Category Archives: Uncategorized

Unknown's avatar

Luther and Hero worship

by

Hope that everyone had a good Halloween/Reformation Day. We had some great opportunities to connect with neighbors and find out exactly where those folks we see walking actually live. Everyone was outside so that mad it quite easy.


October 31st, as most folks know, is also the day that that much of the Protestant Reformation got kick-started (however there were pre-cursors to Luther like Jan Huss who actually paid the ultimate sacrifice) and so many rightfully celebrated and still celebrate that fact. We should celebrate that God used folks to “just say no” (not sure that they used that Nancy Reagan-esque slogan though) to Rome and its corruption, and the need to Reform the Church. 


And we should not stop celebrating the fact that God used feeble folks-and still does fortunately-to do just that. In turn, we should also not forget that such men were feeble and probably do not want us putting them up on a pedestal. 


One of my favorite Shakespeare quotes comes from Marc Antony’s (the original, not the dude freshly divorced from J-Lo) soliloquy after some lads killed Julius Caesar: “the evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones…” In other words, people forget the good stuff you do, and remember the bad. We’ve all experienced that.


The bible has in essence one hero: Jesus. The rest of the characters aren’t heroes, and that’s why their flaws are presented to us. We do tend to moralize them. We do that with current “celebrity pastors” and speakers. And Reformed folks tend to that with Puritans and Reformers. 


Let me speak regarding the latter.


Martin Luther had a boldness few of us have ever seen. He had a love of Jesus many of us don’t regularly see. But he also, like the rest of us, had plenty of flaws. We do both Jesus and Luther a disservice-since he so well has pointed us to our need for Jesus lo these many years-when we ignore his flaws. 


Here are some things we can learn from the mistakes of Martin Luther from scholar Dr. Frank James,  formerly at R.T.S., but now with Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary.


1.) Demonizing. Luther was confident in the gospel, but he may have placed confidence in other areas so much so, that he demonized his opponents who were ultimately in the same fight with only subtle nuances. In fact he writes positively about Ulrich Zwingli’s death in battle, as though it were a just and good thing.


2.) Anti-Semitic. In Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies. We were read an excerpt in seminary. Pretty rough stuff. 


3) Unwillingness to recognize blind spots. There’s a reason that Lutherans don’t exactly hold to a Lutheran understanding of justification and pre-destination. Philip Melancthon was his golden boy, and didn’t hold Luther’s view on either. Unfortunately Luther failed to see it. As a result, at least in part,  Presbyterians, some Baptists, and several others take Luther’s theology more seriously than Lutherans. Kind of ironic. 


In the end, Luther was and is a saint like you and I. His theology, his life can teach us a lot. And we should learn all we can from this lad. But his theology at times, incorrectly applied or not applied in certain areas, can also teach us we too can be quite inconsistent in applying theology to our lives. The hero of the story is not us, not them, it’s Jesus. We can’t forget that. I can’t forget that, particularly with my pastoral idolatry. And Luther wouldn’t want us to forget that, I’m sure. 


We learned very little about John Calvin’s “dirt,” much to my dismay. So I’ve got nothing on him. But both he and Luther are now, not just declared righteous, they actually are righteous. So that’s why I think neither of them would be upset that I’m writing this. 


The good news is that God uses flawed people to build His Kingdom. So you’re in good company when you enlist-or rather “get drafted.”

Unknown's avatar

Yearly Halloween thoughts (amended)

by

Someone just asked me today if our church did some sort of Halloween alternative activity. I let him know that we don’t have a building, so that makes it harder (though not impossible by any means). But I also let him know that I didn’t feel there would have been that much interest anyway-as I perceive it.


As I’ve noticed over the years, Christians in different areas of the nation have different “taboo’s”: convictions that have been elevated so high that for many they are just understood. I really can’t figure it out, but I’m as intrigued as I’m perplexed about it.

I dropped Connar off to his pre-school today in his fireman costume. Most kids dressed up for this “Harvest Party.” They’ll get candy. Amy is going in today to do some pumpkin activity. This is a Baptist church. Another fairly, or very legalistic church in the valley where women have to wear dresses, say nothing against Halloween and has no Halloween alternative. It’s just not taboo in this area.

