Tim Tebow and Christophobia
Oct 5, 2011
George Weigel
Editor’s Note: The First Things website does many things. We provide one and often two (and sometimes even three) new articles each day. Our First Thoughts blog engages current issues. You have access to many articles in the current issue of First Things. Our archive is filled with more than twenty years of great essays.
All of this costs money to produce, edit, and maintain, and unlike First Things magazine we receive no subscription income from you to underwrite the expense. So if you are a regular reader, please donate to our Fall campaign. It’s easy to do. Just click here to donate now.
_______
Two weeks into the NFL season, ESPN ran a Sunday morning special exploring why the third-string quarterback of the Denver Broncos, Tim Tebow, had become the most polarizing figure in American sports—more polarizing than trash-talking NBA behemoths; more polarizing than foul-mouthed Serena Williams; more polarizing than NFL all-stars who father numerous children by numerous women, all out of wedlock. Why does Tebow, and Tebow alone, arouse such passions? Why is Tebow the one whom “comedians” say they would like to shoot?
A hint: it has nothing to do with Tim Tebow’s prospects as a pro quarterback.
For readers who don’t follow the NFL, let me explain that Tim Tebow is a Heisman trophy winner who led the University of Florida to two mythical national collegiate championships. Many consider Tebow the greatest college football player ever, although there is a lot of skepticism about whether his skills will translate to the pro game. He is, by all accounts, a terrific teammate and a hard worker. Beyond these bare facts of his sporting life, however, lie the beginnings of an answer to the question of why so many people hate Tim Tebow with an irrational hatred.
Tebow is the son of an evangelical pastor and spends some of his vacation time working with his father’s mission in the Philippines. He famously wore eye-black with Bible verses inked on it in white during his Florida career, and he is not reluctant to share his Christian faith in other public ways. He visits sick kids in hospitals; he has said that he is a virgin who believes in saving himself for marriage; he and his mother taped a pro-life commercial that ran during the Super Bowl. There is not the slightest evidence that Tebow has ever forced himself and his convictions on his teammates or on an unsuspecting public.
And if Catholics would find his theology a little questionable at points, there is nothing of which I’m aware that would suggest that Tim Tebow wouldn’t be interested in sitting down and having a serious conversation with knowledgeable Catholics about how God saves those who will be saved. A guy who can command respect in the moral and cultural free-fire zone of an NFL locker room (not to mention the Southeastern Conference, which hardly resembles a network of Carthusian monasteries) is not likely to be shaken by a serious conversation about his understanding of how the Lord Jesus and his Father might effect the salvation of those who do not explicitly avow faith in the Lord Jesus and his Father.
No, Tim Tebow is a target of irrational hatred, not because he’s an iffy quarterback at the NFL level, or a creep personally, or an obnoxious, in-your-face, self-righteous proselytizer. He draws hatred because he is an unabashed Christian, whose calmness and decency in the face of his Christophobic detractors drives them crazy. Tim Tebow, in other words, is a prime example of why Christophobia—a neologism first coined by a world-class comparative constitutional law scholar, J.H.H. Weiler, himself an Orthodox Jew—is a serious cultural problem in these United States.
It is simply unimaginable that any prominent Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Sikh quarterback, should such a fantasy of anthropology exist, would be subjected to the vileness that is publicly dumped on Tim Tebow. Tolerance, that supreme virtue of the culture of radical relativism, does not extend to evangelical Christians, it seems. And if it does not extend to evangelicals who unapologetically proclaim their faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior and who live their commitment to the dignity of human life from conception and natural death, it will not extend to Catholics who make that same profession of faith and that same moral commitment. Whatever we think of Tim Tebow’s theology of salvation, Tim Tebow and serious Catholics are both fated to be targets of the Christophobes.
Wherever the Gospel is proclaimed with fervor, it draws opposition. The ultimate source of that opposition is the Evil One, but we know what his fate will be. What we don’t know is how democracy can survive widespread, radical Christophobia.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
10.5.2011 | 8:21am
Randy says:
If it's true (the Gospel message,) then a lot of people have to repent and change their behavior. That's hard. It's much easier to decide that this particular messenger is too flawed, or too stupid, and therefore we don't have to listen. When the perfect man shows up (again,) then maybe we'll listen. Until then, "hey Babe, what's happenin'?"
10.5.2011 | 8:40am
Joe DeVet says:
Weigel concludes with a question which is far more than an academic curiosity.
There is plenty of reason to doubt, it seems to me, whether democracy can survive a majority of, or the definitive power of a determined minority of, Christophobes.
Just as it is, in a thoroughly related way, not likely that a culture which routinely kills its children in the womb for the sake of convenience can long endure.
There is plenty of reason to doubt, it seems to me, whether democracy can survive a majority of, or the definitive power of a determined minority of, Christophobes.
Just as it is, in a thoroughly related way, not likely that a culture which routinely kills its children in the womb for the sake of convenience can long endure.
10.5.2011 | 9:16am
JimF says:
I don't wan't to be overly pedantic -- but I can't help myself. Florida's national championships aren't mythical.
From Wikipedia: " The American Football Coaches Association is contractually bound to vote the winner of this game as the BCS National Champion and the contract signed by each conference requires them to recognize the winner of the BCS National Championship game as the official and only Champion."
From Wikipedia: " The American Football Coaches Association is contractually bound to vote the winner of this game as the BCS National Champion and the contract signed by each conference requires them to recognize the winner of the BCS National Championship game as the official and only Champion."
10.5.2011 | 11:39am
David Nickol says:
I think Weigel is describing a real phenomenon, but it seems to me that what is called "Christophobia" resembles in a lot of ways the kind of contempt many conservatives have for outspoken liberals, and *especially* liberal celebrities. Many people (and they don't necessarily have to be conservatives) don't like actors or singers or sports figures pontificating on political or societal issues. They don't want to hear what Barbra Streisand or Susan Sarandon think about politics, and they might even scoff at Bono and other rock stars who are espousing undoubtedly worthy causes. So I am not sure how much "Christophobia" actually has to do with Christianity. If anyone hates the Jonas Brothers or Justin Bieber for their professed Christianity, I haven't heard of it.
I don't know enough about Tim Tebow to have a solid opinion about him, but based on the little I do know, I would not be utterly shocked if he turns out to be another, say, Father John Corapi. I am *not* saying I believe he is a fraud. But he would not be the first self-promoting "manly man for Jesus" who turned out to be a disappointment. (And I am not criticizing him for being self-promoting.)
I don't know enough about Tim Tebow to have a solid opinion about him, but based on the little I do know, I would not be utterly shocked if he turns out to be another, say, Father John Corapi. I am *not* saying I believe he is a fraud. But he would not be the first self-promoting "manly man for Jesus" who turned out to be a disappointment. (And I am not criticizing him for being self-promoting.)
10.5.2011 | 11:54am
MacGabhann says:
"What we don’t know is how democracy can survive widespread, radical Christophobia."
This is an odd conclusion that seems not to come from the drift of an article that nowhere else mentions democracy. I'd love to know why the writer thinks democracy is under threat from what he terms christophobia. Does he think belief in Christ synonymous with belief in democracy? Could he not just as easily hold that an entrenched democracy is precisely that which mediates christophobia? That the free expression of views, feelings and judgments is precisely what allows the absurd to be identified and pilloried so effectively? Foul mouthedness and sexual debasement may also be seen and understood for what they are, but they never make claim to moral seriousness. The trouble with a lot of Evangelicals is that their claim to moral seriousness is coupled with a tackiness and vacuous cheapening in the expression of the faith that most find ridiculous.
