Enter Florida Gators’ championship- and Heisman-trophy-winning leader Tim Tebow. The rookie currently sits in the third-string quarterback position for the Broncos, but has quickly (only one game into the regular season) drawn some considerable attention from the Colorado fan base.

It is often difficult for rookie quarterbacks to gain media attention in the NFL, mostly because they are not playing. But this situation is the opposite for Tebow. He certainly isn’t playing, but that has not kept him from being a “polarizing” figure, intentionally or not, this season. Colorado Independent writer David O. Williams puts it this way:

Overtly religious backup Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow is the fan favorite in Denver these days over laid-back, hybrid-driving, conservation-minded starting quarterback Kyle Orton. And their hardcore Republican boss, Hall of Famer John Elway, will ultimately decide who takes the snaps.

…

The question, for some fans, is the degree to which politics and religion will play into that decision, or whether both players will simply be judged on their performance in games and practice (read the whole story here).

An ESPN Sportscenter package ran Sunday morning about the “controversy” in Denver. This controversy, according to the ESPN reporter, is much bigger than Colorado. “Tebow has become the poster boy for Evangelical Christianity in the sports arena, which places Tebow at the epicenter of a cultural storm that divides our nation.”

After video of Tebow presenting a standard gospel message – faith in Christ leads to heaven, while the opposite consequence is to spend eternity in hell – the report features comedian Matt Besser, whose enjoys “hating Tebow.” For Besser, Tebow’s message is alienating. Fans who do not share Tebow’s faith perspective, Besser states, will likely experience a sort of tension when deciding whether or not it is right to root for the young quarterback.

From another angle, Tebow fans who do agree with or are inspired by his story and message likely defend their “hero” too much, calling every critique of his football form an assault on his faith, the report supposes.

But the crux of this story is neglected by both individuals and the groups they subsequently represent. Tebow is a football player. In his own mind, he may very well be an Evangelical Christian first, but to those of us who have the right to speak about, critique and root for him, he is an athlete. In the past, we’ve let plenty of other athletes do and say some extremely offensive things. And, we’ve let them continue in their sport, unfazed by any legal consequences that should come from their actions. This happens will all celebrities as well.

It seems as though faith, when expressed in the public square, is just one more offensive action people would could do well without.

You can watch that Sportscenter package here.

Two years ago, I began another blog as part of a graduate school class on media and America culture. It has received the majority of my writing attention, and I have linked to it here at least once.

The second reason is that, while I still enjoy writing devotionally and want to continue doing so for publication, I have found it increasingly difficult to write this way from a blogging platform.

This weekend, I attended the Religion Newswriters Association conference in Durham, N.C., where approximately 250 freelancers, speakers, authors, and religion beat writers gathered to discuss the variegated aspects of what it means to write about religion in the public forum. Although I visited only one session during the conference (I was exhibiting for my Press), the conversations I had with conference attendees reminded me how important and difficult it is to cover religion.

It is important because, regardless of your faith or non-faith position, the existence of religions and the relationships among them affect how we approach one another in everyday life. Additionally, the relationships among religions and other societal institutions (politics, science, etc.) create an infinite number of decisions with the potential to influence American citizens and individuals across the world.

Just think about where politics would be today without Rick Perry’s comments on evolution and creationism? How would America’s “relationship” with Arabs, Muslims and the Middle East be different if the September 11 terrorist attacks hadn’t happened? What societal and religious forces have led to us needing something like The Marin Foundation?

We live in a country where religion runs deep, yet we struggle with being politically correct when writing about it. And, with newspapers and other media outlets struggling to make to keep bare-bones staff on board, religion reporters are finding it more difficult to keep their jobs. This is especially true in areas like Waco where our local paper has put up a strict pay wall, and did so long before many others.

There is a lot happening in the world of religion. Quite a bit happens in Waco. I want to begin covering religion for these folks. Most of what you’ll see in the upcoming weeks and months, if I keep at it, that is, will be commentary centered on major stories of religion in the public square, although I will begin keeping my ear to the ground about happenings in and around central Texas. I hope you enjoy, and I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Granted, many of the issues informing the conflicts in the Middle East also deal with political borders, the simple concept that space or a physical place can be more or less sacred based on history or tradition or mandate almost idolizes space above the true object of worship: Christ.

A family I know went to visit an Australian museum built as a sort of monument to Steve Irwin after his death. They said that, while it certainly was beautiful, the devotion with which visitors approached statues of Irwin and stories about his life was almost religious in nature.

