Image via Wikipedia
Denver lost to New England yesterday, which is no surprise given that the Patriots are an excellent team. Yet when I read sports stories about the game, they focus on “a lack of Tim Tebow‘s heroics” as if a quarterback known for leading fourth quarter comebacks will be able to lead one every game. Even Joe Montana, who was one of the best quarterbacks ever, who (to my disappointment!) led the 49ers over the Bengals in the Super Bowl by a last minute drive, did not always succeed in a fourth quarter comeback. I do not remember the press complaining then. Why is there so much hostility, among members of the press and among some NFL players, to Tim Tebow?
Religion, specifically Tim Tebow’s open Evangelical Protestant faith, is the source of most of the hostility. Although many NFL players are public about their Christian faith, to American secular society Tebow seems, to the generally secularist media and to those NFL players who are either secularist or outside the Christian tradition, to take his faith too far. I have mentioned more than once on this blog the late Father Richard John Neuhaus‘s reference to the “naked public square” in which religion, specifically Christianity, is eliminated from American public discourse and relegated to a private realm. No scholar of religion in his right mind believes that religion is a private matter, since a religion scholar realizes the public implications of being religious. Only a fool can ignore thousands of years of history and his own common sense and say that “religion is just a private matter.” Even John Locke (1632-1704), the epitome of a Classical Liberal thinker, did not go that far.
Today those who relegate religion to the private sphere are usually hostile to religion in general. Ironically, they are not as hostile to Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam as they are to traditional Christianity, perhaps because of the strong influence of Christianity after the Second Great Awakening at the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth centuries, on American culture. This strong influence continued until around the mid-1960s and then slowly began to wane, especially among the intellectual classes and among other opinion leaders. Sportscasters in the past tended to be a bit more traditional than most other journalists, at least from my reading, but that is no longer the case.
Tim Tebow has violated the fundamental rule of secularists–he not only discusses his Christian faith openly, but he does it often. He may well connect his abilities to God–there is nothing wrong with that–if God created everything, all abilities are gifts, whether the gifts be carpentry skills, medical skills, teaching skills, or football skills. If Mr. Tebow said he has special favor from God for being religious, and therefore his team wins because of God, that would be going too far–but as far as I have heard he has not said those things. Too much has been read into his statements by the media and by some NFL players. Mr. Tebow has every right to express his Christian faith, just as other players have a right to express whatever their faith (or lack of faith) may be. To condemn Mr. Tebow for being so open about his Christianity is a form of unjust discrimination against expressions of Christian faith. It is wrong, and members of the media need to control their snide remarks concerning Mr. Tebow’s faith–or at least admit that they are editorial comments. I doubt that a Muslim, a Hindu, or an Orthodox Jew would get the same treatment from the media, even if a football player who adhered to these religions was open about his faith. I may be wrong on this point and am open to correction. From my impression, as American society continues to go the European route of secularization (as evidenced by a sharp drop in weekly church attendance in the last ten years), secularists are going all out to try to shame Christians to stop them, or at least slow them, from expressing their faith in public. It is sad that such hostility has now extended to sports journalism and to some of the players in the NFL.
Dec 19, 2011 @ 23:10:36
Thanks for sharing. God bless you. I wrote a piece on Tim a month ago: http://scottsholar.com/2011/11/18/not-ashamed-of-the-gospel/
Dec 21, 2011 @ 15:04:28
Scott, thanks for the link. I am finding that there are many Christians (and some non-Christians) who object to the way Mr. Tebow has been treated. All the best,
Michael
Confessions of a Tebow-er « My Takes
Dec 21, 2011 @ 11:46:22
Dec 21, 2011 @ 15:05:53
Thank you for the link–that is an excellent and thoughtful post. The press has gone overboard with Mr. Tebow, and I think that even some members of the press are beginning to understand this. All the best.
Michael
Jan 16, 2012 @ 21:23:09
If all Americans were Episcopalians then the reputation of Christianity would be very different in this country–at least based on my experience with that particular denomination. We don’t typically read about an Episcopal minister/priest condemning homosexuals and then getting caught with a male prostitute taking drugs. We don’t have prominent members of that denomination crying out for the assassination of Julian Assange or Bradley Manning or the President of Venezuela. No. They seem more like the Christians of a half century ago. But in recent decades Christianity’s reputation has suffered a real series of blows due to the often strange things its members have made public. For example, the Identity Christians considering the stoning of adulteresses a good idea. And then there seem to many who are prepared to treat Muslims as badly or worse than American Christians treated the Catholics in the 19th century. In the meantime many seem to believe killing any member of Islam an excellent idea. What much of the above has to do with Christianity may not be clear,but it certainly has not done much good for the religion.