This is an odd conclusion that seems not to come from the drift of an article that nowhere else mentions democracy. I'd love to know why the writer thinks democracy is under threat from what he terms christophobia. Does he think belief in Christ synonymous with belief in democracy? Could he not just as easily hold that an entrenched democracy is precisely that which mediates christophobia? That the free expression of views, feelings and judgments is precisely what allows the absurd to be identified and pilloried so effectively? Foul mouthedness and sexual debasement may also be seen and understood for what they are, but they never make claim to moral seriousness. The trouble with a lot of Evangelicals is that their claim to moral seriousness is coupled with a tackiness and vacuous cheapening in the expression of the faith that most find ridiculous.
10.5.2011 | 12:03pm
jansci8 says:
... unfortunatly too many Evangelical Christians are not very Christian at all and indeed their fundamentalism proves that they mostly don't know anything about Christ. I think that is what at least most of the time causes such hostility ... I think most people see XC as a symbol of intolerance, arrogance and ignorance and indeed from what I see in the media I don't blame them ...
10.5.2011 | 12:09pm
DBP says:
Tim Tebow is the real deal. He is an exceptional athlete who is also a openly faithful Christian as well as a good, decent, well-mannered young man.
The constant critique from the national sports media is absolutely unprecedented for a second year, second string player. The fact that a regular gadfly commenter on this site would feel compelled to post that while he doesn't really know anything about Tebow, he wouldn't be surprised to find out that he's a high profile fraud, is simply another case in point.
There are many reasons why I am a proud to be an alumnus of the University of Florida. Tim Tebow is one of them. Would that all of our universities produce such men of character, conviction, and excellence.
The constant critique from the national sports media is absolutely unprecedented for a second year, second string player. The fact that a regular gadfly commenter on this site would feel compelled to post that while he doesn't really know anything about Tebow, he wouldn't be surprised to find out that he's a high profile fraud, is simply another case in point.
There are many reasons why I am a proud to be an alumnus of the University of Florida. Tim Tebow is one of them. Would that all of our universities produce such men of character, conviction, and excellence.
10.5.2011 | 12:11pm
EWH says:
The Media doesn't like Tebow for the reasons Weigel states, but the fans love him. His NFL jersey is a big time seller. The fans chanted his name when the starting quarterback for the Broncos was struggling, hoping to influence the coaching staff to promote Tebow. People like him because he is a winner, but in my experience, there are many who like him precisely for his outspoken Christianity. I think Tebow is a good case for demonstrating the disconnect between the media and "ordinary" Americans - the Media is Christophobic, but ordinary Americans are not so much. Having watched Tebow for several years, I believe he is the real deal and will not turn out to be a fraud. It is nice to have one of the "good guys" be so successful.
Roll Tide.
Roll Tide.
10.5.2011 | 12:36pm
SteveM says:
I wish Weigel would have pointed out some examples of this broad-based, irrational hatred of Tim Tebow. The Denver fans have a strong bias towards Tebow playing and like Tim Tebow as a person.
And I saw Tebow interviewed by the thoroughly sardonic Jon Stewart on his Daily Show and the Stewart - Tebow exchange was entertaining and respectful.
Sure, some people may hate Tebow because he's a Christian, but Weigel is suggesting a scale and scope of antipathy towards Tebow that is not apparent to me.
And I saw Tebow interviewed by the thoroughly sardonic Jon Stewart on his Daily Show and the Stewart - Tebow exchange was entertaining and respectful.
Sure, some people may hate Tebow because he's a Christian, but Weigel is suggesting a scale and scope of antipathy towards Tebow that is not apparent to me.
10.5.2011 | 12:51pm
Charles Lee says:
I'm a Denver resident and casual follower of the Broncos, in which organization Mr. Tebow is employed. I've scanned through hundreds of responses to scores of Tebow articles, in the sporting press, popular news, and more scholarly articles such as this. No doubt, Mr. Tebow is a nice young man as you suggest, whose name also happens to sell a lot of t-shirts bearing his name.
As I have noticed on other occasions, Mr. Weigel, you choose to see only one pole of the magnet. If you actually read a sizable sampling of responses, you will see the responses of your "Christophobic detractors" seem to be split about fifty-fifty with vicious rantings from the pro-Tebow crowd.
At one pole, yes, are people who imprecate the intrusion of evangelical Christianity into the realm of pro sports. However, don't be blind to the nauseating spectacle at the other pole, represented by self-identified Christians, so filled with hatred, so completely off-message from any ideal that Christ would actually recognize, that they become nothing more than a grotesque parody mewling from behind a shield with a cross on it.
If democracy is threatened, as you claim, by "Christophobic detractors", I think it is equally fair to wonder to what extent civilization is threatened by those who claim Christ's name and then confuse love with hatred.
As I have noticed on other occasions, Mr. Weigel, you choose to see only one pole of the magnet. If you actually read a sizable sampling of responses, you will see the responses of your "Christophobic detractors" seem to be split about fifty-fifty with vicious rantings from the pro-Tebow crowd.
At one pole, yes, are people who imprecate the intrusion of evangelical Christianity into the realm of pro sports. However, don't be blind to the nauseating spectacle at the other pole, represented by self-identified Christians, so filled with hatred, so completely off-message from any ideal that Christ would actually recognize, that they become nothing more than a grotesque parody mewling from behind a shield with a cross on it.
If democracy is threatened, as you claim, by "Christophobic detractors", I think it is equally fair to wonder to what extent civilization is threatened by those who claim Christ's name and then confuse love with hatred.
10.5.2011 | 1:10pm
Brian says:
What is really strange about the Tebow-hatred is that he's not actually one bit more open about his faith than many athletes. His contemporary college QB stars Sam Bradford and Colt McCoy are at least as explicit in their faith in post-game interviews, etc., and neither of them have ever received the hostility that Tebow gets. So what does account for the Tebow hate? I have no idea. It's extremely odd. Probably mostly the natural tendency to dislike the "over-dog", if you will, since he was the best and most popular player on a dominant team, but the anti-Christian aspect is pretty clear and disgusting.
10.5.2011 | 1:58pm
Steve Led says:
Interesting that Tim Tebow showed up last night on the Biggest loser as a representative of the NFL during "NFL Week" on the show despite his lack of play time.
The US is a faith-based nation and despite what the media says we do care about and appreciate the beliefs of others. When it's shown in the national spotlight - those who are against that person's faith cry out.
In response to Brian I believe this is because he is so charismatic and was so visible during his time at Florida... maybe even more so than those players. Bradford was knocked out of his senior year at OK so that could have had an impect as well.
The US is a faith-based nation and despite what the media says we do care about and appreciate the beliefs of others. When it's shown in the national spotlight - those who are against that person's faith cry out.
In response to Brian I believe this is because he is so charismatic and was so visible during his time at Florida... maybe even more so than those players. Bradford was knocked out of his senior year at OK so that could have had an impect as well.
10.5.2011 | 2:16pm
David Nickol says:
DBP,
You say: " . . . he wouldn't be surprised to find out that he's a high profile fraud . . . "
Please feel free to ignore all nuances. I said I wouldn't be "utterly shocked." I said, "I am *not* saying I believe he is a fraud. But he would not be the first self-promoting 'manly man for Jesus' who turned out to be a disappointment."
I doubt that Father Corapi himself was a "high profile fraud." I think he was someone who was largely sincere who got totally caught up in his own success and forgot that it wasn't all supposed to be about him. I think there is something about Tim Tebow that makes you wonder if he doesn't admire himself a bit too much. There's something that makes you wonder if his evident certainty isn't the certainty of faith rather than the certainty of someone who thinks he can't possibly be wrong like ordinary mortals. I do not for a minute think he is a fraud putting on an act. Who would go to such lengths?
I am not saying he should not publicly profess his faith, but one might also take this into account: “When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you."
You say: " . . . he wouldn't be surprised to find out that he's a high profile fraud . . . "
Please feel free to ignore all nuances. I said I wouldn't be "utterly shocked." I said, "I am *not* saying I believe he is a fraud. But he would not be the first self-promoting 'manly man for Jesus' who turned out to be a disappointment."
