Sports: Separation of church and football
Years ago, when I was a mere child, the Super Bowl was played on Sunday afternoon. Then, with higher ratings and ad revenues to be had, its time slot slipped toward prime time, causing a conflict for those who observed the Christian Sabbath by going to Sunday evening services.
At first, churches resisted, keeping to their usual schedule. But after a few years of dwindling numbers, pastors began to see the Super Bowl as a community outreach opportunity, inviting members, especially youth, to bring their unchurched friends to the fellowship hall for an evening of food, fellowship, and football. And as the audio and video capabilities in these houses of worship have improved, so has the allure of these events. Where else in town could you go to watch mighty gridiron warriors larger than life on a six-foot screen that a few hours earlier had beamed the words to “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God”?
Of course, there were the GoDaddy.com ads and halftime wardrobe malfunctions to avoid, usually with an alternative, football-themed evangelistic video or two to take their places. But it looks like these outreach opportunities have been snuffed out. No, not by some angry, legalistic deacons or elders, but by the National Football League.
You know that statement you hear at the end of every game? “This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL’s consent is prohibited.” Well, they mean it. At least they mean it for churches with big screens. Public exhibitions of NFL telecasts on screens larger than 55 inches are forbidden, unless the showing is at a local watering hole — bars are exempt from the law.
The league claims that lots of people looking at an oversized screen (except in bars) lowers TV ratings, which cuts into its precious revenue stream. “We have no objection to churches and others hosting Super Bowl parties as long as they … show the game on a television of the type commonly used at home,” NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy told The Washington Post. “It is a matter of copyright law.”
The Rutherford Institute, a Charlottesville, Va., civil liberties group specializing in religious freedom issues, has threatened to sue the NFL on behalf of an Alabama church and is looking for someone in Congress to sponsor legislation that would give churches the same exemption bars enjoy. And former NFL quarterback and current congressman Heath Shuler may be their man. In a letter sent yesterday to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, Shuler expressed his disappointment in the league’s stance on the issue. “It makes no sense to me that churches would be prevented from providing a safe, friendly, and alcohol-free environment for fans to watch the Super Bowl,” Shuler said in a press release. “As a former player and an active church member, I have participated in these fellowship events and understand their value.”
Meanwhile, some churches have altered their plans and will show the game on smaller sets or have their gatherings in private homes.
“There is a part of me that says, ‘Gee, doesn’t the NFL have enough money already?’” Steve Holley, a pastor of a church in the Washington, D.C. area, told the Post. “It just doesn’t make sense.”




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top33 Comments to “Sports: Separation of church and football”
I couldn’t get the link to work, but I heard this story on the news last night. They said that the NFL rule was about people selling tickets for their own profit, and that they had never gone after a church and never would.
Report comment to moderator
“There is a part of me that says, ‘Gee, doesn’t the NFL have enough money already?’”
Their greed knows no bounds. They long ago trademarked the phrase Super Bowl, and have sued advertisers who’ve used it w/o permission, and threatened to sue lots more, including some mom and pop type establishments.. So advertisers started to use the phrase “the big game”, instead. So the NFL tried to trademark that phrase. Thankfully, their application was rejected. But the greed and hubris involved in even applying for the trademark is astonishing.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s the story.
http://snipurl.com/1ytuk
Report comment to moderator
Sorry the link’s not working for you, Kayvee. It seems to be functioning fine. I consider the NFL sending cease-and-desist letters to churches, going after them.
Since I wrote this last night, the WSJ has posted an article with more on the topic.
Report comment to moderator
Interesting that this post follows the one above on engaging the culture. These two could be one. Instead of using the church for a sports outreach, how about inviting people to our houses? Would a Super Bowl outreach be met by Jesus casting out the participants with the words “My house shall be a house of prayer”?
Report comment to moderator
Peter L.,
Excellent questions. I don’t like large-screen monitors in a sanctuary anyway, and the idea of using them for the Super Bowl is appalling. The local church building is not the temple; God’s presence is within us today as individual believers. Still, we should show more respect for the church building. Using Sunday school classrooms, gyms, homes, etc., strikes me as legitimate, but this is far too “profane” a use for the church sanctuary, I think.
Report comment to moderator
I know people who use video projectors in their home. Is the NFL going to go after them?
It seems to me that once you beam something over the airwaves (or on the cable), whether it be audio or video, you are giving people tacit permission to share it in any way they want. It should be illegal to profit from it or claim any production as one’s own creation, but it should not be illegal to allow other people to watch a broadcast with you–no matter the number of people or the size of the screen.
