The political campaign is quite interesting. If the Republican candidates are this caustic toward one another one can only imagine what it will be like by the time fall rolls around. One of the issues that is sure to be repeated has to do with what sort of work one candidate or the other performed in order to become as wealthy as he is. But one constant refrain is that they each have their great wealth because they worked for it. And part of the platform on which either of the main contestants will undoubtedly run in November is that those who work hard for their money ought to be able to keep it, i.e., they should not be burdened with higher taxes.

The underlying, unspoken assumption here is that these successful people have more money than the vast majority of the population because they earned it by working hard. The great myth of pulling oneself up by the bootstraps lives on–and maybe it should as an encouragement to people to try harder. But do wealthy people really work harder? That one bothers me a bit. They may have done a lot of things differently, including making decisions about what was important and gearing their efforts toward accumulating more money according to the ways of the financial system that is in place; but does that really mean they worked harder than the rest of people in the workforce? The terminology is deceptive, and frankly affronts those average folks who work very hard, but will never have the opportunity to become rich as a result of that work. Some work so hard that they hold multiple jobs, putting in incredible hours, just to stay above the poverty line. Is it really hard work that adds 10-15 thousand dollars to the average cost of buying a house to satisfy banks, attorneys, insurance (title insurance?), and fees of all kinds that take dollars with absolutely no value added? Or that “earns” $300,000 to speak at an event?

I believe the Bible does speak of work as an integral part of our created purpose (Adam had work to do before the fall; it just got tougher thereafter). And the variety of work included in just the first few chapters of Genesis is impressive. Nor does there seem to be any objection to some accumulating considerable wealth through buying and selling. It does become difficult to translate the biblical data into contemporary economic contexts; but that does not mean we shouldn’t make every attempt to figure out what it means for us to do business with honest scales. It tells us to do whatever we do as unto the Lord, with instruction for both home owner and worker and household worker.

Here’s the question. What might the Bible have to say about the ways in which wealth is accumulated and its relation to work? What is hard work? Or should we think of that only as “smarter” work in our context? I’m just wondering; but it’s not just hard work in the sense most of us recognize that got Mitt and Newt their millions.

The final entry in this series (admittedly not the most popular one attempted on this blog) turns the second question on its side. Moran lists the third challenge as that of defining moral status. That is, who or what has “rights” that in any way require us to respect the integrity and quality of life of other beings, whether human or other? Anyone who has heard or read Peter Singer’s views will recognize that he is quite unapologetic in claiming that all species have moral status equal to that of humans; hence his book Animal Liberation, which when published in 1975 did much launch him into the academic ethics arena. Some do not stop at animal life, extending rights to all living things, including trees, shrubs, etc. Other draw a line that has to do with the ability to feel pain when assigning rights; others use some sort of cognitive criteria.

In Christian circles, Albert Schweitzer spoke of doctrine of reverence for life in The Philosophy of Civilization (1923). According to this “doctrine” all living things are worthy of respect which includes the prevention of killing any of them unnecessarily. That, of course, hardly resolves the issue, as necessity will need to be defined. But while expressing the utmost respect for the integrity of God’s magnificent creation, Schweitzer stopped short of speaking about “rights” owned by other living things. Perhaps in today’s rights obsessed context he would have done so, but that is a matter left to speculation. In any case, what does it mean for a creature to have rights? In some of his more recent work, singer does talk about a connection between rights and personhood, which would seem indispensable. But his concept of personhood flounders, in my opinion; in trying to be broad enough to encompass at least the higher animals, he ends up reducing any meaningful distinction. Yet it is only one type of rights-bearing animal that makes all the decisions, which to my mind undercuts the talk of equality before it gets off the ground.