I doubt that Father Corapi himself was a "high profile fraud." I think he was someone who was largely sincere who got totally caught up in his own success and forgot that it wasn't all supposed to be about him. I think there is something about Tim Tebow that makes you wonder if he doesn't admire himself a bit too much. There's something that makes you wonder if his evident certainty isn't the certainty of faith rather than the certainty of someone who thinks he can't possibly be wrong like ordinary mortals. I do not for a minute think he is a fraud putting on an act. Who would go to such lengths?
I am not saying he should not publicly profess his faith, but one might also take this into account: “When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you."
10.5.2011 | 2:28pm
Mark Donovan says:
David N.,
Do have one iota of evidence for what you are speculating? If not, why would you write such things? You claim you are not saying Tim Tebow is a fraud, but then you continue by making veiled accusations that just he might be. That is simply not right, David.
Do have one iota of evidence for what you are speculating? If not, why would you write such things? You claim you are not saying Tim Tebow is a fraud, but then you continue by making veiled accusations that just he might be. That is simply not right, David.
10.5.2011 | 2:57pm
David Nickol says:
I think it is interesting to note that with all of the alleged "Christophobia" in the nation, there is only one self-professed atheist in the US Congress. I saw a claim somewhere that there were 27 "closet atheists." It would seem that this country is still religious enough so that not being a professing Christian or Jew seems to make it almost impossible to get elected to high office, or at least those running for office seem to think so.
I do not that in this time of time of alleged Christophobia, we have a Supreme Court made up of six Catholics and three Jews.
Weigel says: "Whatever we think of Tim Tebow’s theology of salvation, Tim Tebow and serious Catholics are both fated to be targets of the Christophobes."
Maybe Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Sonia Sotomayor are not "serious" Catholics.
I do not that in this time of time of alleged Christophobia, we have a Supreme Court made up of six Catholics and three Jews.
Weigel says: "Whatever we think of Tim Tebow’s theology of salvation, Tim Tebow and serious Catholics are both fated to be targets of the Christophobes."
Maybe Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Sonia Sotomayor are not "serious" Catholics.
10.5.2011 | 2:57pm
bierce says:
Mr. Weigel suggests "It is simply unimaginable that any prominent Jewish . . . quarterback, should such a fantasy of anthropology exist, would be subjected to the vileness that is publicly dumped on Tim Tebow."
Sid Luckman is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame while Benny Friedman is in the College Football Hall of Fame. Jay Fiedler and Sage Rosenfels played quarterback for the Miami Dolphins in the same year.
As Max Beerbohm observed, "All fantasy should have a solid base in reality."
Sid Luckman is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame while Benny Friedman is in the College Football Hall of Fame. Jay Fiedler and Sage Rosenfels played quarterback for the Miami Dolphins in the same year.
As Max Beerbohm observed, "All fantasy should have a solid base in reality."
10.5.2011 | 2:59pm
Corey says:
As usual, I am somewhat annoyed by the anti-evangelical bent of many of the comments here. All I'll say is, perhaps more Christophobic people would be annoyed by people who are publicly Catholic if there were any public figures who would deign to profess their Catholicism. I greatly admire the Catholic tradition of theology and its steadfastness in the face of a secular culture. However, I often wonder why I never seem to meet any Catholics who actually profess belief in Catholic Christianity, as Tim Tebow so freely does of his belief in Christ.
10.5.2011 | 4:15pm
DBP says:
"I think there is something about Tim Tebow that makes ME wonder if he doesn't admire himself a bit too much. There's something that makes ME wonder if his evident certainty isn't the certainty of faith rather than the certainty of someone who thinks he can't possibly be wrong like ordinary mortals."
I adjusted your quote to help you express yourself a little more clearly.
Your appeal to nuance is either a non-sequitor or simply shameless. You have demonstrated Weigel's point through a gratuitous implication (after admitting you don't know enough to have an opinion) that Tebow is a self-promoter who may well turn out to be a "disappointment." Why you thought this was necessary to bring up fits perfectly with why the ESPN talking heads have repeated gone out of their way to criticize the mechanics of the backup QB on a floundering, sub .500 franchise.
When people cross the street in order to kick a dog, it says nothing about the dog and much about the person.
I adjusted your quote to help you express yourself a little more clearly.
Your appeal to nuance is either a non-sequitor or simply shameless. You have demonstrated Weigel's point through a gratuitous implication (after admitting you don't know enough to have an opinion) that Tebow is a self-promoter who may well turn out to be a "disappointment." Why you thought this was necessary to bring up fits perfectly with why the ESPN talking heads have repeated gone out of their way to criticize the mechanics of the backup QB on a floundering, sub .500 franchise.
When people cross the street in order to kick a dog, it says nothing about the dog and much about the person.
10.5.2011 | 4:32pm
Nicholas Frankovich says:
bierce: The clause "should such a fantasy of anthropology exist" immediately follows "Sikh quarterback" and so should probably be construed as modifying that.
10.5.2011 | 4:42pm
Ed says:
Anthony Kennedy is not Catholic. He was excommunicated latae sententiae.
10.5.2011 | 4:50pm
astorian says:
I have long said that, when people like or dislike a politician, they usually have excellent reasons, but when they LOVE or LOATHE a politician, their reasons are usually wholly irrational. Well, the same is true of athletes.
It would be NICE to hear a devout Baptist in Florida says, "I love Tebow, I wish my daughter would marry Tebow, but he just doesn't seem to have NFL talent." Similarly, it would be nice to hear a militant atheist grumble, "I hate hearing all that God talk, but I'll tell you what, that kid can play for MY team any time."
Unfortunately, neither of those things seems to happen much. What people think of Tebow seems to depend heavily on what they think of his faith.
That means there are loads of people who HATE Tebow beyond all reason... but it also means there are millions of people who LOVE him beyond all reason.
Ideally, I'd like everyone to be a devout Catholic- but I've never chosen a dentist, a mechanic, a computer repairman or a barber based on his or her faith, and John Fox would be foolish to pick a starting quarterback based on faith.
It would be NICE to hear a devout Baptist in Florida says, "I love Tebow, I wish my daughter would marry Tebow, but he just doesn't seem to have NFL talent." Similarly, it would be nice to hear a militant atheist grumble, "I hate hearing all that God talk, but I'll tell you what, that kid can play for MY team any time."
Unfortunately, neither of those things seems to happen much. What people think of Tebow seems to depend heavily on what they think of his faith.
That means there are loads of people who HATE Tebow beyond all reason... but it also means there are millions of people who LOVE him beyond all reason.
Ideally, I'd like everyone to be a devout Catholic- but I've never chosen a dentist, a mechanic, a computer repairman or a barber based on his or her faith, and John Fox would be foolish to pick a starting quarterback based on faith.
10.5.2011 | 5:16pm
David Nickol says:
DBP,
You say, "When people cross the street in order to kick a dog, it says nothing about the dog and much about the person."
Ouch. I think I've just been kicked at least twice. Practice what you preach.
Do you think that Tim Tebow himself would respond to criticism with the kind of malice you display here on his behalf?
You say, "When people cross the street in order to kick a dog, it says nothing about the dog and much about the person."
Ouch. I think I've just been kicked at least twice. Practice what you preach.
Do you think that Tim Tebow himself would respond to criticism with the kind of malice you display here on his behalf?
10.5.2011 | 5:46pm
PeterG says:
Wow David Nickol! Are you paid to be a fly in the First Things ointment? Is there no post that you will not attempt to sour? Why not surprise everyone here by praising something, anything, once in a great while. I mean, why do post so often, and read so closely, a website that must cause you nothing but vexation?
Your first post is not the model of charity, to wit: “I don't know enough about Tim Tebow to have a solid opinion about him, but based on the little I do know, I would not be utterly shocked if he turns out to be another, say, Father John Corapi. I am *not* saying I believe he is a fraud. But he would not be the first self-promoting "manly man for Jesus" who turned out to be a disappointment. (And I am not criticizing him for being self-promoting.)”