But in South Carolina, and in parts of Florida, scores of churches had Halloween alternatives. It was understood that Halloween celebration outside the church was not kosher. Or at least that’s the vibe I got.

Yet in FL, alcohol consumption in moderation is not taboo. But in my area, for many churches and Christian schools in the area, it is. Although somehow cigarettes and chewing tobacco for some reason isn’t…..Other areas Christians consider cussing as “a” or THE sign that you are an unbeliever, while in some parts, it can be appropriate in private conversation.

Christians should have convictions and not just respond as oysters (filter feeders who suck everything in) to the culture. If there are holidays or just any day, where they our communities say, “Let’s get naked and go to bath houses,” then stay home and keep the lights on. Early Christians were insulted because they didn’t go get naked with their neighbors. They really did get insulted for this.

However, we also shouldn’t simply respond to the “taboo” mentality of local or state “church culture.”And if you do choose to celebrate, and people think you’re wrong, it doesn’t matter. You don’t have to prove that “you’re right” and “they’re wrong.” I just preached on that yesterday. We often have opinions that we hold on too tightly, and by doing so, let real cultural values contrary to the gospel, quietly seep into the church. I wonder if Satan really does like Halloween as much as some folks say, but for different reasons: division, pride, and self-righteousness on BOTH SIDES of the issue.

I’m much more concerned about playing sports on Sundays, and how quickly people culturally cave to whatever the community event it is when it coincides with worship. 

If you choose to celebrate Halloween, and trick-or-treat with your kids, I’m pretty sure no one is going to come up to you and say, “Hey, you’re a pagan like me. Awesome, can we talk Druid stuff, or whatever the perceived origins (I stopped counting how many different “authorities” claimed THEY knew the true origin) and how we both are bringing mother nature, or Satan, or someone other than God glory tonight?” You can read about folks like that here. If they do, consider it a blessing to have the conversation and one that is pretty easy to steer that one toward Jesus.

If you do celebrate Halloween, and you haven’t yet-our area is incredibly unique (some neighborhoods have already had their trick-or-treat night)- here are some good ways to “bring Jesus” with you as you go to and fro. 

If you choose not to “celebrate” it, that’s fine too. You can still care about your neighbors, serve and bless them on other nights. In my opinion, you miss one opportunity; but it is not the ONLY opportunity.
Unknown's avatar

