In this week’s episode of The Point, John Stonestreet comments on the situation of the Jaelene Hinkle, the best left back in U.S. women’s soccer. Hinkle withdrew from the team a couple years ago “rather than wear a U. S. team jersey sporting rainbow numbers in order to celebrate gay pride.” This year Hinkle was cut from the national team in the early stages of tryouts, leading many people to believe that there may have been reasons other than her ability as a player for her dismissal.
We can see how convoluted this situation is by flipping it around the other way. How would we feel if Megan Rapinoe, star of the U. S. women’s national team and lesbian cultural icon, were forced to decide between wearing a “traditional marriage pride” jersey and removing herself from the team?
There would be outrage. The team would be widely accused of intolerance and forcing its traditional values on others. Some might even ask why this is an issue that is relevant at all to women’s soccer, a game that has nothing to do with marriage whatsoever.
Matters would get worse if Rapinoe, who had clearly been a valuable asset to the national team, were cut without good reason. The cries of homophobia would never cease.
The situation seems silly; the outrage would be largely justified. Why was Hinkle, then, held to a different standard? If we agree that it would be wrong to put Rapinoe in such a position, why isn’t it wrong with Hinkle as well?
Stonestreet says:
“It’s simply more likely than not that we too will face a choice at some point between our career and our convictions. We aren’t the first Christians who have had to face this choice, and thank God the choice isn’t our life and our convictions, as it is for our brothers and sisters in other parts of the world.
Jaelene Hinkle chose well. Will we?”