Cristiano Ronaldo Won't Drink The Coke (And Neither Should You)
Or, Discerning the Ideological Rumblings of Our Day
Cristiano Ronaldo, one of the most famous soccer players ever, came into a press conference ahead of a match for his native Portugal at the European Championships in 2021.
In front of him were two soft drink bottles: Coke and Coke Zero. As Coca-Cola is a major sponsor of the European Championships, the drinks were front and center at every interview throughout the tournament.
Such a drink is somewhat ironic to have in front of any elite athlete who would likely not indulge, at least not during game preparation. But in front of Cristiano Ronaldo, it was downright laughable. The idea that an athlete known for his strict fitness regimen, and meticulous care for his body would drink Coke was absurd.
Apparently Ronaldo thought the same thing.
As everyone was waiting for the press conference to begin, Ronaldo was noticeably annoyed at the two coke bottles and, after looking around for a moment, slid them out of view of the camera.
Lifting up his water bottle he exclaimed, “drink agua,” in his native Portuguese, then put it down in place of the most famous soft drink in the world.
While the gag got a good laugh out of the assembled press, more significantly, it named the emptiness of the connection between Coke and elite athletes in a way that often goes unnamed, yet works powerfully in our minds to create an association between the two worlds.
Ronaldo’s disruption of the connection helps illustrate how ideology functions in our society.
We often do not recognize how many “Coke bottles” we hold close to us without considering whether or not the connection to our lives actually makes sense.
Ideologies often causes us to posture as if we “drink” from a certain bottle, all the while never actually touching the stuff.
This disembodied way of thinking causes us to become more divided over things that have been emptied of their meaning. Yet we still believe we are doing something effective for ourselves and society.
This ideological posturing is a zero-sum game.
As Christians, and pastors more specifically, if we can understand the emptiness of ideology, discern the “ideological rumblings” at work in our own towns and cities, and learn from the way Jesus helped people stop drinking from their ideological “wells,” we can offer something truly transformative to our world.
The Emptiness of Ideology
Terry Eagleton’s definitions of ideology, help name a very complicated and elusive subject. Here, in this article, when I’m talking about ideology, I’m referring to the definitions of ideology that begin with “Dominating” Ideology and move toward the center of the diagram below.
When an ideology moves into the “dominating” ideology space, the language begins to become coercive toward the other group and begins to lose its original meaning the further it moves towards “blind ideology.”
In other words, the language was, and technically still is, tied to a specific set of circumstances, yet it is now primarily serving the role of “signifier” to draw a line in the sand between groups of people, emptied of any particular meaning.
A recent cultural example is the use of the phrases, “Black lives matter,” and “All lives matter,” where the “black lives,” and “all lives” get emptied of the “lives” that are supposedly cared for in these statements and instead get used to verbally dominate the other group.
Eagleton describes Martin Seliger’s definition of ideology in similar terms, in which, “a modicum of factual evidence,” is used along with “beliefs and disbeliefs,” all mixed together to create the preservation of a given social order.1
In Ronaldo’s run-in with Coke in a press conference, we see this definition put into action in subtle ways.
It is a fact that Coke has paid for the advertising rights to place its product on the press conference table. So in one sense, there is no issue with Coke’s presence here.
Yet, that fact becomes a mix of “beliefs and disbeliefs” as it is associated with elite athletes who generally do not drink these kinds of beverages, especially Ronaldo.
Ronaldo recognized the emptiness of Coke’s symbolism in this moment and removed it. Instead, preferring to put forth water not just as the ideal drink (which would simply be another ideology), but as something he actually drinks.2
This is an important distinction. Ronaldo is not posturing with an empty ideological statement in the way that Coke was by position its product as synonymous with elite athletes. Ronaldo was simply saying “Thank you, but I prefer to drink water.” At least in the way I interpreted his actions.
Thus, Ronaldo is not making a ‘dominating’ or ‘blind’ ideological statement, but one based on his actual embodied practice in a moment when he was hydrating post match.3
Discerning the ‘Ideological Rumblings’
It is too simplistic to say something is strictly ideological. Nothing is ever pure ideology. Often when something in our culture starts to take on an ideological timbre, it is based in very real needs and realities.
This is where understanding ideology in our culture gets tricky, and where Seliger’s definition becomes quite helpful in discerning the ‘ideological rumblings’ in our own neighborhoods, towns and cities.
