1December2011

Christian Witness in the Public Arena: Tebow v. Warner

Written By robfaircloth

Much has been made — in both the secular and religious media — about Tim Tebow’s Christian witness as a professional football player.

Tebow is certainly not the first professing Christian to play pro ball, but much more attention is being paid to him. Other Christian pro football players — such as Kurt Warner — have commented on whether Tebow’s method of acknowledging his faith is appropriate, or the most effective way to teach others about Christ.

Since the time he first came to national attention as a Florida Gator, Tebow has certainly acknowledged his faith — promoted it, even — in various ways: Bible verses etched into his eye black; fingers raised heavenward after big plays; and announcing his thanks to Jesus Christ in post-game pressers.

I do not know how Tim Tebow behaves outside confines of the football field or away from the glare of the Kleig lights, so I am making no statement about the sincerity of his profession: I have no reason to doubt it. The question is whether — as Warner suggests — Tebow’s method is the most conducive to witnessing Christ. Warner has said, in effect, that Tebow should “tone it down” in public and allow his exemplary life to form his public testimony.

One concern intimated by Warner’s comments is just how common such “public professions” are: how many movie stars feign thanks to Jesus at the Oscars podium and live like the Devil at the after-party?

There is a sense in which the circumstance of Tebow’s public forum limits his proclamation simply to his identification with Christ. Brief television coverage of his on-field acknowledgements — whether scripture references or gesticulation — and limited time before the cameras after a game by nature prevent a thorough statement of the gospel. These “sound bite opportunities” provide little means of explaining man’s need and God’s provision. They, do, obviously, serve to confirm that Tebow publicly identifies with Christ.

Which is, to be sure, much more than other professing Christians seem willing to do.

Yet is this method counter-productive? And, even if Tebow were able to work in to a public sound bite a minimalist expression of the biblical gospel, such as Creation/Fall/Redemption, should he?

Before we too quickly jump to should a resounding “Yes!”, consider the implications. What about the Christian television or movie actor who receives an award? The Christian country music singer who performs a concert? The Christian district attorney being interviewed about a high-profile case? The congressman giving a press conference about an important bill?

It might, all things considered, be prudent to take such opportunities to speak truth to large, perhaps even national or worldwide audiences. Such things should be left to the conscience of each believe and how the Holy Spirit leads him.

The point that believers should consider — and I think that Kurt Warner might have been making — is that it is problematic to proclaim “Repent and believe the gospel!” amidst the hoopla and fanfare of winning a professional football game. If believers in public positions, such as Tim Tebow is, choose to speak about their faith in such situations, what sort of statement is appropriate and faithful to the biblical gospel?

1December2011

Public accusations and Christian charity

Written By robfaircloth

There is little doubt that the Herman Cain campaign has poorly handled the various accusations leveled against him. See Al Mohler’s article for details of the most recent ineptitude.

Further investigation of Cain’s accusers by alternative media raises legitimate questions about their veracity. Aside from the effects that such charges have on Cain’s presidential campaign, how should Christians assess their effect?

The Old Testament contained provisions requiring the testimony of two witnesses to support certain charges. The Ninth Commandment directs us not to bear false witness, and given Jesus’ own expansive view of moral commands, one would reasonably expect that a corollary to the Ninth Commandment is that Christ-followers bear some responsibility not to knowingly receive false witness.

What is the responsibility of Christians in evaluating such charges and drawing conclusions from them?

28November2011

No Absquatulation, Please

Written By robfaircloth

To “absquatulate” is to flee, make off, or abscond. The one doing it: absquatulater.

To wit: “Joe Politician, himself a noted and accomplished absquatulater, aided campaign contributor Green Energy Company to absquatulate with millions in taxpayer dollars before company execs perfected their absquatulation by filing for bankruptcy protection.”

Who said vocabulary isn’t cool?

23November2011

Death, Taxes & Honey-do Lists

Written By robfaircloth

We’ve all heard the quip about death and taxes.