Gay, Proud, and Presbyterian

by
Last week or so, the Presbyterian denomination P.C.U.S.A., ordained the first openly gay minister. You can watch the interview here. Its pretty sad, because I have family members, in-laws, and friends in PCUSA churches as members and ministers. Those churches don’t feel this same way, but perhaps the day is coming when they must recognize that they can’t have real fellowship with those in their own denomination. Crazy.
If the bible is “silent” on homosexuality, on what issues is it “loud?” Or if there are different ways of interpreting the bible (called a “hermenuetic”), which allow us to pick and choose what we follow, then I’d keep the homosexual part in play but throw out the whole love your enemies part. That’s one I don’t like all that much. It’s hard. But I don’t get a vote, and I’m glad.
Anyhow, here are a few takes from this video
1.) What is Liberalism? A friend of mine, when being accused of being a “liberal,” was asked, “What is the difference between you and liberal mainline Christianity?” He answered, “I stand UNDER God’s Word as the final authority.” A typical liberal mainline minister will stand OVER God’s Word to critique it.
2.) At what point is a church no longer a church? The Reformers gave three marks of a church: Preaching of Word, Administration of Sacraments, and Church Discipline. When the word is preached in such a way that is not the final authority, then it would be tough to argue that is being preached at all. How many liberal churches are truly churches? I don’t know, but something to consider.
Of course in my denomination, we have to ask that question as well. Just because a group of people have a building, that says, “Church” on it, is that gathering legitimately a church? Is it a church when there are 6 people, 20 people? Is there a cut-off? Should we consider it a bible study that meets Sunday mornings? So we have that question as well, but it becomes more difficult when theological fidelity is present, and perhaps the Holy Spirit absent. Again I don’t have answers, but just want to point out that theological orthodoxy does not in and of itself make or maintain a church.
3.) Language games. It is not hard to say the correct theological terms and mean something completely different. A plethora of German scholars in the late 1700’s-1800’s had one foot in a “conservative camp” with their words, but in their meanings, they paved the way for a severe lingering suspicion of the scriptures. They would say things like, “Jesus is my Savior,” but mean that Jesus was important to them. You can also say things like “God’s Word is my authority, but I just don’t think the bible speaks against homosexuality.” Again, a language game.
4.) What’s the difference? When a church is so identifiable with the cultural stance or perhaps even a political one, can it then turn around and say anything true about the gospel or people’s need for it? How is it different than a social club worshiping a deity that it finds palatable? I’m actually kind of curious to visit such a church, but on the four Sundays I have off each year, I’d rather hear God’s Word preached faithfully.
5.) Many Christians literally struggle with same sex attraction. While some folks have pronounced victory in this fight, there are other Christians who affirm homosexual sex is contrary to God’s will, and as a result fight each day to live faithful to the Lord who has bought them with the price of His blood. This book, Washed and Waiting, is one of the best books I’ve read this year. In it you’ll hear of a normal dude struggling in this area, yet trusting in Christ to forgive and empower him. I felt for this brother in Christ. How must he feel when other “Christians” choose to ignore God’s commands and good design and profess to be saved by and follow the same Savior? And then celebrate their “victory.”
The evangelical church probably still has a ways to go. To condemn and affirm sin is one thing, but to not welcome, not affirm the dignity, to provide blanket assumptions for why folks are gay, and to not befriend and get to know other fellow sinners (but ones yet to experience grace) misses Jesus as well.

Unknown's avatar

The God who grieves

by

This is my final thought, for now, on God’s Sovereignty over all things, even our suffering. To say that God is Sovereign and plans all things to happen does not mean that he doesn’t also grieve for things He has ordained. Take Jesus, for instance. He doesn’t cry at his own death, but he cries over the death of his friend Lazarus (John 11). Now typically we use this verse to show the human nature of Jesus. But if we also get our Christology from Colossians (1:15-17), we understand that Jesus was involved in creating and is involved in sustaining the world. So the same person who created the world also cried at the experience of losing a loved one. The God who ordains all that comes to pass also grieved at what he ordained with Lazarus.


I was reading Psalm 116 today and heard the “voice of Jesus” in verse 15, “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.” He cares when people die even though He numbers their days (Psalm 139:16). He also doesn’t delight in the death of the wicked (Ezek 33:11). He cares. Even in martyrdom, we can’t say that God isn’t grieved. He hates sin and hates the affects of sin. That’s why He came to redeem not only people, but all things (Col 1). One day there will be no tears. And in that day, God will rejoice with us, just as in some way, he mourns with us even now.


If you want another example of how God can ordain something and yet grieve over that something, check out the cross. I know God ordained that cosmic display of justice, wrath, and infinite love; and I’m pretty sure God the Father was saddened by forsaking God the Son. 


The Christian can boast of a God who both ordains and grieves. I’m thankful for both.

Unknown's avatar

"Let Go, Let Man" isn’t good either

by

The downside of truly believing that God is Sovereign over everything, as the Psalmist purports in Psalm 135:6: “Whatever the LORD pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps,” is that you can become quite angry with God. I get that. That’s why most folks don’t want God to ever have ordained anything we would deem bad. And I do understand that. I really do. I just don’t get a vote.

The upside of believing that God isn’t in control of all things and does not ordain anything-or at least most things-is that you will, or should not, ever become angry with Him. For instance, when calamity strikes, it is merely the result of God letting people have their free wills. Since he doesn’t “step on any toes” in regard to free will, you as a result, don’t ever become angry at Him.

Now at first glance, that sounds pretty darn practical, doesn’t it? Rabbi Kushner reflecting on the death of his son When Bad Things Happen to Good People, concluded God is ultimately powerless to stop the evil. God had no part to play, so we can’t get mad at him. And I can see how that is comforting when confronted with a crisis such as that. For a time….Here are some thoughts on trading God’s Sovereignty for “Let Go, Let Man” viewpoint.

