It seems to be taken for granted in many portions of Scripture that over the course of seeking to live faithful lives God's people will meet opposition, sometimes fierce opposition. The letter of 1 Peter presupposes such things—and if we accept the traditional dating and authorship of the epistle than the man who wrote the book was himself killed for his faith not long after writing. Likewise, the book of Daniel simply takes the reality of opposition for granted, showing us examples in the text of how faithful followers of God are threatened with fire, lions, and other forms of execution.
What is interesting in these texts is that nowhere in Peter or Daniel are we given the suggestion that the people of God should temporarily suspend the ordinary practices of obedience to God in order to seek or obtain power so as to establish some form of material security for themselves. Indeed, Daniel quite explicitly does the opposite—effectively throwing away much power and influence by continuing to keep up his practice of prayer after such practices were made illegal.
Rather, both books seem to presuppose that it is actually possible to faithfully follow God, to live virtuously as a member of various mixed political societies, and that if those two things come into conflict, God will preserve his people in some way—either through an unlooked for intervention or the resurrection. That said, it is not for us to control the specifics of how God acts to preserve us, only to trust that he will and, in the meantime, get on with the business of following him, even when under threat.
I thought of those texts when I read the response in Kansas City to the controversial remarks made by Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker at a commencement speech he gave at a Catholic university. As others have noted, the remarks mostly amount to a fairly basic statement of Catholic teaching, a few parenthetical comments not withstanding, and so the outrage felt more than a little forced. What interests me is less the outrage and more the reaction in Kansas City to the aggressive criticisms of Butker, including calls for the team to release him.
But read what Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes said about Butker when pressed for his thoughts on the situation:
There's certain things that he said that I don't necessarily agree with, but I understand the person that he is, and he is trying to do whatever he can to lead people in the right direction. And that might not be the same values as I have. But at the same time, I'm going to judge him by the character that he shows every single day. That's a great person, and we'll continue to move along and try to help build each other up to make ourselves better every single day.
Chiefs head coach Andy Reid's remarks were more limited, focusing his comments instead on an aversion to policing the speech of every player, but he still echoed much of what Mahomes said. From their comments, it is apparent that within the Chiefs organization Butker is not chiefly known as "the weird guy who goes to Latin Mass." Rather, he is simply known as a good teammate who does his job well, has high character, desires to do what is right, and is worthy of trust.
Given that Reid and Mahomes are the two most important figures in the Chiefs franchise, it is probable that this will be the end of whatever controversy there was around Butker's remarks. So what can we learn?
We can answer that question by considering two hypothetical scenarios.
First, you have a middling NFL kicker who also doesn't contribute much to the atmosphere of the team and sometimes creates a bit of internal drama the coach has to sort out. Then that kicker goes and gets himself in the news for supporting certain positions or ideas that many in your organization and fanbase find offensive, and a campaign begins to pressure that team to ditch the kicker.
Second, you have a very good kicker who is highly regarded by his teammates as a man of character and honesty who they trust on a day to day level to do his job well, to not cause trouble, and who they even regard as a friend—someone who takes an interest in them, in their life outside the game, and so on. Now that guy says all the same things and attracts the same reaction.
Which one is going to stick around? It's possible both will, of course. But if only one is going to keep his place on his team, we know the answer: obviously it is the second. This isn't terribly surprising, of course. Common sense tells us as much, as does a review of the biblical record. Scripture calls us to live ordinary quiet lives of virtue and while the primary reason isn't for the social benefit that comes from such things, there does seem to be some sense that such a life will raise intrigued questions from our neighbors. The context of 1 Peter 3:15, after all, is that Peter simply assumes that people living as he counsels his readers to live will provoke questions about "the hope that is in them."
I do not think the lesson we should take from Butker is simply that we should publicly speak from a place of assuming truths rather than arguing for them, as some have said. If you do that but lack trust or respect with your audience, it will accomplish very little. People don't care what your assumed center is if they already find you rude, unlikable, cold, or indifferent. Rather, I think the lesson is that sometimes we will be swept up into controversy for saying true things that are at odds with the spirit of the day and when that happens much of the response to us will actually depend on how we lived before we said those things.
You might put it this way: A virtuous quiet life defined by kindness, humility, service to neighbor, and integrity in one's work is good in itself, and it establishes a kind of social capital which can then be spent when necessary. And it will need to be spent sometimes. The goal, after all, is not merely to be inoffensive or blandly likable. That isn't what God calls us to. The goal is to be faithful to Christ. There will be times where faithfulness will require taking unpopular stances or saying unpopular things, which in turn means that we should be prepared for such things as Christians.
I am simply noting that Butker's situation and multiple biblical texts suggest that the best way to prepare is not through accumulating hard political power, dominating your neighbors, and generally being rude and horrid to anyone you judge to be an enemy. The way we prepare is through living quiet lives of prayer and virtue, conspicuous in their very ordinariness, notable chiefly because of the unique kindness and gentleness that defines us. The person who lives in that way will not typically be known to their neighbors for their odd religious practices or politics, even if their religious practices and politics do seem odd. They will, rather, most commonly be known to others in the way Butker is known to Mahomes. Such people will generally have the capital they need to survive through seasons of cultural testing and adversity.
None of this is automatic, of course, which is why we also need a hope in resurrection: All who desire to live godly lives will face opposition, we are told, and sometimes that opposition will be fierce, remarkably unjust, and will seem to triumph. All of that is true and yet the commands given by Peter and the model given to us in Daniel still apply—both of those men faced precisely that sort of opposition, after all. So even if Butker were released, he wouldn't be "off the hook" for submitting to Scripture's teachings. Even so, when we cultivate virtue, live honorable quiet lives, and cultivate excellence in our work, that sort of life is both its own reward and it helps us to be more robust and resilient in public life, more able to withstand these storms than we would be had we not.
So how do we live in a cultural moment in which our beliefs are despised by many and our status in certain institutions is under threat? Minimally, the answer is this: Cultivate virtue and pursue excellence.