The same can be true about how we approach our churches. Surely, we view our sanctuary’s with a sort of reverence, but what happens when the building receives more thought and devotion than Christ? Is the church still part of the Church, or is it another building erected as an establishment for the purpose of social gathering?

In Ephesians 2, Paul writes, “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit” (Ephesians 2:19-22 ESV).

There’s a lot of building images in that passage, but the only physical space in which God dwells is you. And, that dwelling place is established by God, just so that we remember it’s not by our own work that we were saved.

Each of us will always think of certain places and spaces as sacred, but rather than think about how lavish or special a specific place is, allow that place to remind you of Christ.

In a generation when theory is hotter than action and technological innovations are the rage (as long as their producers keep producing when hot technology goes cold), I find myself stepping back and asking why.

Why did Apple create the iPad? And, why can’t we like it? Why does Amazon seem to care more about moneythan reading, literacy or making books more accessible?

Talking to some local teachers, I’ve learned that students in under-served schools are not allowed to take their textbooks home. In a public school system that thrives on standardized test scores, how can students be expected learn the test-specific material written into their textbooks (that’s supposed to help them pass these tests) if they’re not allowed to read them outside of the classroom? And, how are teachers supposed to keep their jobs when their students continue to fail these tests?

As far as I know, pay-by-the-chapter e-books can become one of the most affordable ways for people to purchase textbook content when you remove the e-reader platform that everyone is so set on perfecting from the picture. I know putting e-readers in classrooms won’t solve the problem anymore than allowing kids to take home their physical textbooks. I also know that allowing teachers to print out copies of book chapters for their students to take home isn’t yet feasible due to the cost of paper and other printing materials.

But, with technology moving as quickly as it is, why are media giants looking to please big business while allowing those without $900 to spend on technology to be left out? I don’t have the answers, but recently I’ve been trying to figure out how we can change things in the publishing industry.

For the six of you who actually read this blog, it would be great to hear some feedback on this one. Thanks.

While we often focus on reading the Bible as a way to gain valuable moral insight, to learn more about the mysterious will of God, or simply seek its practical meaning for ourselves, one of the other very important purposes of the scriptures is to provide an avenue through which we can commune, communicate, or have community with God. Because we are sinful, communion with God cannot be grasped without his initiation. Therefore, communion with God begins with God’s presentation of himself to us and our response. That God would even initiate such a process is true occasion for joy. And, if our own joy weren’t reason enough to commune with God, the Bible tells us that such communion allows us to be fully satisfied with God and his steadfast love (Psalm 90:14).

Such communion is not possible without the salvation we receive through Christ, and, therefore, the Bible’s central message is the Gospel – that through Jesus, God saved you. The Bible is the final authority on such claims to salvation while also recounting history in a way that has been fully inspired by God. The Bible is necessary for Christian communion with God because it provides the true picture of God, one we are unable to craft in our own times of “spirituality.” It reveals God’s promises, commands, warnings, and descriptions of himself that tell us who God really is. And when we begin to understand these truths, we’re called to respond in specific ways.

This back and forth initiation-response between ourselves and God shows that reading the Bible is not just a matter of gaining valuable information, but one of the primary ways we communicate with God. Just read 1 John 1:3.

As you read the Bible, have in mind the thought that these written words are God’s voice speaking to you. Allow yourself to speak back to God about the things you are reading. If you are confused or lost, tell God. If you are convicted, ask God to give you the strength to act. Prayer does not have to be complicated, long, aloud, or even comprehensible.

Always remember that reading scripture is a primary means of brining glory to God, which leads to our joy. As we grow, we’re charged with speaking to others about the truths God has presented us through the Bible as well as praying for (1) the church, (2) the spread of the Gospel, and (3) the salvation of those who might hear the Gospel.

This morning, I remembered anew a series of events I, at one time, told myself I could never forget.  After ruminating on why I like old Derek Webb better than new Derek  Webb, I was reminded that one of the reasons this statement is so true is because I have yet to spend more than a few e-mail suggestions and shards of dignity for any of his albums.  And when it comes to free music, I believe I’m more than willing to sacrifice dignity for the sake of entertainment.

It makes me American.

This story begins with my “employment” as a summer inter at WAY-FM Nashville, or just WAYM to us.  They “hired” me on as the publicity department, which, by the end of my 10-week stent, consisted of me and another intern from Chicagoland.