1.) Most of the Psalms involve a Psalmist crying out to God to do something. Do something in him. Do something in or with His situation and enemies. While Psalmists struggle with anger, doubts, and questions, they bring the aforementioned to God. He seems to be pretty cool with that kind of thing, you know? You take away the belief God is in control, you take away a pretty large book of the bible.

2.) The Psalms aren’t simply existential meanderings recorded to help us cope with tragedy. They point us to Christ and how to respond and pray for God to actually DO something (and trust Him b/c He has already DONE something in Jesus). A Sovereign God DOES. We need him to DO away with the presence of sin.

3.) If you trade Sovereignty for a “Let Go, Let Man,” attitude you really limit the scope of prayers. For instance, if you believe in complete autonomous free will, you really can’t pray for protection when you drive your car. There are millions of little decisions, distractions, that happen on the road, from singing to texting to the internal struggles of “I hate my boss” on the way to work or school. God can’t protect, because He’s got His hands tied with that whole, “I can’t interfere with their decisions” stuff. If someone is coming to hurt me, I want (or rather need) a God who can override their decisions. I need a God who can step on toes and shut their mouths, change their minds, etc…Don’t you?

Yet when people pray, they pray for judge’s decisions, for the salvation of their neighbor, for their kids to listen and be nice to their friends in school. I don’t know how prayers can truly be effectual without God’s ability to override individual autonomy. I really don’t.

While trading God’s Sovereignty over disasters may be comforting on the short end when tragedy strikes, there are practical long term issues that will keep you from finding comfort in the greatest good God our Father could give us: His Son Jesus.

None of this is intended to be counsel for those currently suffering. It’s only designed to build the framework and lay the foundation for responding to regular trials of which we shouldn’t be surprised (I Peter 4:12).

Unknown's avatar

The Calvinist "Likes-to-fight" guy

by

I find myself persuaded most by people who are gracious, gentle, and loving. I want to like what I would become if I believed more like them. I think most people are probably like that. When folks are angry because they feel they are divinely defending the truth (and sometimes a situation calls for righteous anger-I just think probably less than we think, though I can’t prove that) like a Martin Luther had to do, many either tune them out or choose the opposite side. The anger of the messenger stalls the propagation of the message. Now of course some folks like that angry-get-in-your-face-guy and they follow him. Then they become him. They become Calvinist “likes to fight guy.” Not good.


Unfortunately there are many “Calvinistic” folks who are just flat out angry at others. They defend their positions with as much vociferation and defiance as say a Martin Luther did, while claiming the same amount of scriptural clarity to the issue. While I’ll always hold to the “doctrines of grace” (part of Calvinistic understanding of salvation) because I believe it makes most scriptural sense to me and gives God the most glory (I think scriptures put that higher on God’s priority list than our autonomous choice), I never want to be an angry Calvinist drawing a sword to pridefully attack other legitimate branches of Christianity. 


There are too many such folks out there. Many are Presbyterians. But that’s why my seminary, R.T.S. coined the phrase “Winsomely Reformed.”It’s a nice way of saying, “There are too many jerks out there calling themselves Calvinists; the doctrines of grace should make people like you more, not less!” 


Here’s an interview exchange with Baptist church planting guru and Lifeway researcher Ed Stetzer (I don’t think he’s Calvinistic but does run in such “circles”) and Joe Horn on the problem of Angry “fake” Calvinists. Pretty cool.


You wonder if God would ever say, “You know more people would have believed the doctrines of grace if you weren’t such a jerk.” Now for a Calvinist this is clearly a hypothetical scenario only. Nevertheless, its probably a good exercise to think through while on Earth.


If you’ve run into angry Calvinists, and are turned off by them, then please realize that there are many not like that. If that term is something vilely offensive to you, then it might be worth re-examining some of the scriptures with a winsome Calvinist. Because people have the power to turn me off, even to things that I already like or promote, it’s very clear that the messenger of God’s grace has to be shaped by God’s grace before many will believe in such “doctrines of grace.” 


