Separation of Church and Sports?

Why are some elitist sports reporters like Sam Cook from the Fort Myers Fl News-Press and columnist Tom Krattenmaker from USA Today so offended by Heisman trophy winning Florida Gators quarterback Tim Tebow? What many Christians admire about Tim next to his extraordinaire talents on the football field is his zeal for Christ and for his altruism and passion and his big time involvement in evangelism and world missions. Back in July I posted an article here on Tim Tebow, entitled "A Man on a Mission" which shows how amazing his life story really is. Now, in recent days he has been slammed for his stand on the exclusivity of Christ as the only way to God and salvation. He wears his faith on his sleeves (or should I say on his eye-black) and this is his ministry in the sports world and I say "Yay, go for it Tim, all the way in football and evangelism!

Denny Burk has posted an article on this on his web-site along with many other Christians in the blogosphere. Below is Denny's article:

Tebow's Narrow Religion
Tom Krattenmaker has taken a whack at Tim Tebow in a recent article for USA Today. He complains that Tebow’s conservative Christianity has afflicted sports culture in general:

“Jesus’ representatives in sports aren’t just practicing faith. They are also leveraging sports’ popularity to promote a message and doctrine that are out of sync with the diverse communities that support franchises, and with the unifying civic role that we expect of our teams.”

The problem, Krattenmaker argues, is that Tebow’s brand of religion is too narrow and exclusive for pluralistic American sports fans.

“Tebow does his missionary trips to the Philippines under the auspices of his father’s Bob Tebow Evangelistic Association. The Tebow organization espouses a far-right theology. Its bottom line: Only those who assent to its version of Christianity will avoid eternal punishment. The ministry boldly declares, ‘We reject the modern ecumenical movement.’ . . . The Bob Tebow organization is working at cross purposes with the majority of Americans — indeed, the majority of American Christians — and their more generous conception of salvation.”

Krattenmaker also alleges that Tebow’s Christianity is abusive to non-Christians:

“This exclusiveness sometimes morphs into a form of chauvinism and mistreatment of non-Christians. Witness the incident with the Washington Nationals baseball team in 2005, when the Christian chaplain was exposed as teaching that Jews go to hell. Then there was the New Mexico state football team, which was the target of a religious discrimination lawsuit in 2006 after two Muslim players reported being labeled ‘troublemakers’ and were kicked off the team by their devoutly Christian coach. The case was settled out of court and the students transferred.”

What are we to make of Krattenmaker’s charges? Are Krattenmaker’s complaints valid? In short, the answer is no. Here’s why.

Tim Tebow didn’t invent the idea that Jesus is the only basis for eternal salvation. That idea is the 2,000 year old teaching of the Christian church. Jesus himself said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (John 14:6). The apostles taught this as well saying that “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Tebow is no innovator on this point. He’s merely holding forth the ancient faith in hopes that others might come to Christ. If that’s too narrow, then so be it. Culture may change, but the gospel doesn’t. Faithful Christians must never trim their theological sails to accommodate the prevailing winds of a godless culture.

That is what makes Krattenmaker’s examples of “mistreatment” appear pretty lame. The Christian message is not that “Jews go to hell,” but that everyone apart from Christ will go there—including Jews, Baptists, Muslims, and all others who do not know Christ. There is no singling out of any particular group. Every person is spiritually destitute apart from faith in Christ. Krattenmaker makes it sound like conservative Christianity singles-out Jews for persecution. That is simply not the case.

At the end of the day, Krattenmaker’s problem is not with Tebow, but with Christ. Christ is the world’s true King to whom we all owe our allegiance. Christ was crucified and raised to provide forgiveness and eternal life for humanity in rebellion against Him. That’s the message that offends Krattenmaker. This should be no surprise, for unbelievers often find Jesus to be “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense” (1 Peter 2:8). Krattenmaker is tripping all over the stumbling stone, Jesus. Nevertheless, God’s arm is not too short to save. I’m living proof of that. I hope and pray that somehow Krattenmaker might be too.

