Why is Tim Tebow so Polarizing?

“There are 300 million opinions about the Broncos quarterback, and every one of them is right.” So says this week’s Sports Illustrated about Tim Tebow. Has there been a player in recent memory that is so polarizing? Part of the Tebow debate is because he can’t seem to do the main thing quarterbacks are supposed to do – pass the ball. But one wonders how much of the intensity of feeling about Tebow is fueled by a backlash created by his being an unapologetic Jesus Freak.

Consider this quote from Rolling Stone after Tebow’s sole loss as a starter: “Watching the Tebowmania phenomenon get pulverized under a torrent of ruthless hits . . . was a little like reliving Clarence Darrow’s savage cross-examination of William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes Monkey Trial. If both cases you came away feeling sorry for the defeated, but it was just something that had to be done.”

Something that had to be done? Ouch. Why compare the pummeling of an NFL quarterback to the beat-down of a Fundamentalist over evolution? Tebow’s outspoken Christian faith, and his habit of “Tebowing,” striking a prayerful pose on the sidelines, is resulting in people either worshiping or hating the guy. And lest you think “worshiping or hating” are words too strong to use, consider this. There are plenty of Christians in the NFL, including two Christian quarterbacks who throw the ball a lot better than Tebow –Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees. But nobody is wearing an Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees jersey with “Jesus” on the back of it the way some Tebow devotees are doing in Denver. He inspires either devotion or revulsion. Young cancer patients are reporting that they are Tebowing their way through Chemo. You’d have to be pretty sour inside to squawk at that. Yet here is Rolling Stone again, “Tebow sucks.”

Maybe I shouldn’t look to Rolling Stone for sports coverage, but the fact he’s covered in that magazine illustrates the Tebow story has transcended sports. What interests me most is that the divide over Tebow isn’t just between Christians and non-Christians. Many Christians dislike him. I asked four friends who are 1) Christians, 2) football fans, and 3) definitely not on the Tebow bandwagon, to explain why Tebow is disliked so intensely. Their reasons are worth contemplating.

Steve, a college professor in Portland, said, “Some Christians don't like the way he expresses his Christianity. I'll be honest; this is part of it for me. I don't think he can throw worth a lick, but I also find the need to mention Jesus every time he says or does anything to be off-putting. It's kind of like being embarrassed by one of your slightly crazy uncles.”

Bob, a media mogul in Chicago, said, “There is a sense that if the camera catches someone such as Tebow praying on the sideline that this equates to the possibility of non-believers seeing a Godly figure with a committed faith and somehow subsequently ‘converting.’ It ends up being about ‘show’ . . . the general public doesn't buy it. This is what your God is like? We have a world in crisis and your God is going to deal with your game instead?”

Phil, a pastor who lives in Denver (ground zero in the world of Tebowmania) said, “Given Tebow's inability to pass the football accurately and his tremendous size, he runs much more than most quarterbacks and often runs over people. It’s the connection of Tebow's physical, almost militant style of play with his demonstrative shows of prayer that many find distasteful, a sort of ‘muscular Christianity’ that seems to take delight in smiting one's enemies."

Finally, Eric, a pastor in Grand Rapids said, “Did you see the end of the Denver v. San Diego game? Overtime. Down to the Bronco's kicker making a field goal. Camera goes to the sideline where it finds Tebow kneeling. It looks like he's praying . . . kick is up . . . IT'S GOOD! Tebow looks to the heavens and points up giving God [who is a huge Broncos fan] all the glory. It looked as if he mouthed 'thank you.' That's what pisses people off. The funny thing is that Tebow may have been down on one knee because he thought he was going to puke from all the nerves of possibly losing this game and having to hear about it for the next week on sports talk radio. He may have been thanking God that he didn't up-chuck on the sideline while he waited for the kick to sail through the up-rights. “

I like the way Eric used both up-chuck and up-rights in the same sentence. And I find each of their comments fascinating. Do they ring true with you? And what is Tebowmania revealing about the way Christians express their faith and interact with the rest of the world? What do you think about Tim Terrific? Love him or hate him, everyone has an opinion. What’s yours?