But do we necessarily de-value non-human life by denying their status as rights bearers? One might indeed conclude as much when considering some of the grotesque ways in which people have treated both beasts and forests. And one might be less than optimistic that we will do better without recognizing the rights that such things should be accorded. As mentioned yesterday, however, we should not pretend that we do not have dominion when we do such things; we are undeniably “the deciders.” That fact alone makes talk of rights for trees and toads into a wrong category. Instead, we should recognize that our dominion is a delegated one, and this One is both their Creator and ours; and if we learn more of His character we will be better equipped to have a more balanced and productive relationship with all of His creation. To pretend otherwise is to either violate the original mandate, or on the other hand raise the status of animals in a way which results only in lowering our own.

There’s a lot of room left for discussion of these issues, especially in what it means for a host of questions like vegetarianism, animal training and domestication, appropriate and inappropriate ways of raising farm animals, etc. What do you think on any of these fronts? And how important is it that Christians develop an environmental philosophy or ethis in the first place? What do you think of the challenges suggested by Moran? Are there others we would need to consider?

In the first part we looked at the idea that the earth is here primarily for us. This is often assumed to be the case in some versions of conservative/fundamentalist Christianity; it is not necessarily a biblically required stance, as some of the comments astutely pointed out. The second of the challenges cited by Moran in “Three Challenges for Environmental Philosophy,” (Philosophy Now, Jan. 10, 2012) is more directly in contact (or possibly conflict, depending on one’s perspective) with Christian assumptions. It has to do with the dominion God gave Adam and Eve in the Genesis 2 account, a dominion over the birds, fish, and earth-bound creatures, and with the image of God in which humanity was created. Presumably, the image provides the basis of the dominion. The challenge is over our place in nature; are we part of it along with everything else, or over it in some way?

In 1967 Lynn White wrote what has become a virtual battle cry of secular environmentalists. In “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” White made the claim that the image/dominion ideas combined to create an attitude of arrogance in the western world toward nature as a whole. When coupled with the expansion of science and its technological capabilities this attitude, according to White’s thesis, became the major culprit in spawning the problems we now experience environmentally. While White’s original thesis was somewhat tempered by acknowledging the existence of a parallel, if quieter line of biblical thinking in the tradition of Francis of Assisi, the major theme was picked up uncritically by a generation of environmentalists who had no interest in hearing what responsible interpretation of the passage actually said. Christianity, it was now assumed, presents a roadblock to environmental responsibility.

Moran’s essay makes note of this tension without necessarily endorsing an anti-Christian approach to the question. Instead, he notes how difficult it is to establish a truly neutral position regarding humans vis-a-vis other animals or organisms. While some participants in this discussion have advocated some form of an egalitarian view of all creatures, this is quite difficult to sustain. Why? If humans are to be part of nature “just like everybody else,” this would, according to the thinking, prevent us from disrupting the habitats of other members of the earth community, whether deer, antelopes, aardvarks, or frogs. But what if what some species “naturally” do already disrupts the habitats of other creatures? How many environmental impact studies do beavers require before they do what beavers do–build dams and disrupt the habitats of countless neighbors? What if, in the same vein, humans doing what humans do naturally also disrupts other habitats? Furthermore, are we not acting in as a special class of beings when we undertake the protection or preservation . By any accounting, the species eliminated “naturally” far outnumber those made extinct or endangered by reputed actions of people.

The more I read in this area of philosophy the more it seems to me unavoidable that humanity is inevitably and unavoidably in the position of dominion. Even when some revolt against the concept, they undertake programs or agendas which presuppose its truth. The question, it seems to me, is how we are to receive and exercise the dominion. My contention is that far from biblical dominion being the problem, it is the only solution to a better environmental philosophy. But we must acknowledge and place ourselves more completely under the One in whose image we were made in order to reap those benefits.

How might we do better, not only at perceiving what the image entails for our care of nature, but for correcting those who have improperly conceived the image and the mandate that accompanies it?