“Ideological rumblings,” is my way of describing that mixed into every legitimate problem or concern there can be a “bubbling up” of some kind of ideology that wants to empty the real issue of its meaning and draw lines along which we take a stand.
As a pastor, I often need to meet real needs in my community, but I will also need to recognize when those needs are “rumbling” with ideological overtones that need to be separated from the real issues.
For instance, my own town has real challenges with funding for its public schools, yet the very real needs that require solutions, often get mixed with “us vs. them” rhetoric, or comments about new people moving into town that don’t appreciate our values (read: are more left-leaning politically, or are non-white).
“Outsiders” becomes ideological shorthand for where the problems lie for our town.
Now this is crucial to recognize: The financial challenge is real. New people with diverse perspectives and cultures moving here is real. People have fears about change and the unknown, this too is real. All of these are legitimate facts and realities.
Yet at the same time, peoples fears, apprehensions, or frustration get channeled in ideological ways where “outsiders” become a problem. These are the ideological rumblings which leave us feeling a little better about ourselves as we point fingers at what we perceive to be the “problems” but do not offer real relief for what ails us.
Pastors must not only care spiritually for the real concerns their congregants and the community present, but also learn to dismantle the ideological rumblings that we humans seek to cover our pain with.
It is not the time to shut the fears down, but to listen. To unpack. To process. To grieve.
When we can lay these rumblings out before Jesus, we can find healing, and a new way forward.
Jesus Among the Ideologies
I find Jesus’ meeting with the Samaritan woman helpful ground for sorting out the ideological rumblings of our day.
Here, a meeting between two ideological “differents” occurs: Jesus, a Jewish rabbi, and an unnamed Samaritan woman.
Two groups that were historically opposed to each other over issues of proper worship and cultural inclusion in the saving work of God.
The feud could easily be described as an ideological struggle, especially as Jewish leaders would use very choice phrases to diminish the value of Samaritan devotion to Yahweh by calling them “half-breeds.”
Coercive and dominative language such as this demonstrates Eagleton’s definition of “dominative” ideology in which the real practices of worship and devotion to God they were wrestling with, were often lost in the shuffle while drawing their ideological lines in the sand.
We see here something similar to Ronaldo and Coke or my own community in which I pastor. On the level of fact, we have two different theological positions on the proper location for worship: Jerusalem or Bethel.
Two people groups, both oppressed in different ways. Uncertain about their futures. Looking for hope in the midst of a hopeless world, and instead find themselves taking shots at each other, covering their pain with ideology, like Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves.
Jesus steps in to offer a way through.
We see, for example, the woman asking Jesus on which mountain should their worship take place (John 4:20). Notice in her words the ideological line attempting to be drawn in the sand: “You’re a prophet, is it ‘this’ or ‘that’?”
As a pastor, I find I am often asked this kind of question. “So you’re a pastor huh? So let me ask you something….” followed by their pet socio-political controversy they save for such moments.
These questions are less about seeking real understanding but about sorting people into categories and about keeping a sense of control where there is often real pain.
“Should I keep having a conversation with this guy or can I cut him off before I get hurt or disappointed?”
The same happens in reverse. Christians (especially in the evangelical world I come from) often want to know, are you for the “right” things? The things that “God wants?” (It is fascinating by the way how often the things that God wants line up neatly with that person’s own beliefs 100% of the time!)
We are often guilty of asking Jesus the same kinds of questions in order to justify ourselves and keep us from doing the deeper work of acknowledging our fear and pain.
Christians quickly ask of Jesus what this Samaritan woman did: “Which is it?” Quite often the answer is subtle and much less hard-lined than we would prefer it to be.
When Jesus answers the woman, he does not pit his Jewish position against the Samaritan woman. He does not draw a line in the sand. Instead, he elevates the conversation and disrupts her ideological rumblings.
“An hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father” (John 4:21).
Jesus stands amidst the ideologies of the world and isn’t going to bite. He will not allow hard lines to be drawn in the sand, but instead wants us to go deeper.
He sees that something greater is at work, something of God’s renewal work on the earth that is way bigger than the ideological back and forth they were experiencing.
It is worth noting that Jesus does not dismiss the conflict as some pure ideology that doesn’t matter. There are real facts tied to it that he names.
