Elusive Trope's picture

    Tebow, Santorum and the American Cultural Wars

    If you watched the Bronco-Patriots game yesterday, you probably saw the commercial that began with a child reciting a bibical verse John 3:16, then another child.  It turned out to be a commercial for the Colorado Springs-based Christian ministry Focus on the Family, who knew that there were going to be people tuning into the game who otherwise not be: and his name was Tim Tebow.

    As the Denver Post wrote:

    Tebow, though not mentioned in Saturday night's Focus commercial, is the cultural phenomenon that inspired it, Focus spokesman Gary Schneeberger said.

    Apparently, last week, Tebow beat the Steelers by throwing 316 yards and averaging 31.6 yards per throw (an NFL record).

    Tebow, known during his college football career for wearing eye black with John 3:16 inscribed in it, isn't allowed under NFL rules to carry any under-eye messages. The fascination with the numbers reappearing as Tebow stats made the Bible verse a top Internet-search subject this past week.

    So Focus decided that yesterday's game would be a good time to run a commercial. 

    "God does have a sense of humor," [Focus president and chief executive Jim] Daly said, "but I think sports are something we're more interested in than God is. It just hit us when there were something like 100 million Google searches on it: 'Why not make it easy for people? Why make people get off the couch during the game to look for it?' "

    I could say that maybe should get off the couch, but I was watching the game, too.  And I have to admit [Focus spokesman Gary] Schneeberger does have a good point when he says:

    "We will hear about shoving religion down people's throats...But if it's OK to shove Doritos down people's throats, and cars and everything else, we have the right to advertise too."

    If we are willing to endure (no one is forcing us to watch the game after all) a multi-national corporations persuading us to buy something, why should we get bent out of shape when a Christian organization does the same thing.  Just one more organization following the American dream of making a few more dollars.  Although Focus isn't going to say it was a fund raising effort for the organization experiencing budget cuts and staff layoffs.

    "We also have to introduce people to the author of the family," Daly said. "It's a message that transcends politics. That's a great place for people of faith to be."

    Now this I would argue with.  This is politics pure and simple.  Focus on the Family is all about influencing American policy and the way we govern ourselves.  Which is their right.  It is what makes America great - the market place of ideas.

     While CBS has had a policy to avoid political commercials during games (a result of the protest about Tebow's pro-life commercial during a college Championship game he was playing in - and won), they felt since the message didn't overtly push an issue, then it wasn't political. 

    According to Focus, they are

    Focus on the Family is a global Christian ministry dedicated to helping families thrive. We provide help and resources for couples to build healthy marriages that reflect God’s design, and for parents to raise their children according to morals and values grounded in biblical principles.

    We’re here to come alongside families with relevance and grace at each stage of their journey. We support families as they seek to teach their children about God and His beautiful design for the family, protect themselves from the harmful influences of culture and equip themselves to make a greater difference in the lives of those around them.

    Which doesn't sound too political (beyond the political is personal, the personal is political).  But given what they say is their "Passion" a different picture emerges [emphasis theirs]:

    Our passion for what we do is driven by our core beliefs:

    We believe that all people are of infinite value, regardless of age, development, appearance or ability.

    We believe that marriage is the foundation of family life, and that God’s design for marriage is a relationship where both husband and wife are committed to loving and caring for one another for a lifetime.

    We believe children are a gift from God, and thrive best in a home where both mother and father are committed to raising them with love, intention, and care.

    We believe sex is given by God as an expression of love to be shared and enjoyed exclusively between a husband and wife.

    We believe that Christians have a responsibility to promote truth and social policy that improves the strength and health of the family, as God designed.

    And we believe that parents should aspire to model for their children how to humbly follow the teachings and spirit of Jesus at home and in the community.

    It says right there - promoting social policy.  Can't get more political than that.  And as I said, that is their right.