Light and Hope in Advent

A version of this article ran yesterday on Think Christian. Today it's running on "The 12." Here's a link in case you missed it yesterday.

Advent Reflection: For God's Sake, Think

I heard a person on TV the other day say, "The holidays come so fast now, first there's Thanksgiving and right after that Black Friday . . . " and I said, "Aaarrgghh" and felt like someone had just scraped their fingernails across a chalkboard. No, no, no! Black Friday is not a holiday. Technically, neither is Thanksgiving. The etymology of "holiday" is obvious -- it means "holy day."

Holy days are found on the calendar of the church year, and today the calendar moved into a new season, Advent, from the Latin word adventus, meaning "coming." Advent is a time of preparation for what's coming. It is much more about waiting and pondering than the normal pre-holiday frenzy that engulfs so many of us. Which is why Black Friday is a monstrous violation of this season, as are radio stations that start playing Christmas music a week or so after Halloween. Advent is a time to take a deep breath and contemplate what's happening in your life. Slow down. Relax. For God's sake, think.

I've been asked to write a series for Think Christian that looks for signs in our culture of the meaning of this season. These will run the four Sundays of Advent. The first one was posted today and you can read it by clicking here. It meant quite a bit to me to write this and I hope reading it means something to you, also.

Time to Pick a Side

A couple of decades ago Barry Levinson made a wonderful film about families in America called Avalon. In my humble opinion, it is an overlooked classic, a film with an epic sweep about the Americanization of a family of Russian immigrants. Many of the scenes in the movie revolved around two distinctly American holidays – the 4^th of July and Thanksgiving. What I remember most vividly is that at the beginning of the film Thanksgiving was celebrated by all the family members at a table (actually several tables pushed together) so long that it extended the length of the house all the way into a bathroom. The conversation was loud and spirited. Towards the end of the movie, one of the characters (who was a child around that long table) is celebrating Thanksgiving with his wife and two children, just the four of them, alienated from the rest of the family, sitting in front of the television, not talking to each other.

Is that what our country does to us? Are we doomed to isolate ourselves and be so unable to cooperate and work with each other that we are better off being alone?

Just when I am ready to give up hope, when the Super Committee proves the ridiculousness of their name, when the NBA lockout (which I really could care less about) seems irresolvable, news comes of a new labor deal in major league baseball with all sorts of sweeping changes to the game. Most people have ignored this story for the simple reason that it’s boring. There is no conflict or drama to report. But it will change baseball – it will be the first sport to do blood testing for Human Growth Hormone, the Houston Astros are going to move from the National to American League, two more teams will make the playoffs, the minimum player salary has been raised, the use of instant replay will be expanded, etc, etc. This new deal will last for the next five years.

Wow.

Adults actually sat together and worked out a deal that serves both their interests. They figured out that if they cooperate with each other they both could get what they want. They simply understood that there is no reason for them to trifle with the goose laying the golden eggs.

There is a lesson here, of course, for the Congress. But who really was naïve enough to think the Super Committee would ever work in the first place? I had no hope for them when they started and am not particularly alarmed by their failure. Wake up, people. The Congress is willing to mortgage America’s long-term good for the short-term goal of controlling the White House. Both sides realize that the fallback plan that the Super Committee’s failure puts into place doesn’t kick in until after the next Presidential election. Why compromise now? In a year’s time, both parties are betting, their party will have the majority needed to push their agenda through. John Boehner and Harry Reid both published statements yesterday blaming the other side for the failure of the Super Committee. Do they really think the American people are stupid enough to believe that? Neither side sees a compelling reason to consider the arguments of the other. Each believes total victory is in their grasp. Each believes bi-partisanship, at this moment, is weakness.

There may be something to their logic. I’ve always prided myself on being independent. I often split my vote. I don’t think I can do that anymore. In the current political climate, nothing happens when power is balanced in our country. Our government refuses to work together like the folks controlling baseball. My dream of being independent and appreciating the best of both has died. It’s time to pick a side in this fight.