“You worship what you do not know,” he tells her. “We worship what we do know, because salvation is from the Jews.” (John 4:22). As with Coca-Cola’s paid place in the press conference or my own towns real challenges, there are real facts that must be named. We cannot avoid them.
But these facts do not lead Jesus to enter into dominative and coercive language with the woman. Instead he doubles down on getting to something deeper:
“But an hour is coming—and now is here—when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for indeed the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers.” (John 4:23).
I hesitate to say this is a third way, because it is still salvation from the Jews. But in the midst of salvation being from the Jews, Jesus opens the door to this woman’s salvation too. Jesus slowly and kindly unpacks this woman’s life with her until she and her entire village recognize him as the “Savior of the World” (John 4:42).
Instead of coercively moving this woman to recognize who he is, Jesus is present with her, listens to her, and invites her into a new way of living that discerns and disrupts the ideological rumblings with which she was previously equipped for navigating life.
We need to get to a deeper conversation that accesses peoples real fears, needs, and longings, acknowledging the pain and disappointment they’ve experienced before we can ever unpack the ideological rumblings they’ve tried to find refuge in.
It is a slow process that will require patience on our part and trust on the part of those we listen with but it is a process that Jesus demonstrates is possible.
Yet Jesus goes farther than simply offering a model for unraveling people’s lives. He gives us something more to drink than the ideologies we’ve grown accustomed to consuming.
Choosing Living Water
Let’s be honest, Coke and ideology both have a certain allure.
Coke has a sweet, if not fleeting, taste. But it is ultimately not satisfying. The sodium levels make you more thirsty as you drink it. You have to keep drinking it to try and quench the thirst, but it is never quite quenched.
Ideology, it would seem, has a similar effect. It is attractive. A certainty is embedded in the coercive language that pits us against them and helps us feel good about the lines we’ve drawn in the sand and keeps the pain and fears we have at bay.
Yet it does not satisfy.
One party becomes more deeply entrenched in its position, while the other is more deeply embedded in theirs. The cycle continues as they drink from the disembodied arguments that have shaped them all the while believing they are being refreshed.
If Ronaldo was less of an avid fitness fanatic, one might be able to criticize his stunt as ideological on some level. But Ronaldo was not going around declaring the evils of Coke, trying to get them removed from being a sponsor of major tournaments or trying to find out which athletes are “for” or “against” Coke. Rather, when faced with Coke, he simply chose water.
And his simple choice temporarily disrupted Coke’s marketshare!
Amid the ideological rumblings of their day, I do not believe it was a mistake that Jesus offered this woman Living Water. She came to draw water at the well, but certainly, like many of us, found herself drawing from the wells of the ideologies of her day.
Ideology promises that if we drink deeply, we will find life and that we will have a proper understanding of how the world works. This will in turn transform society and make us better for it. Yet its coercive and increasingly blinding nature only makes us more thirsty for something real.
Living Water, the work of the Spirit that Jesus offers, quenches our thirst for understanding and for renewal in society that the ideological rumblings we are offered never deliver.
It can be difficult to choose to drink from Living Water the way Ronaldo chose water. In doing so we have to live in a way that may rock the boat at times, even though we don’t live to rock the boat.
We simply live to be caught up in the flow of life-giving water that renews and refreshes.
We live to be caught up in how God is leading us to sit with others and slowly unpack the real facts that pain and scare them, and help them see hope in a new way.
Living Water is the only thing that can satisfy our thirst amidst the ideological rumblings of daily life.
May we choose the gift of Living Water for ourselves, drinking deeply from a well that never runs dry, never glosses over pain or fear, never coerces or dominates, and always invites us into fullness and refreshment for the sake of the world.
Terry Eagleton, Ideology: An Introduction, New and updated ed. (London: Verso, 2007), 48.
Coke as an illustration of the curious emptiness of ideology is utilized by the cultural commentator Slavoj Zizek and contextual theologian David Fitch. I’m following suit here in good company!
One could take this further by noting that Coke’s comments after the fact stated that players are also given water to drink and everyone can choose their own beverage of choice. All true statements, but the placement of the sugary drinks in front of Ronaldo only further implies they belong there (empty ideology) when, at least in Ronaldo’s case, they surely do not belong.
this article is excellent