    And I don't have a problem with CBS airing the commercial.  In fact, I would defend both Focus and CBS to do what they did.  Even though I disagree with the social policy that Focus' wants to promote.  This is America.

    I am pro-choice.  And I believe a man and man or a woman and a woman should be able to get married in this country.  I am not a Christian, and have accepted Jesus as my savior, nor do I intend to. 

    But I have to respect the right of those who would disagree with me, who would try and "save me" in spite of the fact I am not being asked to be saved.  Just as I hope that they will respect me when I ask them to consider allowing gay marriage.  Just listen.  Respect.

    The social wars in this country that was taken up a notch in the 80's with Ronald Reagan (and they would say in response to the fire over the bow shot during the 50's and 60's) are still ablaze. We don't seem to be finding much common ground.  There is a greater polarization.

    The Denver Post article also mentions at the end, that

    Other conservative Christian leaders, including Focus founder and former leader James Dobson, met this weekend in Texas to announce support for Rick Santorum in the Republican presidential primary.

    There is little chance Santorum is going to get the nomination.  If anything, this is good news for Obama and his supporters as such a decision will only suppress enthusiasm and support from the far right rank and file for Mitt Romney.  The Republicans have used this rank and file to be the boots on the ground, to knock on doors, to get out the vote.  In places like Ohio and Pennsylvania, where the winner of the general election may be a few percentage points, any suppressed enthusiasm could dictate the final outcome.

    But this Texas meeting does show that there are those on the far right who still have their eyes on their prize. 

    Focus' 990 form shows that end of September, 2010, they received $97,088,339 in contributions and grants and their total revenue was $109,133,930. They may be experiencing budget cuts, but that is a lot of money.  That is a lot of support from out their in the nation (I don't know how much of it came from foreign contributors, but I doubt it would be a large percentage).  This is just Focus on the Family.  There are a whole lot of other organizations out there with a similar "passion." 

    If we both sides (and it isn't as simple as dividing it into two sides) continue to approach this as a war, with the prize for the victor being the American culture, then we are not going to make any progress in this country.  We will be like the soldiers in WWI, each of us crouched in our trenches, hopelessly stuck in a stalemate.

    Both of us need to wave the white flag, together.  Surrender to each other, and start negotiating.  Which means listening to each other.  Respecting one another.  And, yes, finding common ground in the short-term.   The long-term, well, that is another matter.

    Tebow has become, maybe unwittingly, maybe not, a focus for this battle that had receded below the surface too some degree.  The Broncos may have lost yesterday and Tebow did not look like someone who had God had on his side.  But the swirl of excitement and emotions (positive and negative) around him only indicates the cultural war is back.  Ronald Reagan and Abbie Hoffman both may be smiling.

    Comments

    Truly a thoughtful, terrific post.

    The lack of adherence within our government's legislative bodies as to separation of church and state angers and disgusts me.  But, what infuriates me even more is that too many assume that these representatives for the far right represent all Christians.

    I hope that this statement....

     But I have to respect the right of those who would disagree with me, who would try and "save me" in spite of the fact I am not being asked to be saved. Just as I hope that they will respect me when I ask them to consider allowing gay marriage......

    does not mean that you are lumping all Christians together.  I am a Christian and strongly support gay rights - which for me translates into the ability to have any and all of the same rights as any.  Equal!  (However, I don't think the government should have squat to say about marriage whether it's straight or gay!)

    These groups are rigid, sanctimonious and self-serving.  They spew their twisted version of gospel as they beat on the podiums of their declared bully pulpits.   

    Amen.


    I definitely don't lump all Christian together.  Yesterday I attended the funeral services of a man who embodied the decent and compassionate Christian path, such accepting all of God's children regardless of their sexual orientation.  I have to say it was a bit strange being in a Church after so many years without stepping foot in one, to hear the words of those who passionately embrace their Christian faith. It wasn't bad or anything, just a little strange (on top of the emotional somberness of the service).