If Mr. Tebow had consulted me I would have said the following: I myself belong to the actions speak louder than words tradition. If you talk about your faith it will only bring you troubles. If you act well and are a good person, your example will be worth a great deal with young people. After all talk is cheap; and least said, least mended.
Jan 16, 2012 @ 23:55:09
True, setting a good example is the best way to gain converts. But aren’t you poisoning the well by associating Mr. Tebow with the negative groups and people you mention? Are not your arguments setting up a straw man against traditional Christianity. I do not like some of the excesses of Fundamentalist Protestanism either, but that does not mean that all or most mainstream Evangelicals suffer from the same flaws. I do not like the warmongering of many Evangelicals, but that is mainly found among the Premillenialists, who do not know how to exegete Scripture properly. I am a conservative Christian who grew up in Churches of Christ, but am now in the Anglican Catholic Church. I, like all people, am flawed, and the ACC, like all churches, is flawed–such is the nature of any institution with human members. I could not personally be Episcopalian–I was in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) right after I left the Churches of Christ, and found that believing nothing does not give meaning to life.
Jan 17, 2012 @ 04:37:09
My point was that Christianity in America does not have a very good reputation these days. I was not identifying Tebow with bad Christians. He did that himself by using his public popularity to get into his religion. At that point association took place, and the many who are angry at Christianity for good as well as bad reasons reacted. I think you either missed my point or I did a poor job of making it. I will assume the latter as religion is a charged subject.
I am in contact with a wide range of people; and I find that in America now most of these people think Fundamentalist when the word Christian is mentioned. That’s a shame but as far as I can tell a fact.
If most proponents in America were men like C.S.Lewis then the attitude towards Christianity would of course be very different. When persons who are not highly skilled try to present this religion in a rather hostile environment they are surely asking for trouble. I have no idea what Tebow has said as I am not a football fan. I prefer baseball. I am sure he is a nice enough guy–but probably not an expert at public speaking and certainly not educated to be an apologist for Christianity.
I suppose my position in society exposes me far more than you to the really intense hostility many have to religion in general and Christianity in particular. The stories I have heard about parents using the religion in very unethical ways . . . some Catholic, some Protestant, some Fundamentalist . . . And many blame Christianity for the social ills of this country as well as for its foreign military adventures.
My own direct contact with Christianity did not leave scars or negative memories–thankfully. Still, I find Buddhism and certain sects of Hinduism more conducive to living life well. Perhaps in a more civilized country, and one with a real culture, I would be able to attend a church and feel good doing it. I am sure that Charles Williams, Lewis, etc. were good company. But the Inklings aren’t here and could not be.
I hope this clarifies. I am certainly not anti-Christian though I have my criticism of the way it is presented. And again I think modesty and inconspicuousness are key in this society when it comes to religion. Thanks also for your response.
Jan 22, 2012 @ 14:40:50
Thanks, John. There are a few intelligent apologists around–Peter Kreeft comes to mind, though he does not match Lewis or Tolkien, and I think Professor Kreeft himself would admit that. Kreeft does believe that Hindus and Buddhists have had real experiences with God, even if Buddhists do not understand their experience in terms of a deity–and in that respect Prof. Kreeft is surprisingly open for a very traditional Roman Catholic. You are right about the Inklings–there was enough residual Christian culture in the UK in the 1930s and 40s for such a group to thrive. Although N.T. Wright is quite good, he does not have the vast exposure to different fields of thought that Lewis and Tolkien had.
Jan 22, 2012 @ 21:18:31
Thanks for your several responses to my responses. Charles Williams (DESCENT OF THE DOVE & THE FIGURE OF BEATRICE) was another member of this group. I will take a look at Kreeft and Wright. Have you looked into Matthew Fox?
Jan 22, 2012 @ 21:25:06
I don’t know what to think of Matthew Fox. He seems to be a Thomist of sorts, though with a panentheistic bent. I appreciate his concern for the environment. As for his panentheism, as long as this is not taken to imply limitation on the deity it could, I think, be made compatible with orthodoxy. Fox, to me, is more like a contemporary version of Meister Eckhart–Eckhart considered himself to be a Thomist, though he seems to come close to pantheism in some of his works. I think his point was that since God’s causal power is required for any being other than himself to exist, one cannot think of finite beings without God, for without God they literally are nothing–which is quite orthodox.