But before beginning, I want to say a few words about what is intended in this conversation, which is to build a bridge of sorts between academic discussion and where people actually live. If scholars are those who come up with the big ideas and/or explain them to one another, I am not a scholar, nor do I have ambitions of joining the ranks; instead, it seems to me more needful to translate some of those big ideas into the terms that matter to the rest of the population. We’ve all been made aware in recent years of threats real and imagined confronting the maintenance of a healthy place for humans and other species to live. And, if we are honest, there has been a bit of reluctance within some segments of Christianity to believe any of the warnings at all. Some of this skepticism is due to a wariness concerning the philosophy that sometimes accompanies the claims, some of it because the link to anything scientific is automatically rejected. Some of the wariness may be justified; but that should not lead us to dismiss outright all of the reports on the condition of the physical planet.

Let’s look at the first of Moran’s three challenges, which he describes as “the struggle to overcome an anthropocentric view of nature.” Translation? The author believes that it is both mistaken and harmful to believe that the planet we live in was created for or exists primarily for sake of human beings; such thinking must be put aside. Now that presents an interesting question for Christians. Does the Bible indeed require us to believe that the earth, and perhaps by extension the entire universe, was created solely or even primarily as the home for human creatures and serves no other purpose? To put this in other terms Moran uses, does the earth have intrinsic value (value for its own sake and in its own right) or does have merely instrumental value (value only to the extent it serves human purposes)?

The effects of thinking one way or the other could have significant impact on how we approach questions related to maintaining the integrity of our environment. Should we preserve the environment to the extent that is deemed necessary to continue to provide for our needs? Or does the earth have an integrity of its own which ought to be respected independently of the satisfaction of human needs or desires? Another major debate revolves around the idea of value itself. Simply put, if there are no humans, who/what determines value in nature? In that regard at least, one wonders whether there is anything other than man-centered view can be conceived?

As I indicated earlier, it is difficult to ascertain from the Bible the exact purpose for which God created the heavens and the earth. We accept that it is the arena of our creation, fall and redemption; but is that the only value it holds. And what does Romans 8:19ff. contribute to this topic? Does the groaning of creation until the sons of God are revealed indicate that the earth has an integrity of its own (as God’s creation) which we have compromised? If so, does that indicate that its restoration is something that should be of concern to us, or is it something that must await God’s own personal work of restoration? What do you think? Is Moran correct in thinking a man-centered view must be overcome?

Speaking of candidates (can’t get away from it, can you?), the latest negativity in the Republican field was kicked off by none other than James Dobson of Focus on the Family–and of that controversial John 3:16 ad aired during last week’s AFC playoff game. This time he strongly suggested that true believers concerned with morality should support Rick Santorum because his wife put her career on hold to raise the couple’s seven children, one of whom is a “special needs” child. This makes her a more worthy first lady than the wife of Newt Gingrich, who is unworthy due to a long relationship with the candidate while he was still married to another woman. Oh, but then it turns out that the good Mrs. Santorum had a live-in relationship with a much older man prior to her marriage to the former senator. Does any of this matter, and to what extent if it does? Is it legitimate fodder for consideration of political candidates? And it’s not even February yet.

The issue of environmental preservation was raised yesterday. I apologize for the incompleteness of the thoughts; I expect to return to the topic. I’d also encourage you to read the comment on that post by “Schoff” and see if that raises any additional thoughts. Some of what he raises will be considered in conjunction with a fairly popular book by David Platt, entitled Radical. It was passed along to me by a good friend this week, and I’ll work on it between class preparation sessions.

And about that John 3:16 ad. For those who haven’t seen it, it’s available on youtube (what isn’t?). I mentioned in a post earlier in the week that I thought it was not as great a move as many other people seemed to believe it to be. I can go either way on the idea of airing this type of commercial, one that offers a Christian message as opposed to the selling of cars, beer, or stupid reality shows for the further dulling of our minds. On the other hand, should the faith be reduced to a sound-bite, on the same level as the aforementioned messages? Do we portray it as on option to be purchased due to consumer preference and nothing more? But my other concern was with the “actors” in the spot–small children, taking turns reciting the well known verse. Not much diversity among the reciters, for one thing. But what about this age-group giving “the message” to football fans? There is a difference between a childish faith and a childlike spirit with which the faith must be embraced, a difference in no way discernible through this ad. It’s hard enough to create and maintain space for Christian views in the public square; this, in my opinion, does not move us in the direction of a position on human flourishing–the public good if you will. As Charles Barkley famously said, “I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.”