So you don't have a solid opinion of him, and you don't criticize his self-promotion, yet you will not be *utterly* shocked if he turns out to be a fraud? Great. Thanks for sharing that observation with the world Mr Nickol! Hold on a minute, you later post that Tebow would do well to remember the words of Jesus, “When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites…” You are still not criticizing his self-promotion?
I guess you inspired me to join you in quoting scripture. I give you Ecclesiastes, in the good old KJV:
“Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour.”
Your first post is not the model of charity, to wit: “I don't know enough about Tim Tebow to have a solid opinion about him, but based on the little I do know, I would not be utterly shocked if he turns out to be another, say, Father John Corapi. I am *not* saying I believe he is a fraud. But he would not be the first self-promoting "manly man for Jesus" who turned out to be a disappointment. (And I am not criticizing him for being self-promoting.)”
So you don't have a solid opinion of him, and you don't criticize his self-promotion, yet you will not be *utterly* shocked if he turns out to be a fraud? Great. Thanks for sharing that observation with the world Mr Nickol! Hold on a minute, you later post that Tebow would do well to remember the words of Jesus, “When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites…” You are still not criticizing his self-promotion?
I guess you inspired me to join you in quoting scripture. I give you Ecclesiastes, in the good old KJV:
“Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour.”
10.5.2011 | 5:52pm
DBP says:
"Do you think that Tim Tebow himself would respond to criticism with the kind of malice you display here on his behalf?"
I have said nothing at all malicious and have merely, but repeatedly, pointed out your needless and uncharitable speculation on a person's character who, you admit, you don't know enough about to base an opinion.
And now you've accused me of malice. I'd appreciate either supporting this accusation with my own words or withdrawing it.
I have said nothing at all malicious and have merely, but repeatedly, pointed out your needless and uncharitable speculation on a person's character who, you admit, you don't know enough about to base an opinion.
And now you've accused me of malice. I'd appreciate either supporting this accusation with my own words or withdrawing it.
10.5.2011 | 6:03pm
SteveM says:
Re: astorian "That means there are loads of people who HATE Tebow beyond all reason... but it also means there are millions of people who LOVE him beyond all reason."
It's more complicated than that. If you follow football, it's the "Mamula Effect". Mike Mumala was a phenomenal athlete out of BC. Drafted high first round by the Eagles because they were mesmerized by his athleticism. Only he bombed out as a pro football player.
For better or worse, that's Tebow. Fans fixate on the Tim the athlete rather than Tim the football player. And in that context, like Mamula, Tebow will probably disappoint regardless of his and his fans religious sensibilities.
It's more complicated than that. If you follow football, it's the "Mamula Effect". Mike Mumala was a phenomenal athlete out of BC. Drafted high first round by the Eagles because they were mesmerized by his athleticism. Only he bombed out as a pro football player.
For better or worse, that's Tebow. Fans fixate on the Tim the athlete rather than Tim the football player. And in that context, like Mamula, Tebow will probably disappoint regardless of his and his fans religious sensibilities.
10.5.2011 | 6:06pm
David Nickol says:
Ed,
You say: "Anthony Kennedy is not Catholic. He was excommunicated latae sententiae."
First and foremost, an excommunicated Catholic remains a Catholic. Baptism into the Catholic Church cannot be revoked. There is no way a Catholic can be ejected from the Church. Excommunication from the Church is something like being temporarily exiled from one's country without losing citizenship.
Second, there are all kinds of conditions when it comes to latae sententiae excommunication. Committing an act for which latae sententiae excommunication is the penalty does not necessarily incur latae sententiae excommunication. The person must be fully aware of the penalty. A Catholic woman who procures an abortion, for example, but does not know the penalty is latae sententiae excommunication, is not excommunicated.
Third, unless you have extraordinary knowledge of Justice Kennedy's private life, you cannot know—even if he was at some point excommunicated—that he has not gone to confession and had the excommunication lifted.
You say: "Anthony Kennedy is not Catholic. He was excommunicated latae sententiae."
First and foremost, an excommunicated Catholic remains a Catholic. Baptism into the Catholic Church cannot be revoked. There is no way a Catholic can be ejected from the Church. Excommunication from the Church is something like being temporarily exiled from one's country without losing citizenship.
Second, there are all kinds of conditions when it comes to latae sententiae excommunication. Committing an act for which latae sententiae excommunication is the penalty does not necessarily incur latae sententiae excommunication. The person must be fully aware of the penalty. A Catholic woman who procures an abortion, for example, but does not know the penalty is latae sententiae excommunication, is not excommunicated.
Third, unless you have extraordinary knowledge of Justice Kennedy's private life, you cannot know—even if he was at some point excommunicated—that he has not gone to confession and had the excommunication lifted.
10.5.2011 | 6:31pm
Ed says:
Mr. Nickol, thank you for your response. You are, however, in serious error in all three of your points. Your first point simply is contrary to Canon Law. It is a position held by those who embrace the so-called "spirit of Vatican II", which does not exist, and in many cases fosters heresy. Your second point assumes Anthony Kennedy has the IQ of an imbecile. Many people who have worked at the Court believe Kennedy to be limited, but hardly an imbecile. Your third point is flatly contradicted by Kennedy's opinions. Kennedy is unrepentant; he is excommunicated and is not Catholic. He has separated himself from the Roman Church.
Best,
Ed
Best,
Ed
10.5.2011 | 6:31pm
astorian says:
Steve- you certainly have a point. But there have been MANY college quarterbacks who were great overall athletes but who just didn't have the arm strength or the height or the quickness to make it as NFL quarterback. Charlie Ward, Tony Rice, James Street, Tommy Frazier, Tee Martin, John Shaffer, Danny Wuerffel... all of those guys were top-notch athletes who won national championships in college. But NONE of them had what it takes to be stars (or even starters) in the NFL, and most of them were never even drafted.
Now, Danny Wuerffel's style of play certainly wasn't much like Tebow's, but the two men had a lot in common. They were both Heisman-winning, championship winning quarterbacks at the University of Florida, and they were both very vocal about their Christian faith.
But... when Wuerffel was picked up by the New Orleans Saints, did millions of people buy HIS jersey? No! When it came to Wuerffel, both devout Christians and militant atheists were rational and realistic! They all saw that Wuerffel was a nice kid and a great college quarterback, but probably not a guy with much of a future as a pro.
Christians didn't boo the Saints' other quarternbacks and demand that Mike Ditka make Wuerffel the full time starter. And atheists didn't bang on Wuerffel for his faith. EVERYONE, religious or not, was content to judge Wuerffel solely as an athelete.
Too many people seem incapable of doing that with Tim Tebow.
Now, Danny Wuerffel's style of play certainly wasn't much like Tebow's, but the two men had a lot in common. They were both Heisman-winning, championship winning quarterbacks at the University of Florida, and they were both very vocal about their Christian faith.
But... when Wuerffel was picked up by the New Orleans Saints, did millions of people buy HIS jersey? No! When it came to Wuerffel, both devout Christians and militant atheists were rational and realistic! They all saw that Wuerffel was a nice kid and a great college quarterback, but probably not a guy with much of a future as a pro.
Christians didn't boo the Saints' other quarternbacks and demand that Mike Ditka make Wuerffel the full time starter. And atheists didn't bang on Wuerffel for his faith. EVERYONE, religious or not, was content to judge Wuerffel solely as an athelete.
Too many people seem incapable of doing that with Tim Tebow.
10.5.2011 | 7:33pm
David Nickol says:
Mark Donovan,
You say: "Do have one iota of evidence for what you are speculating? If not, why would you write such things? You claim you are not saying Tim Tebow is a fraud, but then you continue by making veiled accusations that just he might be. That is simply not right, David."
I'll reply to you as a reply to everyone.
