Theology of Soccer: How Soccer Explains the Fall
First, let’s take a look at what could be called The Beautiful Creation. In Genesis 1, in what could only be expressed through the beauty of poetry, God creates a world in which realms are created and then filled with all sorts of life, culminating in the creation of humans. Genesis 2 goes deeper into the story of the creation of humans and expands on the initial call of Genesis 1:28ff for humans to partner with God and continue doing what he has been doing: creating. Humans were created to participate with God in enjoying the goodness of creation while furthering creation through “tending and keeping it” (Gen. 2:15) and being “fruitful” and “multiplying” (Gen. 1:28). Inherent within humanity is to be in partnership with God, with each other, and with creation. This is what is is to be created in the image and likeness of a God that is love: to live selflessly and in harmony with God and creation. Like the game of soccer, creation in its purest form is found when all of creation is in right relationship with one another, selflessly working with and serving the other.
The Beautiful Game, in its purest, most alluring form, resembles the beauty of creation. It is a game of creativity and creation. A game in which the players of each team work in harmony with one another in order to achieve their goal. A game in which a player may do much work in order to create an opportunity, only to selflessly pass the ball to his teammate to receive the praise of scoring a goal. A game in which each player is intimately linked to one another and move as a team. The Beautiful Game finds its beauty in the selfless, relational, harmonious quality of the game — just like creation. At least, prior to Genesis 3.
In Genesis 3 you have the introduction of sin. However, this introduction isn’t a disease that begins to transform and destroy creation but, rather, is the product of our own decision making brought about through the “opening of our eyes” (Gen. 3:7). This is more in line with the Jewish tradition, which holds that there is no such thing as “The Fall.” Nothing within the relationship between Adam and Eve and between humanity and God changes after the eating of the fruit except for the way we perceive and engage it. Let’s take a look at the relationship between humanity and God surrounding the event of the Fall.
Before the event, God speaks to and works alongside humanity. Then after Adam and Eve eat of the fruit God goes into a wild frenzy and never speaks to humanity again. JK. After Adam and Eve eat of the fruit, God walks into the garden “in the cool of the day” in order to spend time with them as he, assumedly, always did. When he finds them, he does not reject them or freak out but instead talks with them and helps ease their experienced shame by making them clothes. In fact, post-Eden you still have God walking with and working with humanity (Gen. 4:9, or the rest of the bible for that matter). So what changes?
This is where soccer may help.
The game of soccer has its own Genesis 3 “Fall,” which, interestingly enough, is aptly named the Flop. Or Dive. Or, more technically, Simulation. However, the Flop is not anything in and of itself, but, like the Fall, is a decision that is made by a player that breaks from the essence of the game. As stated above, soccer is a team sport that works its best, like creation, when the team works in relationship with one another. The Flop, however, is an idea that emphasizes the individual over the team. It is as if, when placed in the story of Genesis 3, the serpent informs the soccer player that there is another way to play the game. That The Beautiful Game doesn’t have to be so orchestrated and team-centric but that the player could play for himself and achieve glory above and beyond the team. That “if you go down, then you can get a penalty kick, and you can score, and you can win the game.” The Flop opens the player’s eyes to the possibility of individual advancement and in the process dirties up the beauty of the game.
Upon eating the fruit, Adam and Eve’s eyes are, likewise, opened to self pursuits. Immediately following the act, Adam and Eve hide from one another. The only humans in existence, at the time, hide from one another. This is the first experience of shame — Adam and Eve could no longer stand in intimate vulnerability with one another for fear of what the other would think or do. Again, nothing has changed. They were always naked. But now they understand and perceive nudity in a new way — that it can be used to control and to shame — and so they hide. When God enters the garden, Adam no longer perceives God as a loving being who is for him, but instead views God as a threat to his existence. When God asks where Adam has come to perceive creation in this new way, Adam, in a move of self preservation, blames Eve and then turns and blames God for giving him Eve. When God turns the question to Eve, she, likewise, protects herself by blaming the serpent.
Adam and Eve reveal a new way of being within creation: no longer fully united with the one-another and no longer in harmony with creation, Adam and Eve shift their focus to primarily looking after him- and herself. The Beautiful Creation, which in its fullness possesses harmonious relationality within the realms of humanity-God, humanity-humanity, and humanity-creation, is affected when we break relationship within all three reams in order to look after ourself.
Soccer can further be used to explain God’s curses in Genesis 3:14–19, which, I argue, should not be seen as prescriptive (God does not create the curses effects) but as descriptive of a life under such a perspective. All of the curses reveal the effects of broken relationship. For example, when God states to Eve that “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3:16b), God is not saying “this is how I am changing the way you will relate,” for God is not doing anything, instead God is informing them that their selfish drives will result in frustration. Similarly, a curse could be said to the soccer player that “because you now see flopping as an option, there will be enmity between you and the referee.” Any time the player goes down he will expect the referee to call a foul, and when it does not happen, anger will arise. Alternatively, if the player flops and the call is made, like Qohelet’s statement of injustice at the start of this post, the opposing player, who has played according to the beauty of the game, is wrongfully penalized. The beauty of the game begins to diminish as players begin to perceive and engage the game outside of the way it was intended to be played. The game in-and-of itself does not change, only the way the players engage it. Likewise, creation does not change, only the way humanity engages it. However, disunity and broken relationship transforms the experience of creation — and the game.
This is why the story of Jesus is so fascinating. Jesus does not tell us that the way creation was meant to be lived is unavailable to us — as if the introduction of sin has fundamentally transformed creation into a diseased state. Instead Jesus announces that the way in which things were created to be is “upon us” — it is available to us now. And not only does he say it, he reveals it through the way in which he engages with people and with creation. His selfless love for the other reveals the healing, transformative characteristics inherent within our being created in the image of God. Jesus reveals that to love God and to love others is the way into the fullness of life — not by looking after one’s self. As the disciples begin to change their perception of the world and return to a right understanding and engagement of how things are created to be, they begin to bring the same restoration into creation as Jesus did. A team that plays with deep unity and refuses to allow the idea of flopping to enter into their style of play, can reveal just how beautiful soccer can be. Likewise, when we move from selfishness into selfless relationality, we begin to see a creation that looks a lot more like Genesis 1–2.
May we come to see the world as it was intended to be.
*Full disclosure: I am a fan of German soccer, which is much more team-centric as opposed to South American soccer which emphasizes individual flair. Both of which are beautiful to watch. However, I would still argue that South American soccer is performed at its best when the team does not rely on a single individual, but operates as a unit. Albeit, a unit with lots of flair.