I went to a pro basketball game last night for the first time in 17-18 years (it’s so long I can’t quite remember). Aside from being pleased to see the long-downtrodden Philadelphia team playing good team basketball, including defense, it was a nice evening out with my daughter. But she raised a concern over something that is now so much standard fare in professional sports that I don’t think much about it. The young (and, yes, very attractive) women who once filled the role of leading cheers now perform another function–keeping men in their seats with movements and costumes that have nothing whatever to do with basketball. And this is an event to which families with children are present in significant numbers; “Family Packages” are promoted to draw them in with (slight) discounts on certain seats and concession items. What are they saying to the young boys and girls with undeniably sexually charged costumes and movements on display at center court during breaks in the game? Should it be of concern, or are kids subjected to so much of it that they don’t see it the same way? Judging by the loud-mouthed, vulgar fellow seated behind us, whose comments wer untempered by the presence of my daughter in front of him, we’re not doing anything good. Does it really sell tickets? Just wondering. And a little more reluctant to return before another seventeen years go by.

Much has been brought to our attention in recent years regarding the status of the earth’s health. Maybe the first memory some of us have of not taking everything natural for granted was in Smokey the Bear’s reminder that only you can prevent forest fires; or maybe it’s the image of a native American standing by the side of a littered roadway with a tear running down the side of his face. Water pollution, air pollution, global warming, overpopulation, escalating rates of species extinction, and a host of other issues, some real, some imagined or concocted have come to our attention over the relatively recent past.

One outgrowth in the academic world is a new field for philosophers called environmental philosophy. It is the topic of the current issue of a journal I have referred to a couple of times on this blog, Philosophy Now. The history of this particular sub-discipline is, like all things academic, subject to debate; but usually included in the accounting is an essay by Aldo Leopold entitled “The Land Ethic,” published in 1949. In it, Leopold formulated what has become a widely discussed principle which says, “a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity of, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” At first glance, it seems simple enough. But reflecting on it for a little while shows how a field of philosophy/ethics could be spawned. What exactly is the biotic community? How do members of that community related to one another? Who decides for the community? What does the integrity spoken of mean, and how do we know it? What vantage point must be assumed to even begin to answer this? Is such a point attainable? What longterm goals should be in view in order to make sense of what will tend toward integrity, stability, and beauty, etc., etc.?

The fact is that such potential problems such as overpopulation, to take one example, have been discussed at least as far back as 1798 essay by Thomas Malthus, who had dire forecasts. He saw the problem becoming even more pronounced if we as a race could make any headway against the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse,” which he delineated from the Book of Revelation: War, Famine, Pestilence, and Disease. Tim Delaney’s essay changes this to the “Five Horrorists” which now face us, adding “enviromares” to the list. These are some of the mass-scale disasters, such as the nuclear melt-down in Japan last year–things that have a natural world component coupled with an environmental impact exacerbated by technological “advancements.”

Jim Moran outlines three reasons why “saving the planet” is difficult (I confess: it is difficult for me as a Christian theologian to shift my thinking that salvation is something of which we are the saved rather than the saviors). The first of these is overcoming anthropocentrism; the second is understanding our place in nature (the first principle might have set this one up), and defining moral status. My interest is not to delve too deeply into the specifics of Moran’s thesis, but to begin thinking biblically, theologically about the possibilities that the earth is in need of saving by humankind, and whether or not that is a specifically Christian interest. Or has stewardship of the earth and its resources been so far from our concerns that when someone finally points to a bit of smoke that should not be there (metaphorically speaking here), we either shout down the messenger or take his account of the facts and along with it his worldview assumptions? Make no mistake here: the idea of our being created in the image of God with a special place in the scheme of earth’s history is very much at stake in this discussion.