Report comment to moderator
Our pastor has been preaching on stewardship, and one Sunday he talked about how to use our money to reach friends and neighbors for Christ. One suggestion he had was hosting a Super Bowl party, as an excellent way to build relationships with people who would never think of coming to a Bible study but would be more than happy to enjoy and evening with you sharing a common interest. (Unfortunately we cancelled cable last year to save money, and can’t get good enough reception to do much besides check the scores.)
Report comment to moderator
Maxine’s Wisdom:
“My idea of a Super Bowl is a toilet that cleans itself.”
Report comment to moderator
VS, your bad. My husband and I can’t stop laughing. My husband applauds you.
Report comment to moderator
Glad you both enjoyed it.
My son sent it to me via email this evening and I knew I had to share it.
Report comment to moderator
You know, they have a point…I remember seeing so many church bookstores selling bootleg copies of past Super Bowl games taped off their big-screen projectors.
Can anyone say, “incredibly bad PR move?” Think of the good PR the NFL would rake in by “encouraging” churches and other groups to hold parties with responsible behavior, etc.
Here’s hoping some lawyers get “sacked” because of this.
Report comment to moderator
Kennethos – 112
We have had ‘Super Bowl’ parties. They have always been sucessful, whether those invited were Believers or not.
People love to gather with a common interest and football happens to be one of the ‘top list’ even if VS makes us all laugh with (post 9) ““My idea of a Super Bowl is a toilet that cleans itself.” that by the way was truly funny. ….. moving right along ….. I know that having gatherings which bring none Believers and Believers together is a GREAT IDEA!
Report comment to moderator
I enjoyed a Super Bowl party from a few years back. At the children’s illusionist show my oldest came forward and accepted the Lord.
So why cant churches temporarily call themselves “non-alcoholic Christian bars” and skirt the mean greedy NfL?
Report comment to moderator
Having a party in the fellowship seems okay but showing a football game in the sanctuary just seems wrong.
Report comment to moderator
I agree – it is wrong, because it violates what God commands in worship. The problem is churches are so desparate to reach the men that this type of stuff is what they’re grasping for and promoting in order to get Dad into church. They can’t preach hard from the pulpit, because that will offend the Oprahfied womenfolk who will scream at their henpecked hubbies, “I don’t want to go here anymore! Pastor Whoever is mean and insensitive to my neeeeeedsss!” Then guess what? Tithing goes down and the church can’t pay the payments on the new, cutting edge building. Follow the money.
Report comment to moderator
I think some of these comments are funny. I guess it is because the church that I attend is held in a bar. So, on Sat. night it is a bar, but on Sun morning it becomes our “sanctuary.” So, technically, Sawgunner, we are a non-alcoholic christian bar- go figure.
Report comment to moderator
I agree Kbells, the sanctuary where we Worship isn’t a place to put up the ‘big screen’ for the ‘Super Bowl’ game.
Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves. Luke 19:46
God’s house is still HIS house, nothings changed. Christ was angry at those in the temple, ‘money changers’ and it’s no different when we take the Sanctuary and make it a ‘hoot and holler’ auditorium for a foot ball game.
Report comment to moderator
worthygirl – 17
A bar was never dedicated as a Sanctuary of Worship, there is the difference.
We have gone to Church in a bar on one of our visits to Hawaii. I find nothing wrong with that, but on the other hand, the Church Sancturay can’t be changed into a bar, etc.
Report comment to moderator
You people do realize that the first churches were held in public places or in homes, right? Not church buildings? So people did all kinds of things in those places besides singing and sermoning. I don’t see anything wrong with watching a football game on a screen in a church sanctuary. There’s nothing holy about a church sanctuary — just the people worshipping in it. God didn’t sanctify the church buildings we invented, he sanctifies our hearts.
I can’t think of a better use of time and resources on Super Bowl Sunday than outreach after church. What else would you do? Close the building? You might as well make use of he idle facilities.
Report comment to moderator
A bar was never dedicated as a Sanctuary of Worship, there is the difference.
We should be worshipping God all the time, whether corporately or individually. I think using football as a common ground to build relationships and then share the gospel is an excellent act of worship. So long as you actually do use it to build relationships and share the gospel. Otherwise, it’s useless, though not necessarily evil.