In the meantime, over 46 million of our fellow citizens live under the poverty line – and lest you think that’s an urban problem, be aware that as many poor people now live in suburban and rural areas as in our cities. Unemployment soars. The world’s economies teeter. And I have this image of our elected representatives heading to their own homes for Thanksgiving, isolated, eating their turkey dinners alone in front of the television in silence, numb to the scope of their failure and the people’s outrage at their inability to do what we elected them to do: effectively govern.

Bang Bang

I read a new book called Rawhide Down by Del Quentin Wilber last week. It’s the story of the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley. It’s a fascinating book, revealing lots of things about the Secret Service, the inner-workings of the White House, the response of the medical team at George Washington University Hospital and, of course, Reagan’s health through the crisis and how close he came to dying. He was shot at 2:27pm and was in the ER by 2:30. Anything longer than that most probably would have been fatal. If you are like me and love American history, Rawhide Down is a quick and interesting read.

Monday night of last week Gretchen and I watched the special about Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her recovery from an assassination attempt. Watching her was simultaneously heartbreaking and inspiring and brought back a lot of memories for us of the months of rehabilitation after Gretchen’s stroke in 1985. I’ve written more about Gabrielle Giffords (and Gretchen) in an Advent-related piece that will run in a couple of places this coming Sunday and Monday, and which I will link this blog to.

After reading the book about Reagan being shot and seeing the video of Gabrielle Giffords, I’m led to ask one very simple question: why are handguns legal in the United States? (I know, I know, you’re going to answer “because of the Constitution,” and I’ll address that later in this post.) Actually, this question has been on my mind since my son Jesse “won” a couple of handgun safety classes in an auction. (My son is 22-years-old and has moved to the point where I have opinions but no authority about what he does.) He came home with several shot up targets and some booklets from the National Rifle Association. One of the booklets was about the “principles of pistol concealment.” For lack of better words, the NRA and their “principles of pistol concealment” scare the hell out of me.

I have no beef with the NRA advocating for rifles. But pistols? Maybe I’m short-sighted to make a distinction between handguns and rifles, but I’m more or less okay with rifles. You can’t carry a rifle in your pocket. You need a rifle to hunt, and I have no argument with hunting. I eat meat. I’ve enjoyed wild game before. It’s handgun ownership I question. As far as I know, you don’t carry a handgun into the woods to go deer hunting. Handguns exist to shoot humans with.

John Hinckley was caught in an airport with three guns a few weeks before he shot Reagan. No problem, he gave those guns up and just went and bought more. I know we have tougher gun control laws now, including the “Brady Bill,” named in honor of Jim Brady, Reagan’s Press Secretary, who was also shot that day in 1981. Because of those laws, someone like Hinckley would have to wait longer to get a gun these days. But eventually he would get them. The guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords got his, along with the shooters at Columbine and Virginia Tech and every other place you can think of that has been touched by gun violence. I simply think we should have the ultimate gun control law: ban handgun ownership.

Now about the Constitution. Here’s what the second amendment says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Interpreting the Constitution keeps judges in business because its meaning is not always clear. Enough time has passed since it was written so that interpreting the Constitution is sort of like interpreting the Bible. We have to work on understanding the intent and context of the authors. Do you think that James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, et al, ever imagined the array of modern weaponry we possess today? What was their context? Was it not “Grab your musket and help repel the British”? Today’s world is so much different. I cannot see how banning handgun ownership would harm the security of a free state. As a matter of fact, I think banning handgun ownership would help the security of a free state. From personal experience, I can say that it works in Europe. Europeans do not tolerate the level of carnage Americans have become numb to.

When we went to see Paul McCartney last summer, we had to pass through metal detectors to get into the concert. Since you don’t have to go through metal detectors to see the Detroit Tigers play in the same stadium, I knew the metal detectors were part of what McCartney requires to do a show. And immediately I thought of John Lennon. Paul does not want his life to end the way John’s did. That’s understandable. And, to loosely paraphrase John, I’m imaging a world where there are no handguns. You may say I’m a dreamer, but my guess is I’m not the only one.

