It wasn’t his desire, and it wasn’t his doing.  And yet, it happened all the same.

Tim Tebow, the outspoken Christian quarterback who was drafted in the first round and many believe should be a tight end, fullback or safety,  is causing a stir with his faith.  It seems that a handful of Denver fans have decided that they would make a jersey with Tebow’s number and the name Jesus instead of Tebow.

What would God think about this and why would anyone think that this would be acceptable?

Christian Culture

When is the last time that you walked through your local Christian bookstore?  In there, amongst the Bible themed postcards, Bibles, VeggieTales, and bulletins you’ll find a whole set of material that tries to merge Christianity with pop culture. 

A few of examples:

• Shirts  emblazoned with “Lord’s Gym” with Jesus doing pushups with the cross on His back.
• Facebook and Twitter accounts that bear the names of God the Father and the Son and their dialog with other saints using today’s vernacular.
• WWJD on just about anything and everything.
• Mints with Scripture on them.

To some people, Christ has become a product—He is someone that can sell merchandise.  Slap His name or a quote from Him and you’ll sell it.  And that’s what they see, in part, for this jersey.  Finally, they can link someone to Christ via a jersey, and they can make sales.

I’m not saying that anyone who buys this jersey or sells this jersey only has a profit motive in mind, but what I am suggesting is that we’ve cheapened our Lord and Savior by taking the holy and making it common.

Is This Acceptable?

I will not wear a Tim Tebow jersey that has “Jesus” as the name instead.  I mean, I don’t even watch football, and probably know the rules but the game doesn’t interest me.

That being said, even if I were into football, I would not buy this jersey or recommend it to Tebow fans.  I believe this would also be where Tebow would stand.  Jesus is perfect, He is holy and just.  Tim Tebow is a flawed human being, saved by grace through faith by the work of the Savior.  Jesus does not need Tim Tebow, and Jesus was not a professional football player.

We need to get out of the gimmicks and the trappings and start getting to know the real Lord and Savior and worshipping Him alone.

I don’t know if you’re following ABC’s latest hit show, Once Upon a Time, but the plot revolves around the wicked queen of the story of Snow White casting an evil spell over all the fairy tales taking away their “happily ever after.” 

They’re only hope is the daughter of Prince Charming (AKA James) and Snow White, who was placed inside of a tree that protected her against the spell. 

Unfortunately, they were all transported to our world, and in our world they neither remember who they are/were, nor do they know how to thwart the witch’s curse.

Perhaps at some point I’ll get back to talking about the first three episodes, but in the meantime, let’s look at the interesting parts of the current episode:

Since when is Rumpelstiltskin in the Story of Cinderella?

I mean, I understand that he’s powerful and that he has this thing for stealing infants, but seriously, the way that I remember the story is that the guy also didn’t like giving out his name. 

Yet in this adaptation, not only does Rumpelstiltskin tell Cinderella who he is, but he banishes the fairy godmother to take her place.

Now, this could be a part of the curse—this takes away her happily ever after, I would get that.  But telling her his name, that seems out of character.

Was Cinderella Pregnant for 28 years?

Each of the episodes shows a scene from the time when they were still fairy tales to where they are today.  In the fairy tale segment, we see that Cinderella becomes pregnant before they have captured Rumpelstiltskin and placed him in the prison.

However, it’s 28 years later (Emma is 28 and she was conceived after Cinderella’s Alexandra) and Cinderella still hasn’t had the child.

Some would argue that the clock in the town stopped, and that froze time.  That still doesn’t effect that fact that 28 years have passed, and it doesn’t explain how other things can happen—like Mr. Gold (Rumpelstiltskin) finding Henry for the Mayor to raise.

Shouldn’t Emma Know Better?

Emma finds out that Cinderella has made a deal to give up her baby.  Mr. Gold is used to getting what he wants.  Why would Emma make a deal with him so easily without any strings attached.

What About the Sheriff?

Why was he so interested to have Emma stick around and be a part of his force if he’s engaged in carnal activities with the Mayor.  Seems to me that there’s more going on here than meets the eye.

My Analysis

I don’t think this is one of the better episodes thus far.  Don’t get me wrong, it was entertaining and helped to broaden the characters, but it really left a lot more questions than answers.

This week will mark the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell for the military.  A few months ago, New York State became the largest state to accept homosexual partners in “marriage”.  Many people may say “So what?  How does it affect you?”

Truth be told, the immediate effects of these rulings will not be see, because the acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle is not the problem, but a symptom.

Romans 1

In Romans 1:18-32 we see the progress of ungodliness.  Surprise, it does not start with homosexuality—though I can see why it’d be easy to get that from the way Christians make this to be the worst sin imaginable.  No, the first sin that’s listed in Romans 1:21—that God has made manifest His presence, but they chose not to glorify Him as God and were not thankful.