And if you find that it is scripture itself, and not just some angry Calvinists who are very hard to love, (nor YOUR notions of what God should be like), which prevents your from landing in this “camp,” then God bless you, and keep on keeping on. And reading on I hope! I’m glad and proud to call you brother or sister or father or mother in the faith. Hope the reverse is also true.



Unknown's avatar

"What’s love got to do with it?"-by Pat Robertson

by
You may have heard of Pat Robertson’s outlandish and ridiculously un-biblical comments stating that it was OK to divorce a spouse dying of Alzheimer’s Disease. If you haven’t, you can see them here.
I don’t think it takes a whole lot of biblical knowledge to know that this is not what God really says on the matter. Outside of sexual infidelity or abuse (some folks file this under “abandonment”), God just does not give us the green light (Matt 19; I Cor 7). 
Instead of refuting a ludicrous claim, I’ll just let this lad speak for me. Never heard of him, but he does a great job of graciously refuting Robertson’s claim and couches the “until death due us part” in the context of sacrificial covenantal love. 
But I do have one take on a question raised in this interview: whether or not “until death due us part” is actually in the bible. That specific wording is not, but that is irrelevant given the nature of covenantal love and vows.
We’re not to make ridiculous vows such as Judge Jepthah’s whopper, “The next thing who walks out of the house to greet me when I return from battle I will sacrifice (Judges 11).” Bad idea jeans. We’re also told it is better not to make a vow then to make a vow and not fulfill it (Eccl 5:5).
But when you do vow, and it’s not bad to vow-it can be part of your worship to God-you should take it seriously. God does.
Regardless whether or not some verbiage is in the bible, like “until death due us part” (it is nevertheless assumed in context of covenant and Ephesians 5), it is still a vow that needs to be honored.
I know most people don’t take their vows all that seriously, sometimes we see this in vows of church membership. But regardless, if you vow something before God, then you are accountable to that vow, regardless of whether you can find it in the bible. For instance, if I vowed, which I did, to make known any major changes in my theological convictions to the presbytery, then I’m responsible to do that. There is no verse needed to support that. I vowed it.
This is only really part of the issue, but I found it worth thinking about. The main part is the nature of covenantal love. What’s love got to do with it? Everything.
 
Unknown's avatar

Why it matters whose "work" it is

by
Philippians 2:12-13 is a solid passage. I hesitate to say, “favorite verse” or “favorite passage” anymore because that tends to not mean anything when so many verses are your “favorites” (not that YOU can’t say that!)
But I do like it. I like it a lot. I like it because it expresses the great Reformed truth of God’s Sovereignty alongside Human Responsibility. But I’m not the angry Reformed guy trying to convince everyone I come across of TULIP.
However, such great Reformed truths like this do have an affect. What you believe DOES affect how you live. That’s what I want to focus on this great truth now. Here’s the verse:
12″Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.“
Ultimately God calls us to follow Him, but you need to realize that He alone enables and empowers you to follow Him.
That sounds good, and it should sound good. After all, that is great news. I need to put myself in places/times where I can hear and reflect upon the gospel, but I can also relax and trust the changing part to God’s Spirit within me. 
Well how do you know that you actually believe that? I’m not saying how do you know if you’re a Christian, but how much do you actually believe that the work in you (even the desire to put yourself in places where you grow) actually belongs to the Spirit?
Here’s a good test: Look at how angry you get when others aren’t “working” like you are. For instance, the other day an older gentlemen told me how he had served his wife through a debilitating illness. And I saw it. Others did too. He loved her well, and modeled Christ’s love for her. But then he became angry and judgmental toward all others who did not love their wives as well as he did.
If your following Jesus is truly Jesus’ working in you, then you can’t be arrogant or angry at others lack of “work.” It makes no sense. In fact what it means is that we often believe the first part of the verse “work out your salvation” but not the latter. And the latter is really the gas which moves car, “for it is God who works in you to will and work according to His good pleasure.”
I could have used an example from my own life. But I used this example from another lad because the contrast was so strong. He loved his wife in a way that would put most husbands to shame, me included. But in his heart, he demonstrated that he believed it was “his work” instead of “His work.”
When you find yourself becoming angry or impatient at those Christians who just don’t seem to get it, who aren’t actively “working” and following Jesus in the way He’s called them, remember the latter part of this passage. You’re not believing that it is really His work. At least not that much. His work in us is as evident as it is humbling. The more we believe it is His work, the more patient and less angry we’ll be with others. 

