As remembrance events are held today to mark the end of World War II and the sacrifice of so many millions, FIFA is still making headlines for banning players from wearing commemorative poppies.

Today is Armistice Day, and England and Wales are this evening set to defy FIFA's long-standing ban on all "political, religious or commercial messages", and allow their players to wear poppies on their shirts during the World Cup Qualifier match.

This is not a new row – it erupted in 2011, resulting in players being allowed to wear poppies emblazoned on armbands, but not on their shirts.¹ Nevertheless, this year FIFA has stood its ground, and debate has once again erupted in the media over the politics of the poppy. Meanwhile, the rest of the British populace rolls their eyes at political correctness gone mad, wondering when it became unacceptable to commemorate the ultimate sacrifice made by so many millions during the two world wars. How have we got to this point?

The Race to Escape Politics

The debate over whether or not the poppy is a political symbol is an interesting one, but not what I wish to focus on here. Instead, I would like to draw attention to a different, but no less key, aspect of the whole incident: FIFA's blanket refusal to make what could be construed as a political statement.

Like so many institutions and establishments today, FIFA would rather keep its nose (at least, its public nose) out of politics, religion and commerce, even to the point of avoiding any cause that could possibly be construed as such. Contrary to media headlines, FIFA has not deliberately banned the poppy – but they have refused to "pre-judge" whether or not it counts as a political symbol, instead referring the case to a disciplinary committee, which will decide whether or not the rules have been broken.²

Perhaps this is understandable in the light of FIFA's recent political scandals. But ironically, the poppy 'ban' is probably causing more controversy than it prevents. Whether the primary driver here is a fear of losing mass support or a fear of inciting a lawsuit from some avid poppy-haters, it is a sorry state of affairs when concern for self-protection leads an organisation to pass up the opportunity to support a good cause, just because it could be labelled 'political'.

The Poppy Appeal has become collateral damage in a rather inconsistent attempt to erase all trace of politics from football (or at least from its public face). What does this say about the state of our society?

It is a sorry state of affairs when concern for self-protection leads an organisation to pass up the opportunity to support a good cause, just because it could be labelled 'political'.

The Postmodern Hatred of Politics

This may be a controversial point to make, but I personally believe that the essence of all politics is actually moral – since politics is about making arguments, statements and rulings about the good (and the bad) of society. It involves saying what we believe is good and worth pursuing (/legalising/promoting), and what we believe is evil and needing to be fought (/prohibited/eradicated), not just for ourselves but for the collective. When one shows support for a political symbol, message or cause, one is effectively making a moral statement about what one believes is good (or bad) for society. A political statement is a moral statement (and the reverse is also true).

The trouble is, in today's world, we have cut ourselves loose from the objective morality given to us by God – the true word of Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit which help us to distinguish right from wrong. We have rejected the Ultimate Source of morality. And so in Western culture, in the absence of a true, objective definition of right and wrong, morality has become relative – what's right for you might not be so for me. We each 'do as we see fit' (Judg 17:16, 21:25).

And as morality has become an individual, private matter, so has politics. They are two sides of the same coin. Declarations of right and wrong – declarations about what is objectively good and bad – are increasingly unwelcome in the public realm, because public means that which is shared, communal, universal, applicable to all. And how can there be a morality that is universally applicable (or a politics that is universally beneficial) if there is no higher moral authority than the individual? How can anyone 'pre-judge' what is good for all?

Public Declarations of the Good Increasingly Difficult

By rejecting God, we have argued ourselves into a corner – and our establishments are in a bind, increasingly unable to enforce one moral law for all. We lose our ability to distinguish between the immovable, universal rights and wrongs God has instituted, and our personal preferences that arise chiefly from taste and character – God-given diversity. As man becomes god, so we conflate the two.

This is why our entire society is suffering from a lack of direction, a lack of convicted leadership and an unwillingness amongst the establishment to engage with controversial issues: because the tyranny of political correctness stops us from standing up, above the crowd, and making a broader statement about what is morally right and good for everyone. Those who are brave enough are usually sued – because our legal system has become about protecting the individual, above all else.

The upshot of this is that the moral pillars of society become judged by and subjected to the moral vagaries of the individual, not the other way around (e.g. FIFA avoids all political or religious messages because they might upset or disagree with some individuals). And because these shifting sands are such a nightmare, it becomes easier to put a blanket ban on everything that might be controversial.

When the moral pillars of society are subjected to the shifting sands of individual hearts, it becomes easier to put a blanket ban on everything that might be controversial.

Should Christians Care?

Let's go back to the humble poppy. FIFA will not publicly endorse the Poppy Appeal, presumably for fear of being branded 'political' – of making a statement about something other than football that splits people and causes it to lose support. Players may be allowed to wear poppies on armbands (i.e. a matter of personal choice – individual politics/morality), but not on their shirts (collective uniforms, symbolising the position of FIFA as an organisation).

In this particular instance, it takes something as seemingly innocuous as the Poppy Appeal to open our eyes, albeit briefly, to the realities of the political correctness nightmare. But it isn't about the poppy, or about war, or about showing respect for bravery and sacrifice in the face of horror. It's about a much bigger, more endemic cultural disease: amorality.

The problem, of course, is that life is inescapably political and religious. Just as attempts to erase religion from the public realm are doomed to fail (as atheism is itself a faith, and secularism itself a religion, rather than the absence of one), so attempts to depoliticise football are also futile.

But that doesn't mean that attempts to enforce the semblance of political and moral neutrality won't be pushed through – with this false neutrality becoming a Trojan horse for the promotion of unGodly values and ethics. Because again, this isn't about the poppy, and it isn't about FIFA. It is about a growing prohibition of public statements of morality – which is already extending to include expressions of Christian truth in schools, on the streets and even in churches.

That's why Christians should take notice of the poppy debate – and refused to be cowed by the spirit of the age.

"They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old; age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we will remember them." ~ For the Fallen, Robert Laurence Binyon (1869-1943)

References

1 Is the poppy a political symbol? Who, What, Why, BBC Magazine, 1 November 2016.

2 Conway, R. England v Scotland: Fifa says Poppy ban reports a 'distortion of facts'. BBC Sport, 11 November 2016.

3 One might also point out FIFA's symbolic inconsistency in featuring the logos of ethically dubious corporate sponsors – such as the Nike logo that adorns all England shirts and the Adidas logo graces the shirts of Scottish players. The poppy is apparently a step too far, however (or perhaps not lucrative enough?).