I try to write very carefully worded messages, but people don't seem to look for the nuances that are there. First my opening paragraph, the one beginning, "I think Weigel is describing a real phenomenon . . . . " has been totally ignored. The second paragraph was pretty much an afterthought.
The second paragraph begins, "I don't know enough about Tim Tebow to have a solid opinion about him . . . ." That, to my way of thinking, indicates that what I am about to say carries very little weight. I could have just said, "Based on what I know . . . " and left it at that. But I signaled that my knowledge was slight.
Then I said, "I would not be utterly shocked if he turns out to be another, say, Father John Corapi. I am *not* saying I believe he is a fraud." Now, a significant stumble on the part of many people would utterly shock me—the pope, for example, or people I frequently disagree with, like Archbishop Chaput, George Weigel himself, or Robert George. But Tim Tebow is idolized and seems almost too good to be true. As one of the commentators said in the ESPN piece, if he slips up, he is going to be hit hard. He's a good looking, young professional athlete whom I can only assume many women would aggressively pursue. How many people here are absolutely certain they would hold up as paragons of virtue in the world of big money and professional sports?
Then I said, "But he would not be the first self-promoting 'manly man for Jesus' who turned out to be a disappointment. (And I am not criticizing him for being self-promoting.)" I did not say "turned out to be a fraud." As I have stated quite explicitly, I don't think he is a fraud. I made a reference to Father Corapi, whom I don't believe turned out to be a fraud but rather stumbled and fell along the way. And it was such a big stumble for him, because so many people idolized him. I certainly would be utterly shocked (based on the little I know) to see Tim Tebow stumble as badly as Father Corapi. That was a very big fall.
I would not criticize Tim Tebow for being self-promoting because that is part and parcel of the job of a professional athlete like himself. Nike and Jockey don't sign endorsement deals with athletes who are shrinking violets. I don't think anyone can claim Tebow avoids the spotlight, but who would expect him to?
I find it extremely strange that people have reacted so strongly to the suggestion that a young, good looking professional football player that seems to be the epitome of evangelical Christian virtue might *possibly* turn out to disappoint those who idolize and idealize him. He's only human. Look at how admired Tiger Woods was and how badly he fell.
As for the Bible quote about praying in secret, I prefaced it by this, "I am not saying he should not publicly profess his faith . . . ." There is a real tension in the Gospels between the passage I quoted and this one: "You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house. Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father." I cited the other passage not, as I explicitly said, to say Tebow shouldn't be public about his faith, but to point out that there is more than one thing in the Gospels about public display of faith.
I do disagree with a lot of what I read here, but I am not sure why it is such a bad thing to read viewpoints I often disagree with. I often disagree with George Weigel, but in this case I said I think he pointed out a real phenomenon. I am just not sure he has fully explained it. I offered what I thought was some insight into the phenomenon, and it was totally ignored, as if I had said something significantly critical of Tim Tebow, which I think a careful and charitable reading of my messages demonstrates.
You say: "Do have one iota of evidence for what you are speculating? If not, why would you write such things? You claim you are not saying Tim Tebow is a fraud, but then you continue by making veiled accusations that just he might be. That is simply not right, David."
I'll reply to you as a reply to everyone.
I try to write very carefully worded messages, but people don't seem to look for the nuances that are there. First my opening paragraph, the one beginning, "I think Weigel is describing a real phenomenon . . . . " has been totally ignored. The second paragraph was pretty much an afterthought.
The second paragraph begins, "I don't know enough about Tim Tebow to have a solid opinion about him . . . ." That, to my way of thinking, indicates that what I am about to say carries very little weight. I could have just said, "Based on what I know . . . " and left it at that. But I signaled that my knowledge was slight.
Then I said, "I would not be utterly shocked if he turns out to be another, say, Father John Corapi. I am *not* saying I believe he is a fraud." Now, a significant stumble on the part of many people would utterly shock me—the pope, for example, or people I frequently disagree with, like Archbishop Chaput, George Weigel himself, or Robert George. But Tim Tebow is idolized and seems almost too good to be true. As one of the commentators said in the ESPN piece, if he slips up, he is going to be hit hard. He's a good looking, young professional athlete whom I can only assume many women would aggressively pursue. How many people here are absolutely certain they would hold up as paragons of virtue in the world of big money and professional sports?
Then I said, "But he would not be the first self-promoting 'manly man for Jesus' who turned out to be a disappointment. (And I am not criticizing him for being self-promoting.)" I did not say "turned out to be a fraud." As I have stated quite explicitly, I don't think he is a fraud. I made a reference to Father Corapi, whom I don't believe turned out to be a fraud but rather stumbled and fell along the way. And it was such a big stumble for him, because so many people idolized him. I certainly would be utterly shocked (based on the little I know) to see Tim Tebow stumble as badly as Father Corapi. That was a very big fall.
I would not criticize Tim Tebow for being self-promoting because that is part and parcel of the job of a professional athlete like himself. Nike and Jockey don't sign endorsement deals with athletes who are shrinking violets. I don't think anyone can claim Tebow avoids the spotlight, but who would expect him to?
I find it extremely strange that people have reacted so strongly to the suggestion that a young, good looking professional football player that seems to be the epitome of evangelical Christian virtue might *possibly* turn out to disappoint those who idolize and idealize him. He's only human. Look at how admired Tiger Woods was and how badly he fell.
As for the Bible quote about praying in secret, I prefaced it by this, "I am not saying he should not publicly profess his faith . . . ." There is a real tension in the Gospels between the passage I quoted and this one: "You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house. Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father." I cited the other passage not, as I explicitly said, to say Tebow shouldn't be public about his faith, but to point out that there is more than one thing in the Gospels about public display of faith.
I do disagree with a lot of what I read here, but I am not sure why it is such a bad thing to read viewpoints I often disagree with. I often disagree with George Weigel, but in this case I said I think he pointed out a real phenomenon. I am just not sure he has fully explained it. I offered what I thought was some insight into the phenomenon, and it was totally ignored, as if I had said something significantly critical of Tim Tebow, which I think a careful and charitable reading of my messages demonstrates.
10.5.2011 | 8:07pm
MARGARET says:
David Nickol, you forgot to speculate on whether Tim Tebow still beats his wife.
10.5.2011 | 9:11pm
David Nickol says:
Ed,
You say: "Your first point simply is contrary to Canon Law."
My first point was as follows: "First and foremost, an excommunicated Catholic remains a Catholic. Baptism into the Catholic Church cannot be revoked. There is no way a Catholic can be ejected from the Church. Excommunication from the Church is something like being temporarily exiled from one's country without losing citizenship. "
Let me give you a couple of sources, and if you still disagree, I will ask you to cite your own sources.
From New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green (Paulist Press, 2000)
**********
Once a Catholic by baptism or reception, one always remains a Catholic (semel catholicus, semper catholicus). Even those who have joned another religion, have become atheists or agnostics, or have been excommunicated remain Catholics. Excommunicates lose rights, such as the right to the sacraments, but they are still bound to the obligations of the law; their rights are restored when they are reconciled through the remission of the penalty.
**********
Note that they are "still bound to the obligations of the law." That includes attending Sunday Mass. Lest you think my sources are infected by the "Spirit of Vatican II," here is something from 1920. Penal Legislation In The New Code Of Canon Law: Liber V (Benziger Brothers, 1920) by H. A. Ayrinhac says on page 121:
**********
As a consequence, an excommunicated person should not consider himself free from the obligation of Sunday Mass.
**********
Those who are excommunicated are not only still Catholic, they are even obligated to attend Mass on Sundays.
As for an excommunicated priest, he remains both a Catholic and a priest. Here's an example:
**********
A priest who induces a woman to abort is automatically excommunicated and also irregular and impeded from exercising his ministry (Canons 1398, 1041.4; 1043). He cannot celebrate any sacraments nor himself receive sacramental absolution until the excommunication is formally lifted. If he were to continue to act as a priest, not only would the celebrations be sacrilegious, but the sacrament of penance and matrimony would also be invalid.