Where might we begin to participate in the discussion? How might we fittingly teach a better way to our children–and their parents and grandparents? Or should we allow what will happen ti happen and go about saving souls? Just asking.

One might well ask the why question here; don’t I already have enough versions to find one that says just what I want it to say, getting around those troubling passages that defy either explanation or a stubborn will? Perhaps some readers may be kind enough to give me a pass on the matter, reasoning that someone who teaches theology for a living ought to be aware of what is on the market. Thanks for that. And oh, what a market it is. For the record, the one just procured is the Kingdom New Testament, a new translation by British scholar N. T. Wright. As I went about making the purchase I decided to peruse for just a moment the variety of translations on offer. Most of them are ones with which I was already familiar, though additions to the list continue to be made. Here is a partial rendering of that list, most of which have the word “Version” at the end, which already sounds like an acknowledgement of other versions: King James, New King James, American Standard, New American Standard, Living Bible, New Living Translation, Revised Standard, New Revised Standard (do we detect a pattern here?), English Standard, Common English, New International, Today’s New International (rather clearly assigning the other one to yesterday), The Message, Jewish Annotated, and (my “favorite” newby on the list) the Restored New Testament, which includes the gnostic gospels of Thomas, Mary, and Judas. One may be forgiven if thinking that adding to the canon is not exactly the same as “restoring” the canon. And all of this is only the English language side of the multifaceted book we continue to refer to as The Bible, the Word of God.

What should we make of all this? Occasionally one may hear the complaint that the proliferation of translations has taken from the church a common language in which to memorize and recite God’s Word. That may be so; but it seems futile to turn things around and settle on a common version at this juncture. Other voices say it is more important that we understand the sense which the original authors conveyed to their readers, which may mean translating words differently to create the same sense in a contemporary audience. As language changes–and it does, and at a more rapid pace than ever before–perhaps our need for new translations continues.

Today’s post is not intended to make a point, but to solicit your experiences with various translations of the Bible. Which do you prefer, and why? What might you suggest regarding the way a congregation might handle the multiple versions that are in use? Is this a problem, or is it a boon to the church? What are your thoughts?

It is a theme I will occasionally return, though not with the intent of dwelling there. Some examples of stupidity in cation just cannot go by without comment, and I’ve waited for more than a week to write about one of them. And sure enough, a cruise ship captain succeeds in providing yet another glaring example of stupidity that is not just humorous or head-scratching, but downright costly and tragic for other people. But today I want to look at the incident involving American soldiers desecrating the bodies of slain Taliban combatants in Afghanistan. No more needs to be said about the specific form of desecration.

And that is just the point–the sharing of details that becomes in itself a rush to provide ever more graphic descriptions of what probably should not have been described in the first place, at least not in public. The soldiers immediately responsible certainly acted on “poor reasoning.” They would, and I presume now do, confess that what they did was stupid, guided more by raw emotion than reasoning at all. Saying that the heat of the battle, the hardships of the deployment, the psychological stress endured, etc., do things to people’s capacity for better judgment is undoubtedly true. We can almost understand, even while we cannot excuse. But what about those who took the photographs and distributed them?

Poor reasoning, entrenched mental habits and unexamined assumptions. All of these are in full display in this situation. A photographer sees the act; without reflection, or with poor reflection, he snaps the picture. Why? If it were to show to a commanding officer as proof of the inappropriate actions, one might defend the decision. But that’s not what happened. Whether the photographer himself or another person gaining access to the now documented atrocity, someone decided to take this to the news media, from whence it quickly and predictably circulated around the world. Poor reasoning? Yes. Entrenched mental habits and unexamined assumptions? Yes.