Read Al Mohler's post "Time to Separate Church and Sports? A New Agenda Takes Shape"

Check out "A Separation of Church and Sports?" by Kevin DeYoung

Evangelicalism and The Gospel Coalition

Subsequent to my last post on the subject of evangelicalism I would like to post a good, objective video on it from The Gospel Coalition entitled "What does Evangelicalism look like in America today?" with Mark Dever, D.A. Carson, Phil Ryken and C.J. Mahaney.

An Evangel-less Evangelicalism

I have sometimes struggled with how to describe my "religious views" in the profile section of social networking sites. I have used the term "evangelical" because I think it describes and puts one amongst a broader group within the "body of Christ" than just one denomination. Now in North America it seems that it has become so broad that many are claiming the term and fewer and fewer people understand the history behind and can define the meaning of it. I certainly would not claim to be "fundamentalist" anymore because the meaning of that has changed so much too and the same thing is happening with "evangelical" but going in the opposite direction. In the online dictionary Wikipedia, "evangelicalism" is defined as follows:
Most adherents consider its key characteristics to be: a belief in the need for personal conversion (or being "born again"); some expression of the gospel in effort; a high regard for biblical authority; and an emphasis on the death and resurrection of Jesus.

That is actually pretty close, as the word "evangel" comes from a Greek word meaning "good news" or "Gospel". It is that we all were lost in sin and Jesus Christ the true God , true man took on Himself the whole penalty and guilt of our sin that we could have eternal life through faith in Christ alone and his atoning work on the cross.

Now this past week Rob Bell from Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids MI does a quite notorious interview in the Boston Globe where he redefines "evangelical" to suit his own preferences. The interview is with Michael Paulson, the Globe's religious reporter who entitles it "Bell aims to restore true meaning of evangelical."

I had thought that probably the label "follower of Jesus' would be a good one to adopt but if you read the whole Boston Globe interview it seems that Bell is redefining that also. With him it is more about man renewing the creation than about Jesus renewing the heart.
Below is what Phil Johnson from Team Pyro wrote about the interview and Bell's answers:

"Performance Artist"
See, this kind of stuff is why I keep saying the historic meaning of the word evangelical will probably never be recovered. (You might want to read The Boston Globe's religion section and then come back here. The rest of this post will be more relevant if you have the full context.) I do agree with Rob Bell about one thing. (Quick. Somebody wash my mouth out with soap. Please.) He's right when he points out that the way the secular media usually employ the term evangelical—as a synonym for religious right-wing politicos—is a misnomer. Bell says, "For many, the word has nothing to do with a spiritual context." Well, yeah, OK. I suppose that's part of the problem. More precisely, the term evangelical has been systematically evacuated of any reference to its historic doctrinal roots. People today therefore feel free to assign it any meaning they fancy—religious or non-religious. Practically everyone in the world of popular religion now claims to be "evangelical" in one sense or another. That includes not only old-line Moral Majority types who think the Republican Party agenda is gospel truth; hip middle-class Willow Creekers who couldn't care less about either doctrine or politics but just want to be entertained; crypto-Socinians like Bell and McLaren; crass socialists like Jim Wallis and Sojourners; heavily politicized left-wing wingnuts who think Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and Al Franken are all good medicine—or whatever. In fact, listen to Bell's own cockamamie claim about what the term properly describes:
"I embrace the term evangelical, if by that we mean a belief that we together can actually work for change in the world, caring for the environment, extending to the poor generosity and kindness, a hopeful outlook. That's a beautiful sort of thing."
So is that what Bell considers "a spiritual context," or did he already forget what he had just been saying about how the term became politicized and corrupted in the first place? Hmmm.

An interviewer at The Boston Globe evidently wondered the same thing. He tells Bell, "I'm struck by the fact that I don't hear a lot of explicitly religious language, or mentions of Jesus, from you."Bell's answers to that question and others in a similar vein are instructive. Among other things, he admits, "I have as much in common with the performance artist, the standup comedian, the screenwriter, as I do with the theologian. I'm in an odd world where I make things and share them with people."