Ouch, two things I really need to “work on.” Or rather have Him “work in.” I often don’t believe this truth like I purport to believe it.

Unknown's avatar

Room at the table for differing conversions

by
I heard a challenging sermon called “Paul’s Life and Ours” last week on a very familiar passage. In Galatians chapter 1, Paul defends his gospel as coming from Jesus himself.
“15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.”
Martin Ban from Christ Church Santa Fe called attention to the fact that there was a difference in the way some of the Galatians received the gospel (Jesus via preached word we assume) and the way Paul received the gospel (via personal encounter with Jesus). Part of their unwillingness to listen to Paul, perhaps came from this difference. Paul was a suspect since he didn’t receive the gospel the way they had (obviously some of them probably hadn’t at all). 
The Galatians needed to feel concern with the content of the gospel way before they needed to be concerned and question Paul’s experience. His application was that we need to be more tolerant in the experiential component or “the where,” (the “where” also includes the historical gospel story) when the content of the gospel is believed. 
Citing examples of Anne Lamott and his own experience of being a Christian while growing up Catholic, he challenged his congregation to not greet everyone who came to faith in a different way with a hermeneutic of suspicion. In other words, just because someone’s faith journey looks different than yours, that does not make it illegitimate. And you shouldn’t assume it is.
I came out of college ministry that tended to question the legitimacy of one’s salvation if he or she couldn’t produce an adequate time, date, or experience of conversion. I still struggle with being suspicious over crazy faith journey’s like the murderous “Son of Sam who has refused parole though I blame that on own tendency toward skepticism.
But the more I live, and the more I minister, the way Jesus “meets” people and brings them from death to life seems to be vary quite a bit. There is no cookie cutter experience.
Sometimes a person person might be involved in a bible study for a long period of time and eventually the light bulb clicks on and they “get the gospel.” More and more people today find themselves converted to the church before they are truly converted to Christ. After they see Christ’s community, and experience the gospel shared and lived out in community, they may embrace it without a conscious experience. This can happen in youth groups as well.
We pray that Connar never knows a time where he doesn’t trust Jesus as His Lord and Savior. Of course he will need to profess faith one day and say, “Yep, this Jesus, I rest in Him alone.” But I would be completely happy if he can’t remember a time when he didn’t know Jesus. He will have only Jesus to rest in, and not an experience.
And some kids do profess faith at a young age. I don’t think we should immediately be skeptical and withhold Communion or Baptism (if they haven’t received that sign) because we’re suspect of their experience. Provided they can profess a child like faith to the elders, I’m not sure that we should require much past that.
And I also pray for those consciously running from Christ either because of their morality or immorality, that they will turn to Jesus, rest in Him, and experience and display their faith. Their story and experience will look quite different than mine. And there’s plenty of room for all of us in the local church.
We should not expect the cookie cutter experience today because we don’t see that in scripture. Timothy came to faith as the gospel was passed down through his family (II Tim 1). Jesus’ disciples were just told to follow him and they did. Others came to faith by means of traveling Evangelists like Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:48), and some who never personally knew them (Colossians). The thief on the cross came to faith a bit of an unusual way (Luke 23:43) you could say.
The emphasis in scripture seems to be less on conversion experience, but instead on “knowing Christ,” and demonstrating faith NOW as opposed to proving you had faith THEN. 

Anyhow, I felt convicted of my suspicions. Provided the content of the gospel is there, and the person is walking with Jesus, but of course struggling like the rest of us, make sure you leave room at the table of fellowship.

