Johnson 1
Natalie Johnson COMM 3650 Analyzing the Roles of Sports and Religion in Community In the famous movie Bull Durham, Annie Savoy says, “The only church that truly feeds the soul, day in, day out, is the church of baseball.” While religion and sports are often objects of extreme passion, they share many more commonalities. The comparison of sports and religion has been (and continues to be) a subject of many research analyses. Martyn Percy and Rogan Taylor’s article “Something for the weekend, sir? Leisure, ecstasy and identity in football and contemporary religion,” and Michael L. Butterworth’s article “Ritual in the ‘Church of Baseball’: Suppressing the Discourse of Democracy after 9/11,” are two examples. Although these papers have different methods and conclusions, the research processes illuminate certain aspects of sports that mirror religious practices. The authors take an in-depth look at the similarities in religion and sports, and what that means for our communities. Percy and Taylor’s article takes a broad perspective, directly comparing football and religion in a general sense, then determining where the two align and where they differ. This article doesn’t focus on a particular team or group; instead, it makes broad statements about the greater effects of both football and religion. This comprehensive view could be expected because the authors, Percy and Taylor, are a theologian and an anthropologist, respectively. Ultimately, they found that football and religion are similar, particularly in their effect on communities. Through their observation of both sport and religious settings, they found that “football can work like a religion for individuals” (Percy and Taylor, 1997, p. 37). An important distinction is that football is not actually a religion, but that it can have similar consequences.
Johnson 2
Although the title of Butterworth’s article might suggest thoughts similar to those of Percy and Taylor, it is actually quite different. Butterworth’s article is unique because he examines a different sport, but also focuses in on a particular group, Major League Baseball, during a particular period, the two years after September 11, 2001. During this time, he observed that in-game ceremonial tributes to victims and heroes of the terrorist attacks were grand and emotional. His article focuses specifically on the ritualistic aspects of these ceremonies. Despite the positive effects they had on the American public, Butterworth is critical of the rituals, because he claims they suppressed foundational elements of rhetoric like discussion and disagreement. His disapproval is understandable, seeing as he is a communication scholar who focuses solely on analyzing the presence and effects of rhetoric in sports. Although these articles have their differences, they make similar assertions that connect sports and religion. First, communities build their sports, which in turn provide structure to the community that created it. Butterworth determined, through examination of Joseph Campbell’s writings and of larger society, that we no longer need organized religion, but we still crave the order that religious institutions provide (Butterworth, 2005, p. 108). Both articles discuss how sports reinforce cultural values, just as a pastor reinforces spiritual values during a sermon. Percy and Taylor point out that in both fields, the importance of strong male leaders is stressed. Butterworth focuses on how post-9/11 rituals “[defined] national unity in opposition to ‘evil’ or ‘evil-doers’” (p. 109). This “us vs. them” mentality is yet another important factor in community structure. At the same time, the articles also focus on how sports and religion allow us to transcend a structured community. Percy and Taylor again take a broad perspective, saying “football can, like some forms of charismatic religion, serve to deliver an episodic charismatic or ecstatic
Johnson 3
experience” (p. 44). We often view sports as an escape, and those who practice a religion find a similar release in spiritual rituals. Butterworth looks specifically at the setting of baseball, and asserts that “the ballpark itself… provides a pastoral sanctuary from the world outside” (p. 112). Both articles assert that the appeal of sports and religion lies in the fact that they appeal to higher sensations, but how do they accomplish that? Why did we design them to be grand and exciting events? Percy and Taylor address this, writing that both football and religion “provide a dynamic form of sociality in which improvisation is possible, without core identities ever really being lost” (p. 45). Both sports and religion satisfy the basic human need to actively participate in something that is unlike any other aspect of life, a dramatic, yet temporary, transformation. It should be noted that due to the specific focus of Butterworth’s paper, he does not examine this question of transcendence. However, a drawback to these “charismatic experiences” is their tendency to cause shortsightedness. Percy and Taylor acknowledge that “this experience does not take people permanently out of this world” (p. 44), which means it would be irresponsible to completely ignore worldly issues. Unfortunately, both religious experiences and sporting events can become so emotional that participants sometimes lose sight of their priorities. This is particularly troubling to Butterworth, whose main assertion is that rituals after September 11 suppressed any sort of debate over the appropriate diplomatic course of action. The focus was on national unity and the “us vs. them” community structure, so any political dissenters were marginalized and silenced. He wrote that the pressure to conform to the ritualistic practices “weakened, rather than cultivated, democracy” (p. 123). Percy and Taylor also acknowledge this problem from the religious side, observing that at some “megachurches,” the rituals became “an ‘event’ more
Johnson 4
than... an act of worship” (p. 46). This demonstrates how rituals of religion or sports can cause a shift in priorities. Overall, Percy and Taylor’s broad research is more comprehensive than Butterworth’s article, which takes a decidedly narrow and opinionated perspective. However, Butterworth does point out the potential danger in merging sports and religious practices, which prompts further questions. How much more can sports and religion blend before they completely lose their individual identities? There are already so many shared aspects between the two areas that they have similar effects, and Percy and Taylor found that new religious rituals that are as exciting and appealing as a dramatic football game are constantly being created (p. 41). Butterworth’s research of post-9/11 events led him to argue that sports and religion need to remain separate to maintain democracy and discourse. Therefore, he is highly critical of the way we continue to blur these lines. He believes that after September 11, “baseball could have been a site not only for communal healing but also for productively engaging the pluralism that the game does or should represent” (p. 122). Instead, he points out, the quasi-religious rituals demanded conformity and did not allow any room for disagreement, which is an essential element to community building. Although the methods and conclusions of these articles are quite different, an analysis and comparison of the two papers shows that a certain degree of similarity exists in their findings on the ritualistic commonalities in sports and religion. While Percy and Taylor looked a sport and religion very generally, Butterworth examined specific instances from a designated period of time. However, each article asserts that sports and religion have a way of unifying people, and gives us a unique lens with which to view athletic and religious rituals.
Johnson 5
References Butterworth, M. L. (2005). Ritual in the "church of baseball": Suppressing the discourse of democracy after 9/11. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 2(2), 107-129. Percy, M., & Taylor, R. (1997). Something for the weekend, sir? Leisure, ecstasy and identity in football and contemporary religion. Leisure Studies, 16(1), 37-49.