Amen, Evan. I totally agree. There are so many opportunities for him to fail or fall, I pray he stays strong.

. . . and then along comes Debbie Downer.

Karl, I'm guessing you're not a Calvinist? (Or you don't believe that Tebow is currently a believer?)

Personally, I'm not sure what to make of it anymore, from a football standpoint. These last three games won't be easy. The Pats and the Bills before the Chiefs (who they only beat by one TD the first time around).

If Tebow beats Brady - I'm going all in for the Broncos this SuperBowl.

Gee Quaid, thanks for that. I feel so welcome now. I guess I was mistaken in the impression that this blog was modeled after the Inklings and discussion was not just welcome but kind of the purpose? I don't think I said anything harsh, personal or untoward nor was I looking for a fight...but I think "this is divine intervention" no more likely than "this is orchestrated as temptation by Satan against brother Tim (like a reverse Job scenario, for example)." Could be either one. Or neither. And I recognize (or at least suspect) that Bill's "divine intervention" comment was at least partly tongue in cheek.

No, I'm not a Calvinist, at least not a 5 pointer. My arminian friends think I am calvinistic and my calvinist friends think I'm Arminian. Obviously we won't solve that debate here. The closest thinker/writer I can think of whom I could point to as representing my position is actually CSL, who tried to hold divine sovereignty and foreknowledge in tension with human responsibility, the fact that our actions have real consequences, and the belief that we can make real choices that alter the future course of events. Scripture seems to me to teach both these truths, and either system (calvinism or arminianism) fully worked out to its logical conclusion, does violence to the opposing truth and ends up doing hermeneutical gymnastics to make all of scripture fit within the system, IMO.

Why would anything I posted suggest that I don't think Tebow is currently a believer? I think it's pretty obvious that he is. What exactly in my post did you substantively disagree with?

Pretty sure Bill's "divine intervention" thing was tongue in cheek, not serious.

And Karl, I didn't read anything in your original comment that led me to believe you don't think Tebow is a brother in Christ. I wonder if Quaid misread something.

(And yes, we've always liked to think of this place as an open forum for Christians (and nonChristians) of all stripes to have mutually enjoyable and respectful discussions. As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome here, your blazing unmitigated hatred for Tebow notwithstanding. :-)

nhe,

If Tebow beats Brady, monkeys WILL fly out of crevices heretofore not seen.

This had me laughing!

Karl,

Of course you're welcome here!

To anyone wondering how serious I am - that's why I categorized it as "Just Goofin' Off" . . .

Although all these wins are getting a little eerie.

Karl - I apologize. I didn't mean to make you feel unwelcome. This is not my site, anyway, so please do not take my actions for those of your hosts - the actual Thinklings. (Although I have posted in the past and have commented here for almost a decade.) Still - please do not conflate my tone with the intent of this blog's hosts.

To explain my Debbie Downer comment: You must admit that in the joy of seeing Tebow's team come back to win another game, thereby perpetuating the momentum behind all of this chatter on sports channels, web sites and theological blogs could have been nothing but dashed when you propose that this whole thing is a satanic setup to drag Tebow into everlasting damnation. (But congrats on the win, Broncos!) I didn't grasp that you were contrasting "divine intervention" with the "satanic plan." The thought of a brother spending eternity separated from God became all that I saw and I missed it until I read your follow-up comment.

To explain my questioning whether or not you think Tebow is a believer: If you were a Calvinist (which I now know you are not) and you were also to believe that Tebow may be headed for hell, then you would be precluded from believing that Tebow is currently a believer. You did not explicitly write anything suggesting that you doubt Tebow's faith. Your comment, however, indicated that one (and only one) of two things are true: you believe Tebow is a Christian or you are a Calvinist. It turned out that the former is true.

So - again - I apologize for making you (or anyone else) feel unwelcome. Also, I certainly do not mind discussing anything. There have been more than a few Calvin/Arminian discussions on this site, not to mention a fair amount of sports talk, and I'm certain no one would mind entertaining another TULIP or TEBOW conversation (perhaps on a different thread?).

Karl - I get now that you weren't trying to deflate the Tebow balloon - you were simply suggesting the alternative to divine intervention. This does not qualify as Debbie Downer - it just had that effect on me because I misunderstood your motive.