This lead to a darkening of the hearts, and the spiral has begun.  The people in this chapter then fall into the delusion that they are wise, but they are fools.  They start to worship the creation instead of the Creator.

God responds by giving them up to uncleanness and their lusts.  And it is at this point that we see homosexuality enter the picture.  It’s only after the people continue to flee from God—worshipping Him and obeying His rules—that He gives them up to what Paul calls “vile affections.”  What are these vile affections?  Romans 1:26 and Romans 1:27 put it quite plainly: homosexual activity.

From there God gives them a reprobate mind, which leads to all sorts of sins—ripening them for coming judgment.  Paul ends this chapter stating that those that commit these things are worthy of death—and know they are by God’s law—and yet they continue to do them and have pleasure doing such.

America Today

You can track America’s progression through this passage quite plainly.  Our nation was founded by Christians.  These Christians had a respect for God and His laws as is evidence through our Founding Documents.  Indeed, America was, and perhaps is to a degree, a Christian nation.

But look at what America has done.  America in the 1900’s took God out of education and sought to remove Him from public discourse.  America decided that they were wise—whether it’s the Creation story or the general way that Christians are treated today, it’s assumed that if you believe the Bible you’re a fool, and if not, you’re wise.

PETA and the AGW movement have exalted the creation over the Creator.  They seek to elevate animals to be equals to humans and worship “Mother Earth” instead of the God who created it.

From there, we see America change it’s listing of homosexuality from deviant to accepted to promoted.  Our entertainment and our laws show that we think highly of people that practice this behavior… and we know what’s next.

From there, we can track all the other sins—fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, gossips, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable and unmerciful.

Tell me, from what you read in the news, do we not see all of these things?  Aren’t people we know hurting because of these sins?

We’re Headed For Judgment

Sin is on the march.  Don’t believe me?  As the article Gay right group pushes for more military changes points out, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’s repeal wasn’t enough.  First, it’ll be spousal rights for homosexual partners.  Then marriage on army bases.  Free Speech against homosexuality is next.

That’s where this train is headed.  It won’t be enough until people accept they lifestyle, but because many Christians never will, they will be forced to be silent on the issue or face the wrath of the government.  It’s already happening in foreign countries.

What concerns me more than this movement, however, is Romans 1.  See, as we’ve been over, homosexuality is a symptom—a symptom of rejecting God.  We’re not going to win the battle against homosexuality from without, but by seeing the amazing power of Christ work from within to change people to look to God.

Unfortunately, I’m afraid that we’re actually seeing the result of this sin and where we are in the process, and I’m not convinced we can change the course of this tide.  I’m afraid we’re being ripened for judgment, and our current economic troubles may only be the beginning.

Young Charles “Dale” Ostrander was caught out in the waves of the Pacific Ocean by a rip tide, and if it weren’t for Nicole Kissel (another 12 year old), he may not be alive today.

After hearing Dale’s call for help Friday, Nicole immediately turned her boogie board toward deeper waters despite the objections of her father, who shouted over the crashing waves about the dangerous conditions. Nicole managed to reach Dale, who was struggling to stay afloat, and helped him onto the three-foot board. Together, the two youths struggled against the rip current that had turned an average day at a popular beach into chaos.

"When we were on that board, I kind of shouted out to myself: ‘We’re going to die. I can’t die like this,’" Nicole recalled.

Dale, meanwhile, had offered words of assurance: "Keep paddling. We’re almost there."  [Girl put life on line to save Wash. state boy]

Unfortunately, he wouldn’t make it to shore until some volunteer water rescuers made it to their location because they were hit with a big wave and Nicole had lost sight of Dale.

Dale was lifeless when brought to shore, but the rescuers performed CPR all the way to the hospital, and his blood started moving again.  He’ll need physical and speech therapy, and it’s unclear as to whether he will fully recover, but many of the people there say that he would not believe alive today were it not for Nicole.

A piece of the World Trade Center, a steel beam that was cross shaped, has been a symbol of home, and now it’s a symbol of controversy.  Why?  Atheists.

You see, this beam was moved into the National September 11th Memorial and Museum where it’s to be in the permanent collection, and some people have a problem with that.

[T]he move quickly provoked a lawsuit from American Atheists, a nonprofit group based in New Jersey. It argued that because the cross is a religious symbol of Christianity and the museum is partly government financed and is on government property, the cross’s inclusion in the museum violates the United States Constitution and state civil rights law. The lawsuit, in turn, provoked the ire of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative public interest law firm, as well as others. [Atheists Sue to Block Display of Cross-Shaped Beam in 9/11 Museum]

Why should they care?  In no way is this the state establishing a religion.  It’s recognizing a significant artifact.  It’s not even claiming superiority of one religion over another.

The Atheists have suggested that they could put an atom in the museum or a firefighter carrying a victim, but I like Ann Althouse’s response:

Or maybe a legal complaint, because they’re always filing lawsuits like this.