At one point, the late-night show host (Wally) decided to use me as fodder for the comedy he was putting out to encourage teenage boys, and everyone else who happened to listen, to act as if they were, in fact, teenage boys.  Of course, this could only mean that the on-air sketch I was going to be used for would have something to do with dating.

Nothing could have been more true, as I found myself asking out one of Wally’s on-air interns.  Live.  Heard by thousands across the nation.

She said, “No,” and I think Wally was the only person caught off guard in the studio that night.  Only God knows why I would give up Tuesday-night RUF for that crap.

As it turned out, Betty (the intern) missed a sweet show that weekend, as I did actually have free tickets to Billy Currington at the Wild Horse Saloon.  I don’t care who you are, how long you’ve lived in Nashville, or how much of a country freak you claim to be, but free Billy Currington is always better than anything else you could be doing – including dating.

Regardless, after the weekend fun had worn off, I returned to work Monday and found a package from INO Records on my desk.  In addition to a well-versed sympathy note, it contained a number of albums from INO artists including, Phil Wickham, P.O.D., and, of course, Derek Webb’s She Must and Shall Go Free.

I learned a lot that summer.  RUF Belmont is the perfect Christian community especially when you spend weekday evenings playing Munchkin while the pastor’s kids beat each other up over Mario Kart Wii.  Christian radio is a lot more fun that its name implies especially when you can drive the WAY-FM detailed van to the Wolfgang Puck restaurant down the street (provided you’re on the insurance).  Even if you get turned down live on the air, you will always have enough dignity left to press on especially when record EVPs feel sorry for you.

God hath a voice that will make you hear. Though he intreat you to hear the voice of his gospel, he will make you hear the voice of his condemning sentence, without intreaty. We cannot make you believe against your will; but God will make you feel against your will.

Richard Baxter, from Call to the Unconverted to Turn and Live

The next one was presented to us yesterday in theory class.  We were subsequently asked to respond to a list of questions as if we were critical theorists.  This exercise taught me that even I can be critical of Stephen Colbert.

Well, suddenly an option is looming on the horizon. And I don’t mean Al Gore (though he’s a world-class loomer). First of all, I don’t think Nobel Prizes should go to people I was seated next to at the Emmys. Second, winning the Nobel Prize does not automatically qualify you to be commander in chief. I think George Bush has proved definitively that to be president, you don’t need to care about science, literature or peace.

Stephen Colbert, “I Am an Op-Ed Columnist (And So Can You!)“, The New York Times.

I usually enjoy reading while I walk to campus.  I’m not sure if this activity is caused by my uncomfortability with looking people in the eye or just the result of my need for media sedation.  Whatever the cause, Monday’s pleasure was from Smithsonian magazine.

I was reminded that first day and every day after that we are a restless nation, rattling from road to road; a nation that had largely abandoned long-distance trains because they did not go to enough places.   It is in our nature as Americans to want to drive everywhere, even into the wilderness.

Paul Theroux, “The Long Way Home”, Smithsonian.

Now, Theroux’s writing is much more spectacular than that small strip.  It’s always revealing of your own concerns and thought processes when you reflect upon the sentences and words you actually stop and reread over and over again.  They may not be the most well written or stunningly descriptive prose penned to date, but they will tell you something about who you are.

Maybe I’m wrong about my musings not meaning anything if I’m not writing.  Maybe the value of our thoughts is simply enhanced by how they cause use to act.

For one class we will be splitting into groups for research over a variety of topics.  I’m choosing between whether there is a correlation between political views, media use and religion in American society OR what do people who use Twitter during church Tweet about.

While my job focuses partly on viral marketing, the traditionalist inside me still finds it hard to address Twitter or Facebook in a professional setting.  Adding church to that conversation makes it even harder.

From a media standpoint, watching technological innovation brainwash the general public is stimulating enough.  From a worship standpoint, the historical idea of community is being challenged by Web-based communication avenues.  Whether this challenge exists is a matter of opinion probably formed on the grounds of whatever your individual church believes.

I operate two Twitter accounts, but can’t see myself using either of them in a worship setting for a few reasons (two now and two in a later post).  All have something to do with my own view of community.