[However, someone writes to the author and raises a question about penance and matrimony, and the author revises his statement as follows:]
Therefore, according to the canons, especially 1336 §1.3 the priest's excommunication would not automatically render confessions and matrimonies he celebrated invalid. This would be especially true if they were received in good faith and in ignorance of the priest's situation.
**********
http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur326.htm
So not only does an excommunicated Catholic priest remain a Catholic, he still may validly (but not licitly) say Mass, baptize, hear confessions, and perform marriages.
You say: "Your first point simply is contrary to Canon Law."
My first point was as follows: "First and foremost, an excommunicated Catholic remains a Catholic. Baptism into the Catholic Church cannot be revoked. There is no way a Catholic can be ejected from the Church. Excommunication from the Church is something like being temporarily exiled from one's country without losing citizenship. "
Let me give you a couple of sources, and if you still disagree, I will ask you to cite your own sources.
From New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green (Paulist Press, 2000)
**********
Once a Catholic by baptism or reception, one always remains a Catholic (semel catholicus, semper catholicus). Even those who have joned another religion, have become atheists or agnostics, or have been excommunicated remain Catholics. Excommunicates lose rights, such as the right to the sacraments, but they are still bound to the obligations of the law; their rights are restored when they are reconciled through the remission of the penalty.
**********
Note that they are "still bound to the obligations of the law." That includes attending Sunday Mass. Lest you think my sources are infected by the "Spirit of Vatican II," here is something from 1920. Penal Legislation In The New Code Of Canon Law: Liber V (Benziger Brothers, 1920) by H. A. Ayrinhac says on page 121:
**********
As a consequence, an excommunicated person should not consider himself free from the obligation of Sunday Mass.
**********
Those who are excommunicated are not only still Catholic, they are even obligated to attend Mass on Sundays.
As for an excommunicated priest, he remains both a Catholic and a priest. Here's an example:
**********
A priest who induces a woman to abort is automatically excommunicated and also irregular and impeded from exercising his ministry (Canons 1398, 1041.4; 1043). He cannot celebrate any sacraments nor himself receive sacramental absolution until the excommunication is formally lifted. If he were to continue to act as a priest, not only would the celebrations be sacrilegious, but the sacrament of penance and matrimony would also be invalid.
[However, someone writes to the author and raises a question about penance and matrimony, and the author revises his statement as follows:]
Therefore, according to the canons, especially 1336 §1.3 the priest's excommunication would not automatically render confessions and matrimonies he celebrated invalid. This would be especially true if they were received in good faith and in ignorance of the priest's situation.
**********
http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur326.htm
So not only does an excommunicated Catholic priest remain a Catholic, he still may validly (but not licitly) say Mass, baptize, hear confessions, and perform marriages.
10.5.2011 | 9:28pm
Torqumada says:
David Nickol, you are wrong when you say that "Baptism into the Catholic Church cannot be revoked". ...........As one who was baptised as a child into the Catholic Church, but who has left it to be a member of the true Christian Church (the head of whom is Christ) I assure you I am no longer a member of your organization. I no longer belong to a denomination that makes up "dogma' as time passes. I no longer entrust biblicala interpretation to people, some of whom protect child molesters and allow them to molest more/other innocents.
10.5.2011 | 9:37pm
Hans Moleman says:
Tim Tebow is many things: a great athlete; an inspired leader; a believing Christian; and a good man. Whatever his level of play in the NFL, his mark has already been made.
Watching him play the game and lead his team was a transcendent experience. He and the team he led (with the gifted coach Urban Meyers) were always an inspiration to watch.
Jim F. somewhat misses the point about Florida's "mythical" national championships. They were mythical in the sense of being the stuff of legends. Legendary or magical might be better terms.
As for Christophobia, Weigel is entirely correct about its danger. We are clearly entering the late stages of civilizational collapse. For at least 2 centuries, the relativist attack on Judeo-Christian truths has been content to undermine the values while claiming to tolerate (or even represent) their source: Christianity.
But now all veils, pretences and facades are falling to the ground. The anti-Christians (and anti-Semites) are more open in their hatred than at any time since Nero and Diocletian.
Watching him play the game and lead his team was a transcendent experience. He and the team he led (with the gifted coach Urban Meyers) were always an inspiration to watch.
Jim F. somewhat misses the point about Florida's "mythical" national championships. They were mythical in the sense of being the stuff of legends. Legendary or magical might be better terms.
As for Christophobia, Weigel is entirely correct about its danger. We are clearly entering the late stages of civilizational collapse. For at least 2 centuries, the relativist attack on Judeo-Christian truths has been content to undermine the values while claiming to tolerate (or even represent) their source: Christianity.
But now all veils, pretences and facades are falling to the ground. The anti-Christians (and anti-Semites) are more open in their hatred than at any time since Nero and Diocletian.
10.6.2011 | 7:33am
DBP says:
Even a charitable reading of your nuanced and "carefully worded" post demonstrates Weigel's thesis well--that something about Tim Tebow elicits surprisingly and gratuitously critical responses from many.
I fully recognize that you never called him a fraud. You seem to have completely missed that any mention or suggestion of potential character flaws, disappointing future stumbles, or someone being too good to be true come first and directly from you.
Everything you've said applies to every Christian and every professional athlete in the spotlight--Christian or not. The fact that people routinely fail, fall, disappoint, and sin is likewise no surprise. The fact that you would needlessly bring up your relatively idle speculations about Tebow in response to an article pointing out the disproportionate and visceral reactions against this young man does not refute Weigel's point, it affirms it.
When one's "knowledge is slight" about someone, the charitable, careful, and even nuanced thing to do is refrain from public speculation concerning their integrity or future capacity for moral failure.
Just as the charitable, careful, and even nuanced thing to do--heck, the right thing to do--after accusing someone of malice is either to support that accusation or withdraw it.
I fully recognize that you never called him a fraud. You seem to have completely missed that any mention or suggestion of potential character flaws, disappointing future stumbles, or someone being too good to be true come first and directly from you.
Everything you've said applies to every Christian and every professional athlete in the spotlight--Christian or not. The fact that people routinely fail, fall, disappoint, and sin is likewise no surprise. The fact that you would needlessly bring up your relatively idle speculations about Tebow in response to an article pointing out the disproportionate and visceral reactions against this young man does not refute Weigel's point, it affirms it.
When one's "knowledge is slight" about someone, the charitable, careful, and even nuanced thing to do is refrain from public speculation concerning their integrity or future capacity for moral failure.
Just as the charitable, careful, and even nuanced thing to do--heck, the right thing to do--after accusing someone of malice is either to support that accusation or withdraw it.
10.6.2011 | 11:15am
PeterG says:
I don’t actually hold this to be true, but David Nickol is a mean-spirited leftist scribbler who is blinded by his own prejudice. Notice that I wrote this to demonstrate my carefully nuanced agreement with Mr. Nickol. If Mr. Nickol takes offence at this, I take more! Again I point out to everyone that I do not hold it to be true, and would never call Mr. Nickol a paid hack. You just need to read more carefully.
BTW Mr. Nickol, DPB has asked a legitimate question that should be answered. While you are at it, could you explain again how you were kicked twice?
BTW Mr. Nickol, DPB has asked a legitimate question that should be answered. While you are at it, could you explain again how you were kicked twice?
10.6.2011 | 11:27am
David Nickol says:
DBP,
You say: "Everything you've said applies to every Christian and every professional athlete in the spotlight--Christian or not."
I couldn't agree more. That is why I am surprised my remarks elicited such a negative response.
