Don’t Dismiss ‘The Worm:’ Dennis Rodman Was Onto Something with ‘Basketball Diplomacy’

Last updated on: May 17, 2018 at 11:31 am by Frank Viola

Don’t Dismiss ‘The Worm:’ Dennis Rodman Was Onto Something with ‘Basketball Diplomacy’ 2018-05-17T11:31:25-04:00 Frank Viola

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

This is a guest post written by John W. Morehead

As the United States stands on the brink of nuclear war in light of escalating threats from North Korea, the most informed man on the leader of that country, Kim Jung-Un, is not our Secretary of State, John Kerry, or President Obama, but former NBA great Dennis Rodman, who goes by the sports nickname ‘The Worm.’ As a result of his visit to the country as part of shooting a documentary, and subsequent friendship with North Korea’s leader, he suggested that Obama should call North Korea’s leader and discuss basketball. He was widely scorned, but I argue he’s on to something lost in both politics and religious discourse.

Dennis Rodman recently traveled to North Korea to visit Kim Jong-Un, and returned calling him his friend and suggesting that something as simple as Obama picking up the phone and talking about their common passion of basketball might be enough to chill relations between the two nations, and possibly stop nuclear war. With very few exceptions, the media ridiculed Rodman and his suggestion, laughingly dismissed with the label “basketball diplomacy.” The Obama Administration was also quick to issue a negative response to Rodman’s efforts, with White House Spokesman Jay Carney simply restating U.S. concerns about human rights violations, and noting that lines of communication are always open between the two countries.

This casual dismissal not only took place by way of discussion about Rodman, but also in front of the athlete himself, such as George Stephanopoulos’ interview on ABC’s This Week.

Granted, Rodman seemed uncomfortable and out of his depth with American political culture and its years of reflection and policy making on North Korea. But should he, can he, be taken seriously on this? One website even went so far as to state, “There’s no reason for the rest of us to take [Rodman], or his methods, seriously, though.”

After some reflection, in my view the media, conservative and progressive politicians, the Obama Administration, and much of America’s citizenry, were far too quick to assume Rodman could not be taken seriously with an idea that could really change the course of international affairs. Rodman was right, and he has articulated a simple practice of human interaction with promising possibilities in a great number of areas of life.

What was it that Rodman suggested that many found so laughable? He said that Obama should pick up the phone and call Kim Jong-Un, and talk about something that both men have in common. He’s saying, engage in personal interaction as human beings about a topic of mutual passion, and see what might happen in transforming the relations between the two countries as a result. At first consideration this may seem simplistic and naïve. But there’s good social psychology behind. The scientific and experiential data indicates that when enemies or rivals are brought together for personal encounter and conversation, over time they tend to develop more positive views of each other, and while their disagreements and tensions don’t disappear, there is a newfound ability to maintain them in peaceful and civil fashion.

This is one of the elements used by the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy. In our work we bring Mormons and Evangelicals, Jews and Muslims, Christians and Pagans together, religious groups usually at odds with each other. For those who make the effort and come together, even while discussing and not ignoring areas of unresolvable disagreement, a transformation occurs in heart and mind. The parties are able to come to a new understanding of each other as friends, even while disagreeing and perhaps even finding aspects of the other’s beliefs and practices distasteful. They move beyond the traditional categories of enemies and friends, to the creation of a new social category, that of trusted rival.

Some may say in response to this suggestion that it is inappropriate. A couple of years ago I was invited by FRD to be part of a small group that would speak Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with during his visit to the United Nations in New York. I wasn’t able to make the trip, although I wanted to, but I touched bases with a fellow Evangelical who likewise had received the same invitation, but turned it down as inappropriate. He argued that Ahmadinejad was like Hitler, and it would have been wrong to meet with such a dictator in that it would grant him undue legitimacy. The same argument is used in regards to Kim Jong-Un. He is considered a dictator, a murder, and a leader who oppresses his people. Better to keep our distance, denounce the human rights abuses, and continue to rattle our military and political sabers.

But such thinking is clearly wrong-headed. I would argue that it is possible to sit down with someone like Kim Jong-Un or Ahmadinejad, and while not granting approval of their troubling actions, and in a position of strength coupled with diplomatic humility, engage such people in a face-to-face meeting. And the subject matter for such conversations need not be a continual restatement of our areas of concern and disagreement. Those should not be ignored, but they are well known, and there is a place for expanding the conversation so that a humanizing process takes place and relationships can develop. Over time such processes will result in the formation of trusted rivals, which holds far more promise than the perpetuation of confrontational engagement from afar.

What is the alternative? The U.S. went to war in Korea in the 1950s with the idea of stopping the spread of Communism, and after mass death on both sides, the result was a Korea divided into South and North (Communism still firmly in place), the ongoing placement of U.S. troops in the region, and the threat of nuclear war always on the horizon. Lately the rhetoric from North Korea has ramped up, and in response, the U.S. sent F-22 stealth fighter jets and a naval destroyer with the capacity to down surface to air missiles should there be a detected launch of a possible nuclear device. Our policy for many years has been one of detached isolationism.

The idea is to keep North Korea isolated, continue to exert pressure through the use of United Nations sanctions, and issue statements of denunciation over concerns from afar. Some consideration has been given lately to moving away from isolation to one of engagement, but personal forms of interaction that shift from the rhetoric of a dictator enslaving a rogue nuclear nation have yet to be considered. Indeed, in his entire first term, President Obama did not make a single effort to reach out personally to Kim Jong-Un. This administration merely perpetuates the policies of their predecessors that have been tried and found wanting. In my view for decades we have been fulfilling the pop culture definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Perhaps it wouldn’t work. President Obama may one day pick up the phone, or get on Air Force One, and travel across the sea to sit down with North Korea’s leader. And maybe after talking about basketball, discussing their favorite NBA teams and stars, when the conversation turns to their grievances, each man remains as staunchly committed to their loggerheads as they are now. But we won’t know if we don’t try. Relationships and conversations between rivals have a transformative effect in the area of religious conflict. I’ve seen it, and I practice it all the time. It will work in politics too, if our political leaders can find the will to resist jumping on the bandwagon of dismissal and ridicule of a simple idea simply to stave off complaints from an opposing party or bring their actions into conformity with the latest polls.

Dennis Rodman is certainly outside the bounds of “normal” society. But he’s right on the personal element, on friendships and conversations. Let’s not dismiss a possibility simply because we find the messenger flamboyant, and therefore lacking in credibility. Let’s consider taking the risk of trying basketball diplomacy so that personal relationships between trusted rivals can serve us all as a tool in preventing nuclear war.

John W. Morehead is the Custodian of the Evangelical Chapter of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy, the Director of the Western Institute for Intercultural Studies, and has been involved in interreligious dialogue for many years in the contexts of Islam, Mormonism, Paganism, and Humanism. He is editor of Beyond the Burning Times: A Pagan and Christian in Dialogue, by Philip Johnson and Gus diZerega.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

April 16, 2013

How Ambition Destroys Discernment

Next Post

April 25, 2013 I’m NOT That Frank Viola!

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which Christian denomination is known for wearing plain clothing and avoiding modern technology?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Baptists Lutherans Amish Presbyterians