On another note, I'd be interested in everyone's predictions for the remainder of Tebow's regular season:
I think Denver loses against the Pats, but wins the final two weeks to go into the playoffs as the AFC West champion.

I too would predict a 2-1 finish to the Broncos' season, and a playoff berth as the AFC West champs. Though a 1-2 finish wouldn't shock me, either. They've won close games against some middle of the road teams and at some point a late break is going to go against them (i.e. the opponent's RB doesn't fumble or run out of bounds late in the 4th quarter). But even a 1-2 finish ought to put them in the playoffs.

So I think they'll make the playoffs and Tebow will be the starter headed into next season. What I'm much less clear on is where his career will go from here. If he doesn't expand his skill set (i.e. continue to improve significantly his accuracy as a passer and his ability to diagnose NFL defenses) then I think he will be an interesting, short-lived novelty as a starting QB. But if he can improve in those areas and become a more consistent passer, I think he could prolong his career and be a good NFL starter for years. No question in my mind that he will do more than most, in terms of offseason work on mechanics and film study of NFL defenses, to try to grow as a QB. The question is whether that will be enough. I don't feel like I have seen enough to say either yes or no on that question. But he's fun to watch and to root for.

I have to admit parts of that Slate article made me laugh.

I have wondered how much of Denver's success can be attributed to Tebow's athletic abilities, vs. how much can be attributed to Denver's D and the fact that at least Tebow isn't a turnover machine. Like the Baltimore super bowl team with Trent Dilfer - how much credit can the QB actually take for close wins where his team scores very few offensive TD's? But there's no question that his enthusiasm and leadership are infectious, so he should get at least some credit for inspiring those around him (even on defense) to play better and continue to believe they will pull out a close game.

Well, my point was that his character is heavily shaped by his faith, and that (possibly) he wouldn't be as solid of a hard working guy without it. But I don't know him, and it could be that his competitive streak is in-born and faith-agnostic. I don't know. He is one of the most competitive people I've ever seen.

How do you feel about Darwin fish on bumpers? Or bumper-stickers in general? I'm trying to get to the bottom of the Jesus fish hateration ;-)

On another side, and very serious, note, I hope Tim has good, Godly people around him who keep him accountable and are true friends whether he's an NFL starter or an NFL scrub.

Bill,

No question that putting Tebow at the helm has significantly contributed to the Broncos' turnaround this season. I don't think they would have nearly as good a record with Orton or Quinn as the starter. He is a natural leader and is great for team chemistry, if nothing else. I kind of meant that to be implicit in my musing. Is it just that he's great for team chemistry and doesn't turn the ball over? And if so, how sustainable is that over the long term of a career vs. the short term of a magical one-season ride? Can one have a long NFL starting career with his current skill set? Or will he continue to improve as a passer and make the question moot? I know he'll work as hard as possible to do so, and I wouldn't bet against him. It's refreshing and fun to watch - the NFL hasn't seen anything like him at QB in a long time, if ever. I join you in wishing him the best on the field and in life, and in praying for his spiritual protection.

no......not a blog devoted to this.....just a blog in general - I've never thought I had enough to say, but I'm beginning to.

Here's my take on the fish thing. It is a lofty thing to say out loud that I follow Jesus. Anyone who I say that to has the right to think that I must be someone who conducts his life accordingly.

When I drive around with a fish on my car, I am saying out loud - "I follow Jesus" to countless people who I don't know at all. So, I'm announcing to them that I'm a Christian with no real opportunity to explain what that means other than maybe obeying traffic laws and being a courteous driver.

If this is true, what's the point of the fish? Plenty of non-Christians are good drivers. What am I going to do in that situation to demonstrate what it means to represent Christ? I can think of plenty of negative things I can do that would show what being a Christian doesn't mean while driving.

Bottom line, for me, if someone knows that I'm a Christian, I want to have a relational context with them that enables me to tell them why. I know that's not true with everyone I meet, but to the extent that I can control it, I want to.

If I'm wearing a cross or sporting a desk calendar, at least that's likely to be in a context where there's an actual opportunity for connection with people.

