Almost two years ago I wrote on the issue of Divided Loyalties and something I was considering today brought up the same matter. Obviously worth reading the original by clicking the link and then pop back here. I’ll still be here when you get back.
Done? OK, good. So I was considering the issue of tapping up players. For those with no idea what I’m talking about, in the game of football (or soccer if you must) here in England players are contracted to play for certain clubs. The club owns the player while he is inc contract. If another club wishes to express interest in purchasing the player they must first make contact with the club – not the player or a representative. Should a club approach a player or attempt to gain a player’s interest in them without first consulting the home club who own the contract this is classed as ‘tapping up’.
Apparently it is forbidden although in reality it is rife. Also apparently the principle behind it is due recognition given to the owner of the player and an expectation that the player give due deference to the club who owns his contract and an assumed primary loyalty is expected by the player to the club. Again, in reality if a player knows he is wanted by a bigger club or one likely to give him more in wages, he’s likely to flout all those conventions and do what he can to engineer a move.
When I thought about this whole tapping up malarkey I got to thinking what is so wrong with it? If you are good at what you do and someone acknowledges that and they endeavour to entice you to join them, why should they go first to the club who owns the contract? Inevitably contact has to be made with the club anyway because they are the ones who can sell or retain their player. If a player wants to leave then they can submit their transfer request and then the owning club can endeavour to make sounds about keeping the player whilst looking to get the best deal for him. I really don’t see what all the fuss is about. Plus if a player wants to be loyal there is no amount of offers that opponents can offer that will change his mind.
This brings me back to the matter of loyalty. As I contemplated it – the thought occurred to me where do our loyalties lie? for professing Christians that question is all the more poignant when you consider what the answer should be and what it often turns out to be in behaviour and mind-set. It appears as though we can easily be tapped up by someone else other than the ‘club’ that is meant to own us.
The ‘club’ that I’m referring to is the Kingdom of God. Followers of Jesus are those who make a profession to be subjects of the Kingdom and bow primarily to those requirements. How often when it comes to the crunch do I actually show how I’ve been ‘tapped up’ by the family, by the pursuit for material security and comfort. I wonder if sometimes tapping up has taken place by things such as national allegiance or close affiliation to a culture. Perhaps it’s been a hobby or interest, maybe it was the car or perhaps it was the shoes. Somehow or other our vocal profession of faith doesn’t express itself that way.
What is of particular concern is how some seem to think there is a compatibility and collaboration between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world. The thinking is seen in the thought that being a follower of Jesus does not have to make you awkward or a nuisance in society. It is expressed in a desire to see a faith that is not troubling the status quo. A faith that can be perfectly fine in the confines of a building, but should rarely be shown publicly unless appropriately neutered to be friendly and tolerant to all who hear it – inoffensive and nice. It can be used to suit political persuasions and ideological concepts of one style or another without challenging it to change from the inside out. It is a useful badge to add to whatever the flavour of the month is.
In all this the offense of the cross, the counter-cultural effect of the Kingdom, the radical call of discipleship and the figure who told the ruler of the day that His Kingdom is not of this earth is rendered as harmful and threatening to the world that we live in as a care bear. No wonder societies and communities remain hardly touched, because this faith we profess does nothing to the outside of us. It is something fluffy and glossy and to be seen in private (even if in private gatherings).
That certainly shows where our loyalties lie. It shows how much we’ve been tapped up. Yet the club who holds our contract still offers us the chance to stay and play for the team that will eventually win every trophy going and completely overwhelm and replace every other competitor going by the power of the Owner. I am challenged to see if I really have what it takes on a day to day basis to live to realise what the Owner expects from me.
For His Name’s Sake
Shalom
dmcd
Life With CD 