    The memory from long ago when I first moved out on my own from my parents house pops up in my mind.  I was living in tri-plex, and my next door neighbor was a nun that spent half her time down in Central America helping the oppressed people in poverty against the right wing dictatorships.  She was a very interesting person to talk to - opened my eyes to some things I was clueless about.

     

    And just for the record, I think we should do like the French.  Everyone gets a civil union, and if one wants to do an added religious ceremony along with that, then that is up to the individuals. 


    These golfers win a tournament and praise JC for the trophy. How much more hubris can a man have? I mean the Good Lord actually cares about silly games in a world of famine and wars and child abuse and slavery and....

    But I found this Biblical reference that was quite intriguing:

    Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8." That's the slogan an email from O'Neal refers to, a phrase that's become popular in some circles on bumper stickers and other merchandise. The bible passage itself reads, "Let his days be few; and let another take his office." The real controversy arises in the next verse of Psalm 109, however, which continues, "May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/13/mike-oneal-obama-death-prayer-psalm-109_n_1205059.html

    And this coded death wish was made by none other than the Speaker of the Kansas House of Representatives for chrissakes.


    Disturbing doesn't even begin to describe this kind of sentiment...and that they claim to worship the one that said "blessed are the peace makers."  Maybe they thought he said the cheese makers.


    At the risk of being naîve, I'll invoke Hanlon's razor on this one: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance. Republicans have never had a shortage of ignorance, especially with respect to the Bible, even when they're citing it (or especially when they're citing it).


    One question to be asked is whether God destroyed Sodom because of homosexuality or because God objected to rape and Sodom's treatment of the poor? Another question is whether the Bible ignored the issue of slavery, or whether the delivery of the Israelites and destruction of the Pharoah and his troops sent a message of how God regarded slavery? People who view the Bible on a superficial level often find that the Bible magically agrees with their views on issues like homosexuality and slavery.

    The entry of more ethnic minorities and women into the field of Biblical scholarship has allowed different views to be expressed. Black liberation theology and Womanist studies shine new light on Biblical issues that most had considered already resolved. Fundamentalists are very resistant to challenges to their "old time religion".

     

     


    Lot offered up his daughters to the crowd to rape in lieu of his male guests - seems homosexuality was the issue (or being a proper host to defend your guest - similar to Arab ethics)

    However, Lot's daughters were good sports, as they slept with their father shortly after escape to breed the Moab and Ammon tribes. Guess growing up in Sodom weakened their moral compass.

    Regarding slavery, I don't think the Bible frowned on it unless it was His people that were slaves - that was a no-no, worth a parting of seas and a parting of ways.


    Regarding sexism (aside from offering up one's virgin daughters as rape bait), Lot's wife looked back and was turned to salt. Lot looked back 2 verses later and nothing happened to him. Glass ceiling, eh?


    It is probably best if we simply do not communicate.


    I have to admit a bit of ignorance regarding the some of the specifics of religious history in this country as it unfolded over the past couple of centuries. 

    For instance, I was unaware of the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy that occurred in the Presbyterian Church during the 1920's and 1930's.  And I was raised Presbyterian.  And doing some research for my previous blog, I learned more about the split that occurred between the Baptists, and the rise of the Southern Baptists conservatives.

    One does have to ask where does this resistance to change come from?  There is definitely an element of adherence to a set of beliefs as one has come to belief - a matter of faith. I have my own faith, and it is what it is because it is what resonates within me. 

    I do have doubts about whether how I personally understand spiritual matters is correct.  I believe I will always doubt, this is part of the human condition.  If I was a Christian, I would think of Jesus on the cross when he asked why had he been forsaken.  I believe living with doubt is a fundamental facet of faith.

    And doubt allows one to be open to other interpretations, other ways of seeing how spirituality manifests itself in our lives. 