One of life’s most pervasive, ubiquitous influences is responsible for one, sometimes both of those: government. Some might say another of life’s most pervasive, ubiquitous influences — marriage — could also be responsible for one of them, though sociological research suggests that those who marry live longer, which immediately calls to mind other research which demonstrates that those who have dogs or cats tend to live longer, as well, although with considerably more worn and less-fresh furniture.

Government tends to affect us all our lives. From the time we are born and feet-printed at the hospital to the time that we die and someone is required to prove it, government is everywhere. Similarly, marriage tends to be on the minds of most people their entire lives. Before marriage, single people plan to be, although that plan is sometimes distorted into the sinful desire simply to “hook up” temporarily. After marriage — whether it’s ended by death or divorce — much of life remains oriented around the former relationship.

Jesus, in Mark 12, declares that both of these relationships are eclipsed by his kingdom, both in its already/not-yet manifestation and in its eternal consummation.

When asked about paying taxes, Jesus issues the famous line, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17, ESV). And when he was tested on the question of marriage relationships after the resurrection, he said “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?” (Mark 12:24, ESV).

Jesus warns that during our time on earth we should be careful not to take on the image of Caesar. And he cautions us that we should not have an image of heaven that is too dependent upon earthly relationships that will not continue after the resurrection. When we take on the image of Caesar by entangling ourselves to readily with the affairs and demands of government, we refute the reality of an inaugurated kingdom and take glory that is rightfully God’s. And when we rely to heavily upon even good earthly relationships — such as marriage — supposing that any decent heaven would include a continuation of it, we remake heaven in our own image and take glory that is rightfully God’s.

How extensive is the kingdom of Christ to which he calls his people right now? It transcends both our relationship to earthly government now and our marriage relationship forever.

22November2011

Penn State Abuse and Presidential Candidate Allegations

Written By robfaircloth

It is difficult to imagine a response to the Penn State child abuse situation that does not leave one horrified.

At this point, many details remain to be unearthed, but both the Penn State president and its legendary football coach — Joe Paterno — have been fired. More than one of the actors in this sordid play — including Paterno — have “lawyered up” and are not answering questions about their involvement. Penn State students rioted following the revelations, possibly in response to the university’s decision to fire the president and coach.

It is reported that one-time assistant coach Gerald Sandusky was caught in the act abusing a young boy in a campus locker room. The eyewitness reported the matter to his superior, and indications are that those who knew and were required to do so followed the reporting requirements of the university. However, no one seems to have notified police. Additionally — and perhaps most inexcusably — no one attempted to stop Sandusky or prevent the act that was witnessed. Furthermore, no one barred Sandusky’s access to campus locker rooms, showers, and the young boys he enjoyed abusing there.

Since the allegations against Sandusky first came to light, other victims have come forward to claim that they, too, were abused by Sandusky.

The Penn State revelations came soon after initial allegations of inappropriate conduct by presidential candidate Herman Cain. I previously questioned the motive of the adult women raising the Cain allegations for the first time against the now presidential candidate. What is different about the Penn State victims now coming forward?

First, unlike the allegations raised against Herman Cain, there appears to be very real physical harm committed against the Penn State victims: sexual abuse by an adult male against a male child. Second, the Penn State perpetrators did not ascend to prominence only recently: Joe Paterno has been famous for decades, and his assistant coaches have been known, too. No one in the Penn State matter has achieved a new level of prominence that prompted the revelation of prior perfidy. Third, the nature of the alleged abuse would have prevented the victims’ ability to respond appropriately: an adult woman reporting unwanted sexual advances is quite different from a child reporting actual rape by those who are charged with protecting him.

My question regarding the Herman Cain scenario was how a pastor should counsel the women if they came to him for advice. How, then, should a pastor counsel the abused boys and their families in the Penn State matter? Victims of sexual abuse are not required to report or publicize the crime. If, through private godly counsel and the practice of Christian forgiveness a victim has spiritually and mentally left the event behind, it is possible that it need not be raised.

But what of the issues of righteousness and justice? An individual victim might legitimately decide not to bring attention to prior wrong he has overcome. Yet the fact remains that the perpetrators and those who helped cover up a crime have abused their authority, have betrayed their trust, and should not continue in the same positions of responsibility they occupied at the time of their abdication.