One thing is clear: Bell himself is no true evangelical in any historic sense of the term. The Boston Globe's headline ("Bell aims to restore true meaning of 'evangelical'") is exactly backward. Bell has no agenda to "restore the true meaning" of the term evangelical, much less encourage a revival of true evangelical belief. In fact, Bell has made a career of attacking historic evangelical convictions—laying siege to the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the wrath of God against sin, the authority and
perspicuity of Scripture, the necessity of the virgin birth, the coherence of
the biblical testimony about the Resurrection, the exclusivity of Christ, and
whatever other historic Christian doctrines Bell finds politically
incorrect.

In fact, if you have the stomach to read the complete version of The Boston Globe interview, don't miss Bell's arrogant skepticism about the sovereignty and omniscience of God: "For a lot of people, dominant questions center around, 'Why is this happening? Why me? Why now?' Unfortunately, the religious voice often enters into the discussion at an inappropriate time—'God just planned this.' Really? Your God planned this, not mine."

If any popular figure "in the evangelical movement" (or on its copious fringe) deserves the label "heretic," it is Rob Bell. The guardians of evangelical politeness don't like that kind of candor, but when a secular newspaper like The Boston Globe is publishing pieces implying that the best, most promising alternative to right-wing civil religion is a mish-mash of Open Theism and performance art—and that whatever "evangelicalism" is, it must be one or the other of those two abominations, it's time for people with historic evangelical convictions to speak up clearly and make the biblical message heard again.

Other responses to the interview:

Jared Wilson from "The Gospel-driven church" blog : "A Rant: Rob Bell and an Evangel-less Evangelicalism" Click HERE

Todd Pruitt of 1517: "Rob Bell finds himself in the weeds again" Click HERE

"Give Me Jesus" - Fernando Ortega

Here is a tune that will stick with you and most importantly it's about the One who sticks closer than a brother. Jesus certainly was that for Ruth Graham, wife of Billy Graham. "There is a friend who sticks closer than a brother" Proverbs 18:24


Fernando Ortega - "Give Me Jesus" from Adamson.TV on Vimeo.

Worship: Passing the Baton

Bob Kauflin, from Sovereign Grace Ministries, reflects on passing worship to the next generation. He takes some comments from a track and field coach, about the relay race, to offer four points:

The race is about the baton, not the runners.
The relay brings out the best in every runner.
Practice until the handover becomes instinctual.
The baton exchange should occur at very close to maximum speed.

At WorshipGod09:From Generation to Generation, I gave the last message on The Future of Worship, based on Ps. 78:1-8. The previous messages had dealt mostly with the biblical values of worship we want to pass on to future generations - the nature of God, the importance of the heart, the role of leadership, the significance of the local church, and more. The question I asked in my message was: What do we need to keep in mind as we seek to transfer these and other biblical values of worship to the next generation?

In preparing for the message I came across some comments from Nigel Hetherington,the Scottish National Sprints and Hurdles coach. He described what is most important for runners in a relay race to remember. A number of his recommendations relate directly to how we pass on the biblical values of worship from one generation to the next.

The race is about the baton, not the runners.

If you run without the baton, no matter how fast you’re running, your race is in vain. For worship leaders, the baton is the gospel. The gospel - Jesus’ substitutionary death for sinners that reconciled us to God - must always inform everything we pass on. It is the gospel that transforms our dead works into acceptable offerings (1 Pet. 2:5) and draws our attention to the glory of the Lamb who was slain (Rev. 5:6-10).

The relay brings out the best in every runner.

Oddly enough, a properly-trained 400 meter relay team will post a time that is faster than the four runners’ combined 100 meter times. We will serve our churches better and pass on biblical values more effectively if we’re more conscious of those running before and after us. Bryan Chappell, in his excellent book Christ-Centered Worship, says:

We should not ignore the wisdom of church forebears just because it’s old, or automatically reject it just because we didn’t’ think of it. We consider the history because God does not give all of his wisdom to any one time or people (16).

Practice until the handover becomes instinctual.