Unknown's avatar

Is Media simply Anti-Tebow because they are Anti-Jesus?

by
Tebow is probably one of the more dichotomizing figures in professional sports. For a 2nd and now probably a 3rd string quarterback, no one draws this much attention. Perhaps its because he’s a former Heisman trophy winner, but there have obviously been plenty of Heisman trophy winning quarterbacks who have just fizzled out in the NFL without much noise. Ever heard of Gino Torretta? Is it because he’s such a unique player, with talent but bad form, and amazing ability to keep a play alive?
Or does he receive bad press and find people rooting against him simply because he is an outspoken Christian athlete? One lad believes such is true, and another responds to that complaint. Check it out here. It’s a thoughtful article.
But Tuesday, CBS Sports NFL analyst Randy Cross said that media like me are bashing Tebow simply because he’s openly Christian…..My personal belief is there are people in the media, people in the stands, who are predisposed to see a guy like that fail … just because he’s so public about the way he feels.”
Now I know Randy Cross personally. By personally I mean that I once saw him walking out of Perimeter church one Sunday as I was going in. So this is obviously getting personal. It gets even more personal because before one of Tebow’s bowl games, I was actually interviewed by Rick Montgomery from the Kansas City Star because my blog post related to a story he was working on about Tebow, Christianity, and sports.
Anyhow, I really appreciated Rick Reiley’s article here and actually end up siding more with him than my good friend, or passing acquaintance Randy Cross.
1.) First of all, Cross and all Christians can sometimes be paranoid jump the gun in “seeing” persecution. Sometimes Christians can see “persecution,” meaning that people don’t like them or root for them to succeed because of Jesus. Sometimes people don’t like them or want them to succeed, and it has nothing to do with Jesus. In fact it is because they are just not very likeable, or arrogant, or separatist. Of course Tebow is none of these things, but some folks like to play the “persecution” card when there really is no persecution. I don’t think every anti-Tebow thought is anti-Jesus. In fact many are not.
2.) Journalists are supposed to be unbiased. Any reader of this blog knows that I consider that task impossible. However, the good ones don’t let their bias control or dictate their writing. Reily has a track record of covering religious athletes. You can limit your bias and that’s his point.
I’ve criticized Tiger Woods enough for 10 men. He’s Buddhist. Am I anti-Buddhist?

Whose god Tim Tebow worships has zero to do with my criticism of him. It’s his business. Like I care. Tebow is about the 1,297th-most outwardly Christian athlete I’ve covered. He doesn’t stick his god down my throat. Doesn’t genuflect after touchdowns. 

And even if he did, it wouldn’t affect what I write about him. I’ve covered openly devout athletes for 33 years. Lord knows I’m used to it. 
3.) Look at the kind words Reiley has to say about Tebow.
Doesn’t answer every question with, “Well, first, let me thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ and, yes, I think I did pull my groin in the third quarter.”
Yes Christian athletes can say, “Our team played well or it didn’t play well,” just like you can say, “Thank you,” to a job well done at work.
4.) Reiley correctly blasts my good buddy Randy Cross for his duplicity.
In that case, what does that make Cross after he tweeted this about former New York Giants wide receiver and outwardly Christian David Tyree, after Tyree publicly raged against gay marriage:

Same sex marriage will create “anarchy”? Cross tweeted. Did some of the glue on Tyree’s helmet effect (sic) his brain function? Let’s stay in 21st century okay?
Tim Tebow has the same same-sex views on gay marriage as David Tyree.
5.) Some bad stats.
Look, roughly 85 percent of Americans are Christian. While that doesn’t necessarily mean that 85 percent of media members are Christian, chances are a vast majority are. So, why would all these Christians be so hell-bent on crucifying this kid for his Christianity? It’d be like Al Jazeera ripping Khadafi for being Muslim. 
Not sure where these stats came from. Certainly NOT Barna and his “ship is sinking” percentages he likes to throw our way that cause people to freak out. Obviously for Reily, “Christian” has become an adjective to describe a person who isn’t a Muslim. But even that stat seems high to me…..

6.) Is it possible some in the media probably don’t like Tebow or want him to succeed? Sure. Does it seep through in their journalism? Possibly. Some people don’t like that cat because he is an outspoken Christian. Its not too big a stretch to think that some bias does seep through their “pages.” I just don’t know if Cross is accurate in his complaint about “the media.” Even Tim Tebow bashers like Colin Cowherd like Tebow after having him on his show.