Many are tempted to frame their outrage over the abuse of children at Penn State in terms of punishing perpetrators “for the victims.” Society certainly has an interest in punishing criminals and stripping authority from those who abuse it. Those who claim the name “Christian” should certainly recognize our obligation to maintain the prophetic voice against such abuses of authority toward the weak and powerless, as well as to call for the proper use of government’s “sword”.

Our system of laws is designed in part to prevent individuals from taking their own revenge. But it is all too easy to take revenge vicariously, as if the only way for a victim to be made whole is for society to extract its proverbial pound of flesh from the perpetrator. This is as much a denial of the gospel of Jesus Christ as is denying our obligation under God to mete out just punishment for crimes.

11November2011

Pastoral Counsel for Cain’s Accusers

Written By robfaircloth

Not that they would seek it at this point, but one wonders whether any of Herman Cain’s accusers are believers, whether they are members of a gospel-saturated congregation, and if so, whether they sought pastoral counsel — either at the time of the alleged offense or regarding their present actions.

Because one would have to say that if something happened between them and Cain in the past, pastoral counsel would have certainly included the admonition and encouragement to pray for their enemy, to forgive, to seek reconciliation, to rest in the grace and comfort of God rather than in any conciliatory action by Cain.

Certainly there are occasions in which confrontation with an offender — and legal action — is appropriate. Yet biblical counseling and even its more responsible secular counterparts would recommend that confrontation occur sooner, rather than later, and except for extreme circumstances, that it occur privately, rather than publicly.

Would any wise counsel recommend that one cling to an offense, wait years for the offender to attain prominence, then proclaim the offense on perhaps the largest public stage possible, when true reconciliation is likely impossible?

If Herman Cain committed punishable offenses, he should bear the consequences. Yet our sin nature clouds from our view the too-familiar desire in all of us for “karma” or “what-goes-around-comes-around” to right wrongs, preferably when the dish has become cold.

There is only One who rights wrongs. And our overarching concern should be not how other men’s wrongs against us will be righted, but how our wrongs against Him will be righted. They are righted, but only for those who repent and believe in Jesus Christ.

11November2011

Not lording it over the Gentiles doesn’t mean that the Gentiles lord it

Written By robfaircloth

We have a love/hate relationship with authority.

When that miscreant who cut me off in traffic is pulled over by a trooper a few miles down the road, I’m loving authority.

When I’m late for a meeting, and the same trooper pulls me over for speeding and then tells me I can’t drive away because my license tag light is out, authority for me ranks right below root canal.

Authority and submission were part of the natural environment for mankind before sin and corruption entered the picture. Adam and Eve were to exercise delegated authority from God, and were to establish a relationship of equal worth but different roles, roles which included loving authority and glad submission — leadership and followership.

Since the Fall, authority and submission have both taken the proverbial beating. Authority is abused and submission is resisted.

In Mark 11:27-12:12, Jesus comes along proclaiming what he had to that point been demonstrating: his authority. His authority is to teach, to cast out demons, to heal diseases, to calm winds and seas, to raise the dead. And his authority is to dictate the terms of entry to his kingdom. That is, Jesus decides the terms of salvation.

We learn elsewhere that Jesus insisted that he did not act on his own authority, but on the authority granted him by the Father.

In our love/hate relationship with authority, we tend to believe that the exercise of authority is incompatible with love, and that love could not possibly include the exercise of authority. The fullest expression of God’s love toward man is Jesus, who in Mark spends the majority of his time demonstrating and then proclaiming his authority.

Authority and love are obviously not strangers.

Jesus, the second Adam, came in part demonstrating the loving authority that Adam failed to display. And Jesus delegates that authority to his followers: to make disciples, to lead wives, to train children, to hire workers, to preach Scripture. When Jesus told his disciples not to lord leadership over people, he did not mean that no one should lead, that no one should exercise authority.

Culture abounds with examples of authority recklessly abdicated. The solution is not no authority, but loving authority, and glad submission.