    Most (or close to most) of those with liberal religious views have had to arrive at their beliefs by leaving behind some of what they were taught by their Church and/or their parents and community.  There are few liberal Christians that I have known who relate their conversion as coming in some "born again" epiphany moment, but rather it was a long and most times subtle result of contemplation and searching.

    Fundamentalists on the other hand, I have seen to me be more locked into the truth with a capital T.  There can be no doubt.  Doubt is a sign of a lost of faith.  Not just doubt about God and Jesus, but in the specific interpretations of the word of God.  They either have always believed what they believed - just as their parents have believed, as their Church has taught, or they come to it through some momentary conversion where the Truth is revealed - they were wrong before, and now they see.

    A key here is these interpretations are made by humans, who are guided, if given the benefit of the doubt, by that which spiritually resonates with them, motivated solely with finding the right path no matter what that turns out to be.

    If we are honest with ourselves, much of what resonates with us does so because it conforms with how we already understand the world (spiritual and otherwise), does so because it provides a comforting and comfortable feeling.  And we are raised in society which is based on the patriarchy, based on the heterosexual imperative, based on dominance of the white over those not white.  These are infused into our media, into our very language, into the structure of our organizations.  And this ultimately comes back into our sense of "I," the foundation of our self identity.

    The human interpretations have thus been such that reinforced these views of the world, ensured their perpetuation, sought their expansion.  Interpretations that informed the believer on not just matters of the Church and God, but of the world of Man.  Whether it was how we shall be married and who should be married, but also how we shall govern ourselves. 

    And at some level, this is the way it should be.  We all should try to align our lives with our spiritual beliefs, and believing as we do, seek to facilitate a society which is also aligned along the principles of that belief - not the specifics of how God or whatever spiritual manifestations - but those principles of what it means to be a decent and just person and society.  How shall the poor be treated?  The disabled?  How should justice be manifested in our courts and so on.

    Yet we should acknowledge our diversity, and listen to others who see how these things might be.  Except the fundamentalist it seems cannot listen.  To talk about institutional racism suddenly becomes not a matter which causes that spiritual doubt, but by doing so, causes an existential crisis.  Their ability to sustain their sense of identity is predicated on their ability to resist other views.  They hold onto their old time religion to avoid the disorientation that comes from having to not only re-examine, re-assess their spiritual views, but who they understand they are - as a human, as a man or a woman, as a citizen, as a neighbor. 

    Seeking the correct scriptural interpretation becomes a quest to reinforce that which has come to understand, not a quest of discovery.


    I would assume that there are Biblical scholars who have a much different interpretation of how God viewed homosexuality than the more universally excepted view. There are differences between what  the more liberal Jesus said and what the more conservative Paul wrote (the Pauline view). Many Fundamentalists say that Paul's words are equal to those of Jesus.


    One of the more interesting tv shows I have seen was a round table discussion hosted by Bill Moyers regarding the story of Noah (it was part of his Genesis series).  Of course, Bill Moyers being Bill Moyers, he had a diverse group of biblical scholars and theologians to engage the topic. 

    The points here would be 1) there are a multitude of interpretations for everything in the Bible; and 2) it is possible to have a civilized discussion regarding the diversity of interpretations.

    It is easy for those who hold a majority view, or at least a majority view in their local community, to become lulled into a sense of the rightness of their particular interpretation.  If one is not exposed to other views, or more specifically exposed to differing view by those who are able to articulate well these views from a deep and sincere study of the topic matter, for many it just a matter that they haven't seriously contemplated differing views. 

    Not to long ago I had a short conversation with an evangelical in which he expressed the view which amounted to either one followed his particular brand of Biblical interpretation or one followed the hedonistic path of Hollywood.  I'm sure if one pressed him, he would acknowledge there are other Christians living (or trying to live) a good life, that he was aware of these folks whether they be Presbyterians or Methodists or Amish.  But his working awareness, the one he filtered the world around him on a day to day basis was the more distorted view.


    Latest Comments