Just what those habits and assumptions might be should be something for all of us to think about. We so highly value “the public’s right to know” and “freedom of the press” that we seem entirely incapable of placing them into any context whatsoever, as though they trump every other consideration that might be part of the equation. This inevitably leads to poor reasoning. I suspect that most of us had a voice screaming inside of us when we saw the graphic, even if strategically digitized pictures. That voice said something like, “WHAT ARE YOU DOING??” We understood instantly what damage would be done to American interests, American diplomacy, and American lives as a result of our enemies having this sort of publicity–let alone the bulletin-board material for their Al-Qaeda recruitment efforts. For some people, anything that happens becomes open material for worldwide distribution; consequences need not be considered. In fact, there might even be a personal prize involved for being the one to get the scoop. How stupid. Let’s, at the very least, examine some habits and assumptions.

Stupid actions have been going on in the world and in our own circles since humans have occupied the earth; they will continue, and perhaps even escalate as we lose our capacity to reason well. What we do with them, however, is a matter that needs to be thought about in an overall vision what is good for us. Not incidentally, the same logic applies to our shameful, costly, and destructive societal attitude toward pornography. I initially posted the thoughts on not being stupid in the context of declaring the need for a Christian vision of the public good. The center of our faith is the One who embodied the way, the truth, and the life. Surely we should be able to translate that One into a vision of what the good life looks like. Seems to me it’s the only antidote for stupidity.

This post was prompted by two unrelated incidents from last week. First was a suggestion from Lisa Delay (now referring to herself as my muse) that I write something about the take on the Bible proffered by John Shelby Spong in a recent book; the second was the interview with Mr. Paterno conducted by Washington Post writer Sally Jenkins. A day or two after reading the latter I went back to the Post to read some of the questions asked of Jenkins by some of her readers and her responses thereto. At first, I was dumbfounded by what I saw.

My perspective was of one who really wanted to hear what the man had to say. Yes, the man in question is one I have admired for his longterm commitment to higher education as more than the backdrop for athletics. Enough has been written on that. When reading the Jenkins account, I tend to believe what he said, perhaps largely based on what I knew of the man prior to all of the unfolding drama of the past two months. When reading some of the vitriolic comments to the article, however–some of which seemed clearly to take Jenkins herself aback–it became evident that nothing was going to satisfy these critics short of an exposure of Paterno as a fraud from beginning to end. When this did not happen, even one of the more celebrated news reporters of our time was summarily charged and convicted of being blinded to “the truth” or being complicit in perpetuating a hoax. Why the venom? Is it solely, or even primarily, because of their righteous indignation over the horrible acts of Jerry Sandusky? I doubt it, not to say that they are not seriously bothered thereby. But I rather suspect that it stems from a prior impression of who Joe Paterno really is, one which is rather far removed from my own (which, by the way, is not in the category of sainthood).

And it’s this coloring of our reading by prior associations and attitudes that brings me to the former Episcopal bishop, Spong, known for his engaging manner with audiences–and for his denial of orthodox beliefs regarding the incarnation, deity, and bodily resurrection of Jesus. It’s not only evangelicals who wonder what sort of strange teaching this man has been offering, and how he derives it from what is universally acknowledged as the church’s source book, the Bible. What does one do with biblical data that seems irrefutably to affirm what Spong denies? Well, the short answer is to debunk the idea that the Bible is in any ontological sense the Word of God. This is what Spong attempts to do in his book, Reclaiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World.

There are some ideas Spong is unable or unwilling (I don’t know the man’s mind to determine which it might be, or in what measure) to relinquish. One is his commitment to naturalism, according to which nothing happens which is not attributable to solely natural forces, keeping God from having any direct contact with the ongoing operations or decisions of this world. That includes the closing of the possibility of life beyond the grave for Jesus, or for anyone before, since, or yet to come. He is also fully committed to the ideas of liberal thinking about all moral questions, so that when Jesus or any other biblical spokesperson declares otherwise, it is merely due to the agenda of the one doing the reporting, which is obviously to present their preferred reading of Jesus in order to further their own interests. They certainly were not inspired in any meaningful way that would warrant an authoritative voice being attached to their writings.

One wonders what Spong’s prior association with God might be. What colors his reading of what is possible, and of how seriously the word of the reporters should be taken, what their agenda might be? And do these previous impressions about God determine what he is able to accept as words from Him, rather than from biased reporters.