1. Vocal doesn’t equal Viral – I’m going to steal the syntax of a Cadillac commercial – the one with the intimidating woman who compares red cars to sexy people.  The relationship you have with people in your church (via social media) isn’t that different than the relationship you have with other people (via social media).  You communicate through electronics.  This is a wonderful tool when you consider the possibility of connecting with people around the world you’re unable to see on a daily basis.  However, at church not only is it possible to be in face-to-face communication with members during the week, but at church you are, in fact, physically able to talk to other human beings.  I would love to take this further, but to sum it up I’ll ask this: why would you ever Tweet something into a conversation thread instead of talking things out.  This prediction could be over the top, but there is the potential for churches to become even less legitimate in American society as members now have avenues to forgo face-to-face experiences that might be awkward, uncomfortable or deal with controversial topics.
2. Free dialogue leads away from Biblical authority – When George Whitefield preached the only limitation placed on the size of crowds that gathered to hear him was the volume of his own voice (which was probably booming).  Whitefield’s crowds came to hear the preached Word of God and experience the movement of the Holy Spirit.  Consequently, Whitefield’s years as a preacher saw numerous conversions to Christianity.  The rise of social media in a worship setting certainly raises the level of personal, inner reflection.  However, it does so with the sacrifice of respect and reverence for the entire scope of Biblical authority.

Certainly we all have thoughts during worship, and having an innovative way to record them might make worship more fun.  While the argument for social media use during worship is strong, my own sense tells me that the church doesn’t need this type of media to keep up with society – to make things more relevant for twenty-somethings.  If it’s something you want, have a go at it.  But for the sake of the global body, don’t let something like Twitter create more fragmented churches.

Engineers and scientists have done amazing things; things that we (who know nothing about the technology) are amazed by and would like to master for ourselves – we’ll never be able to do this because we will only understand what technology does, not how.  This will always lead us to want newer technology when boredom sets in with our current toys.

We are already aware of the things that happen to the people around us.  Many of us truly believe these people never change, so our amazement for technology begins to transcend our amazement for human life.  But people are changing and causing what some of us see as a shift away from natural human solidarity.

If you search the videos sections on any of the major news networks’ Web sites, you’ll find videos shot by  amateurs depicting some sort of tragedy, a necessary rescue of some kind or people talking about the hardship they face at the hands of an oppressive system.  Yet it is seldom that the person taping does anything remotely helpful for the recorded victims.  They have one thing in mind.  The video – that is a technology that has recently become capable of mass distribution via the Web.

But then again, maybe these broad generalizations are too harsh and paint a skewed picture of the human relationship.  One of the videos I pulled up trying to find a CNN report I’d seen on TV that bashed a videographer for not stepping in to help some people trapped in a burning car wreck reveals that instincts have a greater influence on human solidarity (at this point) than the Web.

If you watch it, you’ll see that the people rescuing the mother and children from the burning SUV aren’t flashing cameras or taking video.  They’re engaged in the moment knowing that protecting human life is somehow their responsibility.  I can’t call the videographer a non-human for not “helping out,” but the truth is the more we become distracted toys and technology, the less able we are to fulfill our duty to advance human solidarity.  In this video there were more than enough people working to help, and at some point too many people is just cumbersome.  Having this video evidence shows just how wrong I might be about people becoming less engaged with others.

We all have to realize when to put down the video cameras, the netbooks, the iPhones and anything else that has the power to Tweet and just live with human beings.

In The Screwtape Letters C.S. Lewis writes:

“Whenever they are attending to the Enemy Himself we are defeated, but there are ways of preventing them from doing so.  The simplest is to turn their gaze away from Him towards themselves.  Keep them watching their own minds and trying to produce feelings there by the action of their own wills” (16).

This deception is more subtle than we know because all too often prayer naturally revolves around us.  Not that praying for our own needs and desires is a sinful practice, but praying to appease a specific emotion or feeling seems closer to idolatry than reverence for the Lord.

Consider also the words of Brother Lawrence concerning our wandering thoughts in prayer:

“One way to recollect the mind easily in the time of prayer, and preserve it more in tranquility, is not to let it wander too far at other times.  You should keep it strictly in the presence of God; and being accustomed to think of Him often, you will find it easy to keep your mind calm in the time of prayer, or at lease to recall it from its wanderings” (49).

In order to honestly reflect on these works, we have to ask ourselves one question.  When you think of prayer, what’s the first thought in your mind?  Is it you?  Your needs?  Is it asking for things?  Again, these thoughts aren’t necessarily wrong, but the object, or better yet the orientation, is.  Lewis states later that we can become easily affixed to objects or abstract creations and claim them as definitions for our God.  However, if these objects become our gods, there is no longer reason to practice remaining in their presence – the concept advocated for by Brother Lawrence.

God is either altogether physical or he simply does not exist.  These are the ultimate goals for Satan’s distraction of our minds as we pray.