As a rule, editors and writers at major sports publications rarely make spiritual judgements about the actions of professional athletes.

This are not, however, ordinary times in America and, apparently, journalists have decided all bets are off when it comes to damning those who are not woke.

I am referring to that controversial — and quietly evolving — Sports Illustrated story that ran with the following headline (which needed three decks of type to pack everything in):

Giants’ Sam Coonrod Explains Not Kneeling for Moment of Unity: ‘I’m a Christian’

In Friday’s Hot Clicks: a Giants pitcher hides behind his religion. …

Taking a stand against inequality shouldn’t be controversial

First things first, let me note that — as an old-school First Amendment liberal — I have no problem with players kneeling whenever they want to kneel.

One could make a case that players who kneel during the national anthem are showing respect, which is one interpretation of kneeling in other circumstances. Some have said that they are praying, while they kneel. They could kneel and recite batting averages and I would back their right to do so. The same thing goes for players who choose not to kneel. I’m pro-free speech, including symbolic speech.

But back to the theological judgements woven into that SI piece about Coonrod, which was written by Dan Gartland — who is identified as a writer/editor on LinkedIn. I mention that because I could find no evidence that he is a columnist who is paid to make editorial comments about players and the games they play. Then again, that’s old-school journalism talk.

Doing a critique of this piece is complicated by the fact that there are two versions to discuss — the original and the edited version that has quietly take its place. There are screen shots and Twitter comments that capture some of the original wording.

However, the key phrase remains in the headline, at least the one I copied as I started work on this post. I’m referring to the “hides behind his religion” wisecrack.

The SI editorial stance praising the pregame rite was pretty explicit:

The moment was not a protest. It was a carefully constructed display coordinated and approved by Major League Baseball. A recorded, uncontroversial message from Morgan Freeman played over the stadium PA system as the players kneeled and held a black ribbon. (Phillies outfielder Andrew McCutchen came up with the idea.)

It was as provocative as you would expect a corporately sanctioned statement to be.

There was, however, that “sore thumb” guy who remained standing:

Asked to explain himself after the game, Coonrod cited his religion. 

“I meant no ill will by it,” Coonrod told reporters. “I don't think I’m better than anybody. I’m just a Christian. I believe I can’t kneel before anything but God, Jesus Christ. I chose not to kneel. I feel if I did kneel I'd be a hypocrite. I don’t want to be a hypocrite.”

If a central tenet of Christianity is treating others with love and respect, it's not clear how not joining a call for just that would be hypocritical. 

My friend Rod “Benedict Option” Dreher was not amused, especially by the original wording of that passage:

Coonrod explained that he dissents from some of the things the Black Lives Matter organization stands for. None of that is good enough for Dan Gartland, though. Note well that Gartland’s original text (now changed) read: “I don’t go to church much anymore, but I’m pretty sure the central tenets of Christianity are …”.

This is so stupid, especially in a national magazine. Gartland’s level of understanding of, and curiosity about, Christianity is about at the freshman dorm level. 

Note that Coonrod is expressing concerns about the published platform of the #BlackLivesMatters organization, not the broader movement that embraces the same statement of belief. Lots of Americans — including African-Americans — are struggling to find a way to draw a bright-red line between the organization, proper, and the complex, broader social movement. How does one affirm one without the explicit dogma of the other?

Gartland isn’t interested.

“I can't get on board on a couple of things I’ve read about Black Lives Matter, how they lean toward Marxism and said some negative things about the nuclear family,” he said. 

Yes, the founders of the organization Black Lives Matter have referred to themselves as “trained Marxists,” a quote that has spread like wildfire by some attempting to discredit them. 

So here’s my journalism question: Was this a column or a news report? My follow-up question: If it was a column expressing Gartland’s own theological convictions, why did SI editors edit it, without telling readers why they were doing so?