What’s my point? Simply this: all of us are influenced by our prior associations or ideas when we hear something new. That is, there are things we want to hear and things we don’t want to hear; and we can–if we choose–place the words and reports we hear into the already determined framework we carry with us. For Spong or the diehard Paterno critic as for his most ardent supporter, we can allow those ideas to continue to determine what we will accept as true. Or we can allow the framework itself to be questioned. And Christians do not need to fear this sort of questioning if they have already had an experience of the One who describes himself as the way, the TRUTH, and the life. If we know Jesus, we know the truth, through which we can see, in an ever unfolding, always growing way everything else, since by him and for him everything has been made. We may–and at times must–change our perspective on the things in this world, maybe needing to give up cherished ideas. But it centers in our knowledge of Jesus, who doesn’t change.

Now that his season has ended, maybe we can begin to work on a balanced perspective into which the unexpected fame and equally unanticipated controversy about Tim Tebow, quarterback of the Denver Broncos, can be fit. The controversy has two decidedly different aspects. One is the actual ability to play the position itself that he does/does not possess; that’s only of interest to real football fans. The other side of controversy comes from his public, symbolic ways of declaring that he believes in Jesus Christ. Specifically, the posture of one knee on the ground with elbow propped on the other, hand to bowed forehead has created a new verb in the cultural vernacular: Tebowing. You are forgiven for thinking it was simply praying, but the position has been imitated by folks in all walks of life, many of whom have not had a conversation with the Almighty in a very long time–if ever. One image posted on the MSN homepage had playmates (Hugh Hefner variety, not pre-schoolers) trying it out.

And then there was the freakish/providential total yardage Tebow was responsible for in a first-round playoff game against the Pittsburgh Steelers. 316 yards creates a perfect stamp of approval on the player who in his collegiate days at Florida wore eye-black patches with “John 3:16″ prominently displayed–at least according to true believers. Anyone who is a believer, a Broncos fan, and a statistics geek simultaneously must be downright ec-stat-ic. The organization Focus on the Family seized upon the opportunity and produced a commercial spot aired in the next game (in which Denver was rather unceremoniously thrashed by New England). The “commercial” consisted of a serial recitation of John 3:16 by a variety of children.

What should we make of all this? Is Tebow wrong to put his faith on display in a place where it does not have anything to do with what he is there for? Is it another way of calling attention to himself? Even if it were the latter, it surely is to be preferred to the primping and performing done by wide receivers and running backs upon reaching the end zone–or just simply making a successful catch of a pass. And players from both teams have been gathering at midfield for a brief time of prayer after games for quite a few years, though this is virtually unknown to the cameras of the networks covering the NFL. Why can’t Tebow just join in at that time with his fellow believers among the players?

I’m perfectly willing to let Tim Tebow or anyone else figure out what the Spirit is encouraging them to do as testimony to their decision to follow Jesus, provided they are open to wise counsel of other spiritually minded people. And that should be a guiding principle for all of us. Few of us will ever gain anything like the stage on which Tebow has performed; therefore, our words should be few as to what we would do in those circumstances. Acknowledging our dependence on God for every ounce of strength, ability, and opportunity we are given is incumbant on all of us; how we do so is not so clear.

But I do have a somewhat contrarian opinion regarding that Focus on the Family spot. Let me explain my concern. What did you see and hear in that cute commercial? If you are a believer who is already familiar with the words and understands the context, and you share the overriding concerns of the organization that produced it, it said one thing; if you do not have that backdrop, they may have said another. They may have said that the faith of Tim Tebow really is childish after all. And that is what concerns me. That Christian faith itself is that sort of belief is already widely held in our culture; and it may have been reinforced by this clip. I also worry (something I do a lot regarding ideas–call it an occupational hazard) about reducing the word of Christ to a simple formula without a context. But even if that is deemed to be worth doing so that interested persons might ask about it, why not have the verse recited by a series of NFL players who are believers? That, I suggest, would have ben far more powerful.

What do you think?