You say: "the disproportionate and visceral reactions against this young man does not refute Weigel's point, it affirms it . . . "
My initial post began, "I think Weigel is describing a real phenomenon . . . " If you watch the ESPN segment, there is no disputing that Tim Tebow is singled out by a lot of people for hatred. But this is true of Bono, in much the same way, and Bono is not a professed Christian. As i said, actors and musicians, particularly liberal ones, who take political stands (like Barbra Streisand or Susan Sarandon) are hated in much the same way. One person's heroic champion of certain values is another person's off-putting "do-gooder."
You say: "Just as the charitable, careful, and even nuanced thing to do--heck, the right thing to do--after accusing someone of malice is either to support that accusation or withdraw it."
I apologize. Do you think it would be incorrect for me to say my comments made you and some others angry or irritated or righteously indignant? Whichever, I shall try to avoid provoking that kind of response in the future.
You say: "Everything you've said applies to every Christian and every professional athlete in the spotlight--Christian or not."
I couldn't agree more. That is why I am surprised my remarks elicited such a negative response.
You say: "the disproportionate and visceral reactions against this young man does not refute Weigel's point, it affirms it . . . "
My initial post began, "I think Weigel is describing a real phenomenon . . . " If you watch the ESPN segment, there is no disputing that Tim Tebow is singled out by a lot of people for hatred. But this is true of Bono, in much the same way, and Bono is not a professed Christian. As i said, actors and musicians, particularly liberal ones, who take political stands (like Barbra Streisand or Susan Sarandon) are hated in much the same way. One person's heroic champion of certain values is another person's off-putting "do-gooder."
You say: "Just as the charitable, careful, and even nuanced thing to do--heck, the right thing to do--after accusing someone of malice is either to support that accusation or withdraw it."
I apologize. Do you think it would be incorrect for me to say my comments made you and some others angry or irritated or righteously indignant? Whichever, I shall try to avoid provoking that kind of response in the future.
10.6.2011 | 4:38pm
W. Tyndale says:
Why is it that we must interupt a conversaion about Tebow to discuss the complexities and equivocations of the midieval infallibities of canon law. I prefer a belief system that is so simple, all you need to know can be explained on a pair of eye-black strips.
Sola Scriptura
Sola Scriptura
10.6.2011 | 5:13pm
Nick says:
"He draws hatred because he is an unabashed Christian, whose calmness and decency in the face of his Christophobic detractors drives them crazy."
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
Over 78% of the American public self-identifies as being Christian, yet you argue that hatred of Christians is so prevalent that it results in Tim Tebow being the most polarizing figure in sports, caused by "widespread, radical Christophobia."
Obviously, regardless of how 'widespread' or 'radical' Christophobia is, it has at best a very diluted effect in a population where practically 4/5ths of the population is Christian.
The real problem is that most Christians (aka, including the 'unserious' Catholics, apparently), don't subscribe to the hateful version of Christianity that is adhered to by right wing Christians.
The other Christians, the majority of them, believe in the primacy of the message in the Sermon on the Mount, wherein Christ talked a lot about brotherly love, being meek, helping the poor, and nothing about abortion, invading Iraq (or other nations), and keeping tax rates low.
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
Over 78% of the American public self-identifies as being Christian, yet you argue that hatred of Christians is so prevalent that it results in Tim Tebow being the most polarizing figure in sports, caused by "widespread, radical Christophobia."
Obviously, regardless of how 'widespread' or 'radical' Christophobia is, it has at best a very diluted effect in a population where practically 4/5ths of the population is Christian.
The real problem is that most Christians (aka, including the 'unserious' Catholics, apparently), don't subscribe to the hateful version of Christianity that is adhered to by right wing Christians.
The other Christians, the majority of them, believe in the primacy of the message in the Sermon on the Mount, wherein Christ talked a lot about brotherly love, being meek, helping the poor, and nothing about abortion, invading Iraq (or other nations), and keeping tax rates low.
10.6.2011 | 5:30pm
andrew says:
i, for one, genuinely appreciate reading david nickol's comments. i hope he keeps writing. even so, peterg's parody is absolutely hilarious.
10.6.2011 | 6:40pm
David Nickol says:
andrew,
The subversive, secular, liberal organization that hired me as a hack writer to hijack threads on this site believes that if I can reach just one reader, it is worth the big bucks they pay me. Thank you.
The subversive, secular, liberal organization that hired me as a hack writer to hijack threads on this site believes that if I can reach just one reader, it is worth the big bucks they pay me. Thank you.
10.6.2011 | 6:48pm
David Nickol says:
Ed,
If you are still reading . . .
Regarding excommunication, John V in a thread over in First Thoughts was kind enough to supply this information, which comes from an interview of canon lawyer Ed Peters at Ignatius Insight.
**********
IgnatiusInsight.com: And the most common misperceptions?
Peters: I’d say there are two, maybe three.
First, there is the idea that excommunication kicks one out of the Church. That is not right. There are ways to cancel one’s Church membership, but excommunication isn’t one of them. The analogy I use to explain it is that of a felon serving a long prison term; he’s in prison, but he remains a citizen bound by the laws of his country. If he, say, owns property upon which he incurs taxes while in prison, he still owns the property and is still liable for the tax from prison; if he commits a crime in prison, he can be prosecuted for it, and so on. A felon loses certain important rights, obviously, like freedom of movement and the right to vote, but he is still a citizen. Similarly, an excommunicated person is still a member of the Church, but he or she has lost certain key rights attached to Church membership and is cut off from many of the activities and benefits of the Church.
**********
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/edpeters_excommun_nov06.asp
If you are still reading . . .
Regarding excommunication, John V in a thread over in First Thoughts was kind enough to supply this information, which comes from an interview of canon lawyer Ed Peters at Ignatius Insight.
**********
IgnatiusInsight.com: And the most common misperceptions?
Peters: I’d say there are two, maybe three.
First, there is the idea that excommunication kicks one out of the Church. That is not right. There are ways to cancel one’s Church membership, but excommunication isn’t one of them. The analogy I use to explain it is that of a felon serving a long prison term; he’s in prison, but he remains a citizen bound by the laws of his country. If he, say, owns property upon which he incurs taxes while in prison, he still owns the property and is still liable for the tax from prison; if he commits a crime in prison, he can be prosecuted for it, and so on. A felon loses certain important rights, obviously, like freedom of movement and the right to vote, but he is still a citizen. Similarly, an excommunicated person is still a member of the Church, but he or she has lost certain key rights attached to Church membership and is cut off from many of the activities and benefits of the Church.
**********
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/edpeters_excommun_nov06.asp
10.7.2011 | 11:00am
Mary says:
I think Tim Tebow is polarizing because the glory of Tebow was shoved down the throats of anyone who even paused to watch a moment of college football during the years he led Florida. It had little to do with Tebow himself, and everything to do with the media. In fact, I once hear a commentator say that Colt McCoy went on a summer mission trip because Tebow did that, basically implying that McCoy was trying to be more like Tebow. McCoy responded that he had been going on mission trips with his family for years. I think the negative reponse to Tebow has less to do with his Christianity than the fact that the media has basically ordered us to love him. The negative press he's gotten for being Christian and pro-life is not nearly as bad, frankly, as it could have been.
10.7.2011 | 12:25pm
Nick says:
Mary said:
"I think the negative reponse to Tebow has less to do with his Christianity than the fact that the media has basically ordered us to love him."
Mary, apparently you don't understand--the media, according to Mr. Weigel, is CHRISTOPHOBIC, and is largely responsible for the hatred toward Mr. Tebow.
"I think the negative reponse to Tebow has less to do with his Christianity than the fact that the media has basically ordered us to love him."
Mary, apparently you don't understand--the media, according to Mr. Weigel, is CHRISTOPHOBIC, and is largely responsible for the hatred toward Mr. Tebow.