I Think "Faux" Must be French for Awesome

What comes to your mind when you hear the term “cover band”? Here’s what I think of: a group of musicians who make a living off of someone else’s talent and creativity. And when I hear “Beatles cover band” I think of the need to find a left-handed bass player, wigs, Sgt. Pepper jackets and a drummer with a big nose.

So what if I told you I saw the world’s greatest Beatles cover band last Saturday night in Chicago and they blew my mind? First of all, let me clarify a couple of terms. A “tribute” band does the wigs and Sgt. Pepper jackets. A cover band simply plays the music.

And the world’s greatest Beatles cover band, the Fab Faux, is not made up of musical wannabes. The band’s leader is Will Lee, the bass player on the David Letterman show. The lead guitarist is Jimmy Vivino, musical director of the Conan O’Brien show. The three other members of the band are highly accomplished session musicians. Collectively, they’ve played on over 1000 albums. To get the sound right they bring along string and horn sections. One of the horn players is also in the CBS Orchestra on the Letterman show. Not bad, eh?

What the Fab Faux did Saturday night was play the albums Revolver and Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band straight through. Because of their other commitments, they don’t play a lot of gigs, and most of the time they play around New York City. They come to Chicago once a year (next year they are doing Magical Mystery Tour). They are recreating music live that the Beatles never could perform live because of the technological restrictions of the late 1960’s. And they are flat out awesome. For example, as I thought about the albums they were going to perform on Saturday night, I wondered what they would do when they came to George Harrison’s “Indian” songs. When the time came, Jimmy Vivino picked up a sitar, Rich Pagano, the drummer, played a tabla and they effortlessly ripped through the songs. Incredible.

If you want a sense of how good they are, here’s a Vimeo link to them doing the medley on side two of Abbey Road a while ago. You get the idea. Here's how good they are -- I drove from Grand Rapids to see them and picked my friend Jim up at the airport, who flew in from Kansas City to see them. But that was nothing. We sat next to a guy who flew in from San Francisco to see them.

So, having seen both Paul McCartney this summer and now the Fab Faux, I’d have to say “faux” in their case means a flawless recreation of the original. Don't hesitate to fly somewhere to see them if you get the chance. And let me add, for the price of two seats in the back row of Comerica Park in Detroit at the McCartney show I sat in the third row at the Fab Faux and then hung around for the “meet and greet” after the show. Here’s proof -- if you've ever watched the Letterman show you'll recognize at least one of us in this photo (Will looks like he couldn’t have been happier, doesn’t he?):

Why Do I Write?

If it's Monday morning it must be time for another post as a member of "The 12" from me. This one is a lot more lighthearted than what I posted on Friday. Here's the link - hope you enjoy and this it makes you think a bit.

What the tragedy at Penn State means for Youth Ministry

I spent a rich week with members of the Young Life Properties Department. On Tuesday, my old friend Michael Perry, the director of Spring Hill camps, visited the group and challenged us to think about many things, including the impact of the situation at Penn State on youth camping. I took his thoughts and expanded on them in a post that Think Christian is running today. You can see it by clicking here. I'm no longer a regular part of that world, but as a friendly outsider I think these ideas are very significant.

While I'm at it, here's a plug for signing up as a follower of my blog. I'd like to get past 100. It doesn't cost anything or result in bad things happening to your computer. Help me out! Thanks.

Opening a Vein

Red Smith, the late sportswriter, is often credited with saying, "Writing's no big deal, you just sit down at the typewriter and open a vein."

Ah, Red. Not all writing is the same and not all writers open their veins. It's far simpler for me to dash off a few hundred words about a movie, like the post I just had on the film City Lights, than to write about something personal and intimate that really matters. But writers write, and I can't stop myself sometimes from writing my deepest feelings and then sharing them and seeing if they connect with others.

And so the November issue of Perspectives Journal has come out with a small article by me that is from a place that is very tender. Here's a link to it. One fear in publishing this is that people may read it and feel like I am at peace with what's happening -- I'm not. This is an ongoing story of loss.

