one.
This was the best take I could find on the subject. Naturally, this one also comes from outside the realm of sports writers.
Michael Vick's Redemption, and Ours
By Michael Bruner, religion professor, Azusa Pacific University
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/06/michael_vicks_redemption_and_ours.html
The more fundamental questions are these: Is redemption even possible? Can anyone be redeemed? And how do we know that redemption has actually taken place?
The answer to the first question, at least from a traditional Christian perspective, is an unequivocal "Yes." The entire story of Scripture--from Genesis to Revelation--is about redemption. In fact, the only two options left to humans after the Fall are either redemption or damnation. If redemption isn't possible, it's time to hang it up, folks.
The answer to the second question is a little murkier. Some would say that there are those who are past the possibility of redemption. There are others who claim that God's redemptive power knows no limits. Whatever the case, Vick, who admittedly did despicable and depraved things, says he's contrite and has shown this to be so, and thus is probably more on the side of redeemable than un-redeemable. He at least deserves the benefit of the doubt. For now.
The third question is the hardest to answer. How can anyone know if the redemption of a person is ever sincere--even if they appear sincere? A cynic will claim that Vick is just faking it. But how does the cynic know? Gainsaying someone's intentions is a zero-sum game. The proof is in the pudding. It isn't Vick's thoughts, after all, that are on trial here, but his actions. If any of us were judged by our thoughts, there wouldn't be enough prisons in the world to hold the guilty. There is only One who knows the heart, and that final judgment is yet to be decreed.
In the meantime, we advocate for and believe in redemption. How can we not? We're all counting on it for ourselves, so how can we deny it to others? The Lord's Prayer casts aspersion on those who seek forgiveness from God but aren't willing to give it to others in return: "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors."
And the great hymn reminds us of our mutual condition: "Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me."
Like me. Like you. Like Vick.
Like me. Like you, Like Vick. Indeed, pretty simple when you think about it. Very black and white. Problems seem to arise when we make that which should be black and white into shades of grey.
The road to sainthood, it appears, goes through the valley of wretchedness. Am I proposing that Vick be beatified? Not even close. But I am suggesting that some of the most powerful advocates for a cause often began as one of its chief antagonists. Michael Vick, in other words, could very well turn out to be a Good Samaritan. To that end, I offer him my handshake of reconciliation. As a Christian, it's the least I can do. As a lover of animals, it's the most. I hope he is successful. A lot of dogs are counting on it.
But what do I know.
I wish Michael Vick success, just not so much against the Giants. It's a pretty neat story.
No comments:
Post a Comment