This is part of a bigger issue for me - how Christians take shortcuts with the spiritual disciplines (evangelism, prayer, Bible reading, fellowship, etc.) in order to feel better about themselves without having to really engage with God or others........that IS a topic for another thread.

Oh, forgot to add:

You wrote:

This is part of a bigger issue for me - how Christians take shortcuts with the spiritual disciplines (evangelism, prayer, Bible reading, fellowship, etc.) in order to feel better about themselves without having to really engage with God or others........that IS a topic for another thread.

Well said, and I agree with you on the temptation to feel better about ourselves. I'm guilty as charged in more ways than I can count. However, I don't think it's an either/or (hence, a bit of a false dichotomy). Someone with a fish on their car might very well be someone who shares their faith a LOT. Conversely, someone who eschews the fish might be someone who never speaks Jesus' name to anyone.

It can be a both/and, and you can't really know until you've gotten to know the fish-wearer. Thoughts?

Also, we no longer have the Dodge Caravan. Now people who follow our car know that we have children at Mary-Hardin Baylor and Baylor, which probably is another form of drive-by :-)

It'll be a cold night in Nebraska before I put a Jesus fish on my car, but I'm loving the irony of disliking the Jesus fish b/c it's non-verbal and disliking Tebow's God-talk b/c it's too verbal.

The Jesus fish has a Tebow on the bumper of his car.

Thanks Karl - I also was going to comment on nhe's distinction, which, I agree, is relational versus non-relational

I'm still trying to figure out where grace comes in here. Can we have some grace for our brothers and sisters? Terms like "drive by" smack me as, well, awfully generalized and judgmental.

For example, a neighbor might notice the fish, and, with a relationship already built, it could lead to a conversation about Jesus. But we're dismissing every car-fisher as:

1. Unwilling to share relationally

2. Committing a "Drive by" (a term usually referring to acts of murder)

3. Immersed in the culture wars

4. Not doing their part in fulfilling the great commission.

5. Exhibitionists trying to get noticed for how pious they are

6. The kind of people who use the term "Yay God"

How could we possibly know that?

To me, this seems a little nit-picky. You're writing off vast swaths of your brothers and sisters. As if at Kingdom-Come the Lord is going to say "you know, if it wasn't for those darn fish-people we could have really done something . . ."

(also, as a member of God's team, I love seeing/meeting brothers and sisters).

I suddenly have this urge to lay on a sofa, with Karl sitting across the room in a chair asking me questions. He's wearing a Mr. Rogers sweater and smoking a pipe......man, that guy understands me.

Bill, you hit it on the head when you said relational vs. non-relational. That is it.

Karl said -

What he terms "drive by Christianity" saying in essence "HEY LOOK AT ME I'M A CRISTIAN YAY GOD!" to the reading/watching masses in the absence of relationship or the ability to engage. Some of those already on "God's team" may like to see the Christian flag flying but few if any of the yet-to-be-convinced come away with a more positive impression because of it.

That's the point, it really is. Notice Karl didn't say its all negative. Its just that few if any of the "yet to be convinced" (great phrase) come away with a positive impression of it.

I might be wrong, but I think this is true.....and I think it begs the question "then why put a fish on your car?"

I don't think its sin to do so. I think that public identification with Christ is important to some people, and I think there is grace for that.

I don't dismiss each car with a Jesus fish, or reduce them to one of those six things.

But I don't see the wisdom in it......I don't go around telling people to take it off, but like Karl, if asked, I will state this opinion.

I have brought it up in plenty of small groups, with mixed reaction. I think a lot of people understand where I'm coming from, but there seems to be a reaction by some that I'm "being mean" to well-meaning Christians. I don't mean to be. However, I do suppose (with the groups I've led) that I'd like them to think about why they would put it on their car - I think its an important question.

As for the Darwin Fish people.......in my last seeker small group at church (we don't call it that, but its kind of what it is) there was a guy in the group who actually drives to church each week with the dinosaur eating the Jesus fish on his car.

He is an atheist (though I don't think I would assume that everyone who sports the Darwin fish is necessarily an atheist or -gasp- even a non-Christian). He's one of Karl's folks (among the unconvinced) who just thinks sporting a Jesus fish makes you look silly. He told the group that. I think it surprised some of them.