Report comment to moderator
Our church doesn’t have a “sanctuary,” we worship in the “auditorium.” Having grown up in a church with a sanctuary, I initially found the distinction silly, when I started attending a church that used the term auditorium instead. My impression was that they did so as part of a rejection of anything that sounded remotely like Catholicism or even mainline Protestantism. I later became Presybterian and was quite comfortable with calling the worship space a sanctuary, practicing imposition of ashes on Ash Wednesday, reading pre-written prayers, and other practices that fundamentalist Baptist churches I had attended would never consider.
In light of Victoria’s comment above, however, about the sanctuary having been dedicated for worship, I can see better why they may choose to call the space an auditorium at this church. (It is, in fact, constructed in the manner of a traditional auditorium, with a stage, curtains, and lighting for plays. The floor slopes down toward the front and the seating is auditorium style seats.) It is used about once a year for a major drama production (this year’s was Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat). Since it is not a “sanctuary” the church is free to use the space for multiple purposes.
I’m sure the entire building was dedicated to use for God’s glory, which involves a wide variety of activities, including worship, teaching, drama, fellowship, and concerts. Super Bowl parties are held in members’ homes, though, because that’s the setting most conducive to them.
Report comment to moderator
I can’t understand conservative Christians sometimes. First they’re all gung-ho for capitalism and against government intervention. But now they’re saying they have the right to take a company’s product (NFL, the Superbowl) without compensation. And if the company won’t give it to them, they’ll use the strong arm of the government to to take it from them and give it to their churches for free.
Well, simply put, a business has the right to control the distribution of it’s product. That’s a fundamental rule of capitalism.
Don’t y’all go all socialistic on us know.
The NFL has some reasonable restrictions. They aren’t saying churches can’t get together and watch it. They’re willing to let churches continue to show it for free as long as they limit the size of the screen.
Report comment to moderator
Cuthalion YOU POST …….“You people do realize that the first churches were held in public places or in homes, right? Not church buildings? So people did all kinds of things in those places besides singing and sermoning. I don’t see anything wrong with watching a football game on a screen in a church sanctuary.’
Everyone who is a Believer most likely knows . . Believers meeting in homes in the early Church. There is a vast difference from a home, and Church Sanctuary which has been dedicated as a place of Worship. We do lots of things in our homes we wouldn’t do in the Church Sanctuary.
If you can’t see what’s wrong with a ‘big screen and football’ in the Church Sanctuary, I don’t think anyone is going to change your mind.
Report comment to moderator
Cuthalion 20 and 21,
Well said.
Report comment to moderator
NY Giants won the 2008 Super Bowl.
oh well………
Report comment to moderator
mannings won for the second year in a row. woo.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
*a manning won for the second year in a row. woo.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
ON 1-20 I posted this on the anti-quarterback post.
“Let’s see, he was better in high school than his brother, better in college than his brother, and won a playoff game sooner than his brother, made, and now also won, a conference championship sooner than his brother. Sorry folks, he’s gonna be way better than Peyton in the NFL as well.
I have been saying for weeks now that I would love to see them get another shot at NE. I got my wish. I won’t get to see the rematch in person, but if it’s even half as good as the game I saw at the Meadowlands, it’ll still be worth watching.
And in 2 weeks you will believe. That yes, David can still slay Goliath, and that Eli will be better than Peyton. It’s just a matter of time. But first a dynasty must fall, before a new one can begin. One more, and you will believe as well.”
And then to some naysaying non-believer I posted this.
“Yes, Peyton is better now, but in the end, Eli will prevail. All he needs is time, and 1 more win would be a good way to start. And I am enjoying the excellence of it all. This kid is in the biggest and most brutal press market, and in the shadow of his famous older bro, and on a smaller scale, Archie, and he does not flinch. He may not have been Tiki Barber’s idea of a leader, but the currently playing Giants know that he is. He just does it quietly. Peyton is a General on the field, the way he picks out coverage, and makes at the line adjustments, is just sick. It’s like he’s playing against kids. It’s almost unfair. I think in time young Colonel Eli will be a General as well. And better than his brother.”
I will now add prophet to my list of things I’ve done.
MVP, no wait, SUPERBOWL MVP! It sounds so much better that way!
And since I’m now a self-declared prophet, I will make a prediction. All the stupid nonsense about Phillip Rivers being better than Manning, and how the Chargers got the better deal, will now end. Except by his immediate family. And maybe Lynn Vincent. But she, like me, is a homer.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
I’m glad the New York Giants were the WINNERS! There are just to many sour losers tonight!
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!