{"id":282,"date":"2009-01-10T00:21:42","date_gmt":"2009-01-10T04:21:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/?p=282"},"modified":"2009-09-02T12:24:55","modified_gmt":"2009-09-02T16:24:55","slug":"championship-winners-witness-criticized","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2009\/01\/10\/championship-winners-witness-criticized\/","title":{"rendered":"Championship Winner’s Witness Criticized"},"content":{"rendered":"

As noted at the ChristianPost<\/a>, Tim Tebow (as discussed previously<\/a>) donned a new verse on the blacks under his eyes during his victory in the 2009 College Championship football game: John 3:16<\/em>.<\/p>\n

An atheist blogger<\/a> had this initial (unedited) response:<\/p>\n

I just want to watch a football game; I don\u2019t want to be prosetylized to.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

While he later qualified his own cynicism, he demonstrated an interesting and increasingly common prejudice toward public expressions of Christianity.\u00a0 First, beyond the spelling error, “proselytize” is a poorly–or perhaps intentionally–chosen word that conveys an inaccurate meaning.<\/p>\n

Proselytize<\/em> has become\u00a0more commonly used among critics of Christianity\u00a0because of its apparent stigma; that is, the spectre of forced conversion.\u00a0 It literally means “to convert.”\u00a0 The problem is that most evangelical Christians–the ones accused of “proselytizing”–would describe their actions as evangelizing<\/em>, which means “to preach to.”\u00a0 To evangelize<\/em> is to offer someone information, but to leave them to their own decision.\u00a0 To proselytize<\/em> (or convert<\/em>) can be understood as\u00a0to take action against them.\u00a0 Even critics of Christianity see the nuanced difference–which is precisely why they emphasize the latter term.<\/p>\n

The second seeming prejudice is that public expressions of Christianity are affronts that should be controlled.\u00a0 Contrary to the implication that “John 3:16” is proselytizing, the mere reference is not the hypnotic statement of persuasion that it is implied to be:<\/p>\n

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (NIV)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It is a statement of faith and personal belief, nothing more.\u00a0 It does not accuse, demean, or denigrate.\u00a0 It is, in effect, a passive statement (and one that was only available if the TV viewers either already knew the verse or took the initiative to look it up).\u00a0 It certainly invites<\/em> further consideration, but it demands<\/em> nothing.<\/p>\n

Consider this rephrasing of the criticism:<\/p>\n

I just want to watch a football game; I didn’t want to see his witness<\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It still describes the situation, but perhaps more accurately, as it lays the responsibility for the feeling of “offense” on the observer, rather than the actor.\u00a0 The blogger’s initial statement was virtually an accusation of wrongdoing, while the rewording displays that it is the observer’s perceptions<\/em> that are at issue, not Tebow’s actions<\/em>.\u00a0\u00a0A frequent–if somewhat oversimplified–phrase often quoted in\u00a0situations like this is<\/p>\n

There is no Constitutional\u00a0protection from offense.\u00a0 In fact, Constitutional protections make it more likely that you will<\/em> be offended.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

After allowing that it wasn’t that<\/em> bad for Tebow to do what he did, the atheist blogger continues<\/p>\n

I have to wonder if his coaches or NCAA officials would allow him to have \u201cThere Is\u201d \u201cNo God\u201d written on his eye black below his right and left eyes.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

His concern may be valid, but probably\u00a0for different reasons than he would expect: it would be a public relations decision, not a religious one.\u00a0 It\u00a0is probably true that organizations\u00a0reliant on recruiting are\u00a0more likely to restrict the apparent support of atheism than they are that of religion.<\/p>\n

Otherwise, the statement that “there is no God” is not, in and of itself, accusatory, demeaning, or denigrating, though it is somewhat less subtle than\u00a0Tebow’s.\u00a0 (Contrast that phrase with “Religion is a myth<\/a>,” which has<\/em> been used, and has<\/em> been called denigrating.)<\/p>\n

A more basic question\u00a0would be the motivation.\u00a0 A person of faith expresses aspects of their religion because it is a core part of their life and being.\u00a0 For Tebow, this requires no further proof; his faith is publicly<\/a> evident<\/a> in every aspect of his life.<\/p>\n

While it is possible<\/em>, it seems highly improbable<\/em> that an atheist would be so driven<\/em> by his belief in no God that he would feel the desire to express that faith during his times of struggle or triumph.\u00a0 It would seem more reasonable that an atheist would instead express aspects of that which did<\/em> drive him; as a hypothetical, references to family or core values.\u00a0 For that reason, an atheist that chose\u00a0to make reference to “no God” in his football uniform would probably be perceived to be countering other\u00a0religious expressions, not expressing a core drive in his life.<\/p>\n

Some would argue, too, that “John 3:16” is a subtle way of saying “there is a God,” and there are already plenty of equally subtle statements in\u00a0everyday life–whether by celebrities, economists, politicians, advertisers, etc–that say “there is no God.”<\/p>\n

Why does any of this matter to military Christians?\u00a0 As noted earlier, a simple expression of faith was described–even if innocently or inadvertently–as\u00a0an attempt at aggressive Christian conversion.\u00a0 This cultural perspective is becoming more common in reporting on religious issues.\u00a0 In non-Christian reporting it is far less common\u00a0to read about Christians “evangelizing;”\u00a0more common now is\u00a0“Christian proselytizing.”\u00a0 That terminology conveys a stigma regardless of the religious (or a-religious) sect with which such a phrase is\u00a0associated.\u00a0<\/p>\n

That same cultural philosophy is what drives both the terminology and crusades of organizations and people that oppose “illegal Christian proselytizing” in the US military.\u00a0 Even though “evangelicals” are some of their main targets, they accuse them not of “evangelism” but of “proselytizing.”\u00a0\u00a0Average citizens may tend to agree with calls to restrict the actions associated with such negative connotations.\u00a0 That is the very reason activists use the semantics they do.<\/p>\n

What average citizens may\u00a0fail to realize, however, is that what one group calls “illegal proselytizing” may be what another group feels is\u00a0“religious expression” or “free exercise”–a concept protected by the Constitution even, in some cases, in the armed forces.\u00a0 (As noted above, contrary to the atheist’s description, Tebow’s Biblical reference was not<\/em> proselytizing.)\u00a0 Ignorance or naivete in the general public about life in the military will likely be\u00a0addressed by the news media.\u00a0 If the only voices heard are those that cry “unConstitutional Christian proselytizing in the military,” that may be what is taken as truth–regardless of the fact that it is not.<\/p>\n

Merely expressing a religious faith\u00a0as a student or a\u00a0military member is not<\/em> wrong, illegal, unethical, or legitimate grounds for calls to restrict religious expression.\u00a0\u00a0There are those, though, who are not only loudly proclaiming that it is<\/em> illegal, but that it is also one of the greatest threats to this country’s national security.<\/p>\n

Just imagine what the reaction would have been if Tebow had been wearing the football uniform of\u00a0the Air Force Academy’s Falcons.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As noted at the ChristianPost, Tim Tebow (as discussed previously) donned a new verse on the blacks under his eyes during his victory in the 2009 College Championship football game: John 3:16. An atheist blogger had this initial (unedited) response: I just want to watch a football game; I don\u2019t want to be prosetylized to. While he later qualified his […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[4,41],"class_list":["post-282","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-culture","tag-churchandstate","tag-tim-tebow"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/282","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=282"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/282\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=282"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=282"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=282"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}