I suppose that's neither here nor there....but to your question about the Darwin fish - I like it because it's an expression of what some non-Christians think about our public Jesus display. How often do we really get the feedback? We should welcome it. It's rare.

I know my atheist friend isn't being mean-spirited about it, and I don't think most who have it are.

I suppose I prefer bumper stickers that are a clever reaction to something, rather than an expression of something. I find that I don't have to agree with the reaction, I rather just appreciate the clever response.

Tony - I agree! I thought that was funny ;-)

Karl, meet nhe. I think you two should start a group blog. :-)

Now, in the beating dead horses department . . .

Good words, Karl and nhe. Regarding the people who have Darwin eating the fish or whatever. I don't assume they are all atheists or non-Christians (and I don't *gasp* when I think about it either, although the thought of someone not spending eternity w the Lord should make me gasp, and share my faith, and do everything I can. To my shame, I fail)

I also think it's awesome, nhe, that a professed atheist is attending your church! May God bless you in your ministry to that person.

One caution, and I'd like your thoughts on this. Non-Christians have been thinking that Christians are silly, or weird, or dangerous, or irritating ever since the Resurrection. In the early centuries the Roman elite scoffed at the Christian church because, basically, it was full of losers and the off-scouring of society. And it often bore the lethal brunt of Roman scorn.

Here's the caution: just because an atheist says that something looks silly or etc, doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it/say it/display it/etc. It is, definitely, good feedback to have, and I would not charge up the hill defending the Jesus fish (although I would charge up the hill defending someone's right to put one on their car in good faith). In my experience in more seeker-sensitive church settings, the danger I began to observe was getting into a reaction-mode about what pleased a lost world, versus what pleased the Lord.

It is a difficult balance, of course. No, I don't think that any feedback we get from a lost person about what we say, look like, or stick on our car is invalid. The guy with the Darwin fish might be right. (on a side note, I have a funny story about that, my unbelieving, mechanical-genius uncle, and a broken down Dodge Caravan with "Happy Birthday, Jesus" and "Nebraska or Bust" shoepolished on its windows. Story for another time, but he probably thought we were rubes. And he was right (I love the guy, by the way))

Sometimes a Christian will do, say, or wear something because that's who they are. Like a guy from Latvia living in the US who sports a Latvian flag lapel pin. The most miserable Christians are the ones who are trying to blend in as much as possible. And I have about 1,000 posts on that I could write, regarding the rate of sexual immorality, divorce, etc. in the American Christian church. Oh gosh, we blend right in . . . but that's another kettle of (Jesus) fish entirely.

We have to be wise. I'm willing to concede that for *some people*, wisdom might mean forgoing the fish. But wisdom also might mean forgoing the overriding need to appear cool, integrated, and at home. We are a peculiar people and aliens and strangers in this world. And if our overriding goal is to not irritate people with Darwin fish on their car . . . well, that can't be our overriding goal. Grace would tell us to cause as little offense as possible so that the Gospel offense can be clearly seen.

Grace and wisdom, I guess, is what it boils down to. We probably don't disagree as much as it appears.

Don't disagree with any of that Bill......but what you and I like to emphasize may be different.

What do we want those who don't believe to stumble over? The gospel/Christ Himself of course, but what else? I can't think of anything. I just like to think about how I can keep the gospel on the front burner and remove the things that we often display that create caricatures of the real thing in the minds of others.

I don't have a lot of "how to's" on this, but I think it's an important discussion.

Also, I guess I would say that any reaction we get that we don't deem to be a result of a non-believer stumbling over Christ should be listened to and not dismissed. Discerning which is which takes time and attention - but I think its kind of fun.

This tweet this morning by "Daily Keller"...

Christians need to be profoundly grateful for the good work done by *everyone* ... not just Christians - Tim Keller #gospelculture

This kind of frames the Tebow thing for me too. I find myself paying a lot more attention to the RG3 story for the reason above.

I think RG3 is a believer also, but the good being celebrated about him is more "general"....the average Christian doesn't know his story as well, because there isn't as much media hype about his Christian side.