And it’s true.  For a group of people that define themselves by what they don’t believe in, they certainly seem to get all worked up over things that have no meaning—by their own definition.

Kody Brown has 4 wives—well, technically, his legal wife is the one hiding behind his back, the rest are “sister wives”.  They, and their sixteen children, appear on “Sister Wives” on TLC.  Why is this interesting?  Because they are attacking Utah’s anti-polygamy laws based on the fact that they should be able to define “family” any way they want.

Oh, and this is the same line of argument that same sex marriage proponents use to defend same-sex marriage:

The legal arguments their attorneys Jonathan Turley and Adam Alba are using are similar to those used in many gay-marriage lawsuits: The Browns are being illegally denied the rights to freedom of association, due process and equal protection, as well as the rights of adults to engage in “intimate conduct” without government intrusion.

Utah’s anti-polygamy laws have caused “personal injuries” to the Brown family and trample on “the right of consenting adults to create a family environment of their choosing,” Mr. Turley and Mr. Alba argued in their July 13 complaint at U.S. District Court in Utah.  [Gay-marriage foes cite polygamy suit]

You see, this is interesting because this argument, that what any adults do in their own bedrooms is no one else’s business, and that families are however one defines them, was stated by those opposed to same sex marriage as a slippery slope that could end up validating polygamy, bestiality, etc. 

To counter this, the Human Rights Campaign and other gay-rights organizations stated that they were making just a slight modification to the marriage law.  They wanted to keep it being two people, just allow any combination of sexes for those two people.

To do this, they made the rules of marriage arbitrary and therefore modifiable.  Those that promote polygamy can do the same, arguing that they’re not modifying the male/female component, just changing the quantity from two to two or more.  How is this not the same argument?

How can a homosexual couple state that they are not changing the definition of marriage by changing the sexes but keeping it two people, and say that another group can’t change the number and still be a family?

It’s the same set of arguments, and should these arguments hold up like the homosexuals want them to, don’t be surprised when a state that has same-sex marriage starts approving of polygamy under the same logic.  Or else they will be logically inconsistent.

An older version of Newsweek Magazine tries to reconcile Gay Marriage with the Bible, and Albert Mohler is there with some great observations, but it’s his conclusion that we need to pay attention to:

Disappointingly, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham offers an editorial note that broadens Newsweek’s responsibility for this atrocity of an article and reveals even more of the agenda:  “No matter what one thinks about gay rights—for, against or somewhere in between —this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism,” Meacham writes.  “Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition.”

Well, that statement sets the issue clearly before us.  He insists that “to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt.”  No serious student of the Bible can deny the challenge of responsible biblical interpretation, but the purpose of legitimate biblical interpretation is to determine, as faithfully as possible, what the Bible actually teaches — and then to accept, teach, apply, and obey.

This is the whole point— there’s two ways to look at the Bible, and both are on display here. 

1. There are those that start with the Bible, see what it says, and then either disagree or agree with it.
2. Then there are those that know it says one thing, but decide to try to make it read what they want it to read—to manipulate the Bible into saying what they believe.

The latter is much more dangerous than the former—even if those in the first camp disagree with it.

If you follow the guidelines they shouldn’t have a problem, right?

The latest case of TSA tyranny to hit the headlines comes in the form of a young mother who was subjected to enhanced groping and then shut inside a screening box for almost an hour by agents after she refused to allow them to put her breast milk through an x-ray device, a legitimate request that is even written into the TSA’s own guidelines.

I guess the point is when we start refusing to fly.

In the many years that the female teacher-male student scandals were thrust into our view, you would think that these would have abated, and yet exactly the opposite has happened.

It doesn’t seem that a week goes by that another teacher is accused of having physical relations with a member of her class, with no sign of it slowing down.

The latest is Barbara Jeanne Andersen, 37, who is show in the picture above.  She was caught in relations with one of her 17 year old students who happened to tell his uncle—who turned her in.  She was texting and having relations with the boy.

Why Is This Happening?

I fault a lot of this to the equality movement and feminism.  Women have been taught since the 60s and 70s that they are the same as men, and if men can sleep around than why not women?  If men can have affairs and get younger women, then why not women as well?

So these women prey on their students, who are both very willing (considering their development into young men and their hormones) and are their students, so they get both bragging rights and a weird relationship where it could effect their grade should they refuse the advances.  That last one is the one that have the authorities involved.

How Will It Stop?

I’m not sure that under the current arrangement it can.  The current judicial system gives women all the power in the relationships.  It is they that get the house, car, money and the kids should they choose to leave their husband.  It is they that are seen as the virtuous ones by default, not because of anything that they have done, but simply because of their sex.

The tables will turn when they are given their equality in every way—when society stops seeing them as innocent and the “weaker vessel” that they were meant to be and starts equating them to the male predator made so famous by Dateline.

When that happens, I think you’ll see a lot of women wishing that they could be different than men again—like they always have been—and could seek their protection.  Instead of being men.