10.7.2011 | 4:15pm
Ysais Martinez says:
I am a very conservative Catholic who happens to ADMIRE to my deepest core Tim Tebow. Leaving theological non sense a side, Timmy is just amazing. You are right Mr Weigel, his detractors are going insane because he does not lower himself to the level of the chimpanzees bashing him. I love it how Timmy drives them insane. They want him to respond to their hatred but he just keeps offering the other cheek. If Timmy was a black, Muslim, homosexual, they would be sensitive to him and his game flaws, but because he is a white Christian heterosexual, he is an easy target of scumbags like John Oliver or some other unknown comedian that uttering the name Tebow, is the only chance he ever has of being known. Forgive my passion in this comment, I am not as humble as Timmy is.
10.8.2011 | 1:18pm
Ysais Martinez says:
Mary, you are implying that Tebow is just a show and no substance? Are you kidding me? During Tebow's years of glory in Florida, I dated a young woman that attended UF and got us tickets to watch him play almost every two weeks. Around campus, in my opinion, 7 or 8 women out of 10 would have slept with Tebow had Tebow asked. But EVERYONE, ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE knew that Tebow walked the talk. Can you imagine a young man on a campus full of gorgeous women who love him and he still walked the talk? So basically he rejected easy money, skirts, and parties while in college, and all in the name of the Lord. I may have theological differences with him, but the man is admirable. During a championship game Timmy's verse on his blackeye was Google searched 98 million times. That is power you cannot buy, can you? And if Timmy is controversial, Why isn't Lady Gaga controversial?
10.12.2011 | 10:52pm
Smith says:
Ysais, I think you may have inadvertently proven Mary’s point. Nowhere in her post did she say anything negative about Tim Tebow. But because she did not explicitly praise Tebow’s admittedly many fine virtues, you feel compelled to jump down her throat. It is impossible to have a neutral opinion of Tebow (or an opinion based solely on his abilities as a football player) because his supporters won’t allow it. A person must share their opinion, or that person supports immorality. Worse still, his supporters feel the need to build him up at the expense of other people. In order to extol Tebow’s virtues, you feel compelled to impugn the morality of 70 to 80% of the female population of the University of Florida based on nothing more than your opinion. That’s disappointing in any circumstance.
The examples of bigotry Mr. Weigel provides are inspired in part (but certainly not entirely) by the fawning praise he received during his collegiate career. Verne Lundquist and Gary Danielson are excellent football commentators, but listening to them call Florida games became nearly unbearable as they spoke of him more like a beloved grandson than a football player. Again and again viewers were told what a great human being Tebow was. This may be true, but it grates after a while, especially if you’re not a Gator fan. The worst example of the football media demanding that we love Tebow came in the 2009 BCS National Championship Game. I watched the game with a group of Oklahoma fans (a mix of Catholics and Protestants of various denominations), most of whom were either indifferent or favorably disposed to Tebow before the game. By the end of the game, they despised Tebow and wanted to whip the remote through the television set. The reason was not due to the score; it was the result of Thom Brennaman’s hagiography of Tebow during the game. Brennaman did not limit himself to praising Tebow’s abilities on the field, but instead spent a good deal of the night telling viewers that Tebow was actually a better class of human being. Hearing Brennaman say things like “Spending an hour with Tim Tebow will make you a better person,” and “That’s probably the first wrong thing Tim Tebow has done in his life” (after Tebow had been flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct for taunting OU players late in the game) infuriated the OU fans and made sure they would not root for him in the future. Brennamen’s hosannas were so gratuitous, that on some message boards, Florida fans actually took the rare step of apologizing to OU fans. This is obviously only anecdotal evidence, but it does explain some of the backlash toward Tebow without invoking culture wars.
The problem is not Tim Tebow. He is no doubt a fine Christian who strives to live a holy and devout life (though his dad’s estimation that 75% of Filipinos have never heard the Gospel in a country that is 80% Catholic is a little dodgy). The problem is media, supporters, and detractors that won’t let the rest of us make up our minds.
The examples of bigotry Mr. Weigel provides are inspired in part (but certainly not entirely) by the fawning praise he received during his collegiate career. Verne Lundquist and Gary Danielson are excellent football commentators, but listening to them call Florida games became nearly unbearable as they spoke of him more like a beloved grandson than a football player. Again and again viewers were told what a great human being Tebow was. This may be true, but it grates after a while, especially if you’re not a Gator fan. The worst example of the football media demanding that we love Tebow came in the 2009 BCS National Championship Game. I watched the game with a group of Oklahoma fans (a mix of Catholics and Protestants of various denominations), most of whom were either indifferent or favorably disposed to Tebow before the game. By the end of the game, they despised Tebow and wanted to whip the remote through the television set. The reason was not due to the score; it was the result of Thom Brennaman’s hagiography of Tebow during the game. Brennaman did not limit himself to praising Tebow’s abilities on the field, but instead spent a good deal of the night telling viewers that Tebow was actually a better class of human being. Hearing Brennaman say things like “Spending an hour with Tim Tebow will make you a better person,” and “That’s probably the first wrong thing Tim Tebow has done in his life” (after Tebow had been flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct for taunting OU players late in the game) infuriated the OU fans and made sure they would not root for him in the future. Brennamen’s hosannas were so gratuitous, that on some message boards, Florida fans actually took the rare step of apologizing to OU fans. This is obviously only anecdotal evidence, but it does explain some of the backlash toward Tebow without invoking culture wars.
The problem is not Tim Tebow. He is no doubt a fine Christian who strives to live a holy and devout life (though his dad’s estimation that 75% of Filipinos have never heard the Gospel in a country that is 80% Catholic is a little dodgy). The problem is media, supporters, and detractors that won’t let the rest of us make up our minds.
10.25.2011 | 11:31am
Donna Hogue says:
The University of Florida did not produce Tim Tebow, Jesus Christ did. Tim Tebow is a man surrendered to the Lord Jesus Christ, it doesn't make him perfect. He is a flawed human being who is walking with God by faith in Jesus Christ and it is his duty to share that faith with whomever and wherever the opportunity lends itself. He is a disciple and as Christians our command from the Lord Jesus Christ is to go and make disciples.
This country is uncomfortable around Christians because as the Bible states darkness and light have no fellowship whatsoever. Men love darkness because their deeds are evil.
Tim Tebow will make some mistakes and God Bless Him because he is in the public spotlight, they will be glaringly public. I would not want my life under the constant microscope under which he finds his. I am a sinner, saved by God's grace, fully relying upon His mercies which are new every morning. Tim Tebow is doing the same. Christ was crucified and He was completely sinless, who is to say that we should think that any less would happen to His disciples?
This country is uncomfortable around Christians because as the Bible states darkness and light have no fellowship whatsoever. Men love darkness because their deeds are evil.
Tim Tebow will make some mistakes and God Bless Him because he is in the public spotlight, they will be glaringly public. I would not want my life under the constant microscope under which he finds his. I am a sinner, saved by God's grace, fully relying upon His mercies which are new every morning. Tim Tebow is doing the same. Christ was crucified and He was completely sinless, who is to say that we should think that any less would happen to His disciples?
10.25.2011 | 12:21pm
JimQ says:
I just happened upon this article and comments via a regular read of mine and I am saddened to see that so many of the comments that appear to be from Christians are filled with anger and hate toward other Christians!
God is pleased when brothers live in unity and too many of the comments here give reason why non-Christians see Christians as petty and hypocritical. If I did not look to Christ alone, I would doubt His value to anyone if they can be so critical of others.
God is pleased when brothers live in unity and too many of the comments here give reason why non-Christians see Christians as petty and hypocritical. If I did not look to Christ alone, I would doubt His value to anyone if they can be so critical of others.
10.25.2011 | 3:01pm
Jared says:
Some of you mentioned that you would like more examples of the prejudice against Tim Tebow because of his faith. Here is a link to a short piece that ESPN's Outside the Lines did last month that is extremely well done and informative about the debate concerning the QB.
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6975407
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6975407
11.14.2012 | 12:55pm
Jeanette says:
The disciples were evangelical Christians and the pharisee's hated them for their openness.....anyone make a connection here?