And, at the end of the day (in the years to come) I think the RG3 story "might" be the more sustainable good (even Christian) story......just a hunch. Just more fun for me to look for gospel goodness in less obvious places.

Bill, no question Tebow is a polite guy and almost too nice to be believed - but he apparently really is that nice. So was/is Kurt Warner. But Warner recognizes that in his earlier days he was also unnecessarily causing some people to tune out the Jesus message, even if those same people had to acknowledge that Kurt was a polite and genuinely great guy. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive - nice polite guy, who also sometimes shoehorns Jesus into conversations in a way that makes nonchristian listeners less likely to take Jesus seriously, rather than more likely to do so. I saw Tebow interviewed at length on the NFL channel after this Sunday's game and thought he did an awesome job fwiw.

I wouldn't be talking about it at all in this space but for a couple of Thinklings posts that seemed to applaud Tebow for the God shout-outs. Not just to applaud him for his great character and sincere faith and urge folks to show him grace for his lack of awareness of how the Jesus shout-outs can come across or be counterproductive, but rather seeming to say the Jesus shout-outs were awesome and something more people shold be doing. It's that latter part that I spoke up to voice a differing opinion on. There are many ways that I think we as American Christians should do a better job of being salt and light, but I see Jesus shout-outs and fish on cars as symptomatic of or contributing to the problem of superficial American Christian devotion (both as perceived by the world and all too often in reality), far more than I see them as part of the solution.

nhe (or Karl) - Serious question: would you like to guest post on Thinklings regarding this? We could make that a virtual Starbucks, but this time you get to bring your views in the post itself.

Let me know: bill AT garbonzo DOT com, and replace garbonzo with outofthebloo

That's what I said Karl......suddenly we're those overly polite cartoon chimpmunks.

Thanks Karl,

I've been wrestling with this question of God's providence in the past few posts. I think that, as in many things, it's more nuanced than we might think. I tend to agree with you that just because Tebow is winning and he's a vocal Christian (and the wins are improbably crazy) doesn't mean that God's hand is in it or that God's forcing the other team to make mistakes.

On the other hand, I always cringe when people say, as an earlier commenter says, that "God isn't interested in a football game". The implication is that God has better things to think about, and doesn't have time for trivialities, and this is a crude anthropomorphism. As I stated in response, God cares about everything.

So the answer, I think, is between the slam-dunk "It's football! Why would God care about that?" and "This is God's favor on Tebow".

For my part, I believe that of course God can affect a game's outcome, for his own glory. Just because he can, doesn't mean he will (but also doesn't rule it out, just because we might think his vehicle for glory to be crude or trivial).

I love how this article on The Gospel Coalition put it (read the whole thing, but here's the finale):

Is, then, the recent string of Denver Broncos victories a work of "primary causation," God's direct and miraculous intervention, in the same way as creation ex nihilo? I am not convinced it is. Costas and other cultural commentators are on roughly the same page as many of you in making this point.

But is the life of Tebow directed by the hand of God, in the same way that the lives of Tim Keller and Christopher Duffley and Elsie Dennison and every other believer are directed by God? Yes. Every Christian exists for the praise of God. Every Christian draws breath because God gives it. Every Christian serves God as a priest, offering acceptable service in the kingdom of his gospel through the power of his Spirit (1 Pet. 2:9). As with every other believer, God's hand is leading Tebow's life, blessing him as he applies Christian character to the task before him. God moves in mysterious ways. As previously stated, I do not have biblical grounds for seeing Tebow's fourth-quarter heroics as an outworking of God's direct causation. But I do know that God often delights to spurn the wisdom of the world by the efforts of his people (1 Cor. 1:20).

And I know, lastly, that the most important story here is not that Tebow and the Broncos are winning in dramatic fashion, but that the Lord seems to have worked in this man such that, though faced with unbelievable fame, major wealth, constant attention, and the classically all-American success story, Tebow seems only to want to talk about the gospel.

That, my friends, is the real miracle, and the work in which all of us---whether church planter, pipe-fitter, or homemaker---may participate.

The comment section in that GC article is interesting.....BIG tangent/debate about how the NFL has ruined the concept of the sabbath in America.