Not sure what else to say, other than the oft quoted words of Frederick Buechner that "the story of any one of us is in some measure the story of us all."

City Lights

My mouth is tired. I taught in the am and pm yesterday and now am on the road, doing a three day speaking gig in Northern Michigan. In the meantime, my latest classic film recommendation was posted on the rednoW site today. I love this site. In my next life I want to come back as someone cool enough to do a site like this. I content myself with being the old guy on the site. It's an honor. So, here is my recommendation -- one of my favorite movies ever. Take a look at the recommendation and then get the movie!

Follow the "Moneyball" Connections

First, a disclaimer: a few months ago I asked if anyone actually goes to see movies in the theater anymore, and now I must confess that I just did. The other day I bought two tickets, a bag of popcorn and a box of Milk Duds and spent the equivalent of a month’s wages in many developing nations. But I wanted to see Moneyball that bad.

Here’s why: I had heard that Moneyball was a good movie, and I had read the book it is based on several years ago. But the book was recommended to me as sort of a “here’s a great read that happens to be set inside baseball but it’s really about organizational life, and how to change a corporate culture and how to think outside the box.” That stuff is interesting to read and contemplate, but not the sort of thing great movies are made of. I mean, we’re still waiting for the movie version of Who Moved My Cheese, aren’t we? The relevant question I heard asked before the release of Moneyball was “how do you make a movie about an idea?”

How you do it is get Aaron Sorkin involved. He wrote the final version of the screenplay. Do you know his credits? You should. He wrote A Few Good Men and The American President and gave us the television series The West Wing. On top of that, he just wrote The Social Network and the similarities with what he did with that material and Moneyball are striking. He made both movies about the people more than the ideas. The ideas are there, but it is the people and their human connections that interest us.

In the case of Moneyball, what captures our hearts includes the character played by Jonah Hill, a stat geek who suddenly is in a position of power in the select world of major league baseball. The nerdy kid the jocks would have made fun of or simply ignored now is deciding their fates. That’s compelling. The driven nature of the character played by Brad Pitt, who washed out as a baseball player and has a chance for redemption as a baseball executive, also interests us. As does his impossibly sweet daughter and the back story of Pitt’s character trying to be a good father after a divorce and the subsequent loss of custody. Sure, there is baseball, but the human connections are the stuff Moneyball is really about. Aaron Sorkin understands that most normal humans don’t care that much about baseball. (I know, I know, I’m not normal.) What normal people care about are other people and their stories, all of which shed light on what it means to be a human being. As my literary and theological hero Frederick Buechner says, “The story of any one of us is in some measure the story of us all.” I believe we learn and feel what it means to be human most through our relationships – our human connections. So, abnormal person that I am, Moneyball had me on three levels. I care about the human stuff and the baseball stuff and I also care about movie connections.

If you want to pick a good movie, look for the connections. The movie trailers rarely tell you who wrote a film, but do some research and find out. See if you liked their previous work. The author of the book Moneyball also wrote The Blind Side. The original scriptwriter for Moneyball also wrote Gangs of New York. Moneyball apparently had some pre-production problems and Aaron Sorkin was brought in to right the ship, but you can already tell by the pedigree of those who had started the project that he had good material to work with.

I see all sorts of other movie connections, too. The director of Moneyball directed Phillip Seymour Hoffman in Capote, so we know he knows how to get a great performance out of Hoffman, and he succeeds again. We saw Moneyball with friends, and after the movie my friend simply could not believe that the actor who played the team’s manager was the same person who played Truman Capote. Then I mentioned Robin Wright, who was in Empire Falls with Hoffman and does a good job playing Brad Pitt’s ex-wife here and said, “You know her, she was Buttercup in The Princess Bride and Jenny in Forrest Gump.”

My friend said, “Buttercup was Jenny in Forrest Gump?” with a stunned look on his face, so stumped by that old connection that he seemed unwilling to contemplate or believe this new one.

Believe it – and follow the connections-- both in life and at the movies.