Athletes must learn to trust one another. Rather than looking back, the outgoing runner should be trained to respond to a ‘hand’ command. Both runners are looking ahead, but it’s the responsibility of the previous runner to make sure the baton is passed. If I’m part of the “passing” generation, I want to be sure that I’m not always looking back to what’s worked for me or the practices that I’m most comfortable with. I want my eyes on what
God might be doing in the future, and make sure the next generation really
catches what’s most important.

The baton exchange should occur at very close to maximum speed.

The incoming athlete should not be overstretched, or he will be off-balance when making the exchange. The outgoing runner must focus on reaching full speed and only put his hand back when he receives the ‘hand’ command. This means that we must intentionally stay close to and learn from generations before and after us.

The Legacy of Asaph: Learning to Sing in the Same Room HERE

Music, Singing and Missions Today

From Desiring God Ministries and John Piper:
"Declare His Glory Among the Nations" June 29, 2008

Marking the Watershed

It has been exactly a year now since I was in South Korea and I have such wonderful memories of our time there and also of our three day trip that our son's new in-laws took us on to the east coast and in the Taebaek mountains of the northeastern part of the country. While we were there we visited L'Abri Fellowship, a Korean branch of the Christian retreat ministry started by Dr. Francis Schaeffer and his wife, Edith, originally when they lived in Switzerland. We were treated to a delicious meal by the hosts, Inkyung and KyungOk, a wonderful Korean couple, missionaries, who had spent some years in Britain, so were quite fluent in English. Also, there were some young Korean pastors who came for the meal, a Bible study and discipling. They were from surrounding towns in the mountains, from small local churches, carrying out a difficult ministry amongst a predominantly Buddhist population.

Yesterday, I was thinking about the watershed issues of Christiandom and within evangelicalism and I found a great article on it. What better man would there be to define the term, watershed, than Francis Schaeffer, who lived in the Alps of Switzerland for seven years and was a great Christian theologian and philosopher? The article is from a book, he wrote 25 years ago and it's pretty applicable for today.

A Watershed
by Francis Schaeffer

Not far from where we live in Switzerland is a high ridge of rock with a valley on both sides. One time I was there when there was snow on the ground along that ridge. The snow was lying there unbroken, a seeming unity. However, that unity was an illusion, for it lay along a great divide; it lay along a watershed. One portion of the snow when it melted would flow into one valley. The snow which lay close beside would flow into another valley when it melted.

Now it just so happens on that particular ridge that the melting snow which flows down one side of that ridge goes down into a valley, into a small river, and then down into the Rhine River. The Rhine then flows on through Germany and the water ends up in the cold waters of the North Sea. The water from the snow that started out so close along that watershed on the other side of the ridge, when this snow melts, drops off sharply down the ridge into the Rhone Valley. This water flows into Lac Leman — or as it is known in the English-speaking world, Lake Geneva —and then goes down below that into the Rhone River which flows through France and into the warm waters of the Mediterranean.

The snow lies along that watershed, unbroken, as a seeming unity. But when it melts, where it ends in its destinations is literally a thousand miles apart. That is a watershed. That is what a watershed is. A watershed divides. A clear line can be drawn between what seems at first to be the same or at least very close, but in reality ends in very different situations. In a watershed there is a line.

A House Divided

What does this illustration have to do with the evangelical world today? I would suggest that it is a very accurate description of what is happening. Evangelicals today are facing a watershed concerning the nature of biblical inspiration and authority. It is a watershed issue in very much the same sense as described in the illustration. Within evangelicalism there are a growing number who are modifying their views on the inerrancy of the Bible so that the full authority of Scripture is completely undercut. But it is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be so very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart.

What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world. It makes all the difference, as we might expect, in things pertaining to theology, doctrine and spiritual matters, but it also makes all the difference in things pertaining to the daily Christian life and how we as Christians are to relate to the world around us. In other words, compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life.

-Chapter 2 from The Great Evangelical Disaster (Crossway Books, 1984)

Read the whole chapter HERE

L'Abri Fellowship International HERE and L'Abri newsletter HERE