November-December 2009 – If you’re a college football fan, you know the name Tim Tebow. He is the Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback for the University of Florida Gators who has led his team to two national championships – and is favored to collect a third this year.

He’s also an outspoken and committed evangelical Christian who has spent summers working as a missionary with his father’s ministry in the Philippines. Whether it’s his famous “John 3:16” antiglare eye black on his cheek bones or his bold Christian witness in post-game interviews, Tebow’s faith is out in front.

The idea that a Christian would publicly express his faith whenever and wherever he chooses is presumably not problematic for most people. In fact, with a First Amendment that grants broad protections for religious practice as well as speech, many Americans have undoubtedly come to expect it.

When an article on politico.com noted that President Barak Obama has invoked the name of Jesus Christ more often than his predecessor George Bush, a White House spokesman basically shrugged his shoulders in reply.

“President Obama is a committed Christian, and he’s being true to who he is,” Josh Dubois, a minister who heads up Obama’s Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, told Politico. “There’s an appropriate role for faith in public life, and his remarks reflect that. And they also reflect a spirit of inclusivity that recognizes that we are a nation with a range of different religious backgrounds and traditions.”

That last statement is an expression of what was traditionally meant by the word “pluralism” – a recognition of the reality that many religions are practiced in America and people have the freedom to continue doing so.

As Merriam-Webster puts it, pluralism is simply “the quality or state of being plural.” Everyone gets to be himself and then participate in the common endeavor of shaping the culture.

The new pluralism
But mixing Christianity and football seemed to irritate USA Today religion columnist Tom Krattenmaker. The author of a new book titled Onward Christian Athletes, he wrote a column in October criticizing Tebow.

Krattenmaker’s complaint? The exclusivity of evangelicals’ – and especially Tebow’s – Christianity: “If their take on God and truth and life is the only right one – which their creed boldly states – everyone else is wrong.”

While Krattfnmaker allowed that Christian athletes like Tebow “have a right to express their faith,” he said the quarterback’s “one-truth evangelical campaign … has little appreciation for the beliefs of the rest of us.”

This is post-modern mumbo-jumbo. Bible-believing Christians have two choices, according to Krattenmaker: They can state their relief that Christianity is true – and thus be consigned to the category of those who don’t “appreciate” other’s beliefs – or they can keep their mouths shut and be considered properly pluralistic.

Welcome to the world of the new pluralism – one in which the very existence of differences demands the silencing of exclusive religious beliefs. T he only proper way to live in our pluralistic culture is to with believe all religions are equally valid or refrain from saying so if you don’t.

This is the bedrock principle for Krattenmaker’s version of pluralism. Tebow’s muscular Christianity is “out of sync with the diverse communities that support franchises, and with the unifying civic role that we expect of our teams,” he said.

This is a subtle argument with consequences that would suffocate the free exercise of religion in this country. Krattfnmaker is saying that if Christians work (or, in the case of an athlete, play) in a realm that is religiously diverse, then those Christians should abstain from voicing the exclusive claims of their faith. Otherwise many of the people that pay to watch the Florida Gators (or any other team, for that matter) will be offended. Religion – or at least the exclusive kind – will divide.

This is a dangerous road that Krattfnmaker wants Tebow and other evangelicals to walk down – a road that visits more workplaces than just the gridiron. His logic would necessitate the silencing of Christians in virtually every workplace. After all, you wouldn’t want the regular Muslim patrons of the local Pizza Hut finding out that the local manager believes Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven.

But maybe we’re coming to that.

World magazine’s Scott Lamb roughed up Krattfnmaker over his column by citing Mississippi pastor Ligon Duncan’s tongue-in-cheek barb: “This article is a good picture of the shape of things to come. Pluralism non-pluralistic about non-pluralism!”

Duncan has it exactly right: “This is the shape of things to come. As it has been said many times in one form or another, there are none more intolerant than the people demanding tolerance.

Standing firm
So, what are Christians to do? Here are a few principles:

• Defend true pluralism.
Recognize the validity of the older version of pluralism: The First Amendment allows everyone to worship freely as he chooses. This freedom has been a blessing to Christians for 220 years, and we should work hard to preserve it.

This means that when the freedoms of the adherents of other religions are threatened, Christians should come to their aid. We don’t have to agree with their particular beliefs in order to cherish their freedom to practice them.

• Reject the “new pluralism.”
In a column written for World magazine soon after 9/11, Joel Belz said he applauded and thanked God for pluralism defined in the traditional way. But he said that if carelessly handled, even the correct view of a pluralism could lead to error.

“[S]uch a pluralism is also very hard to contain and restrain, for it contains within itself the seeds of a suggestion logically impossible and philosophically repugnant: that all those different religions are equally true and equally valid,” Belz said.

Christians must never accept the new pluralism that requires what amounts to religious relativism.

• Proclaim the claims of Christ.
Jesus's claims are absolute and clearly exclude the validity of other religions. Christians can never waffle on that.

To help parishioners relate to those of other faiths, the leadership of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a city known for its religious pluralism, encouraged believers to stand firm on the core doctrines of Christianity.

“We should not conceal aspects of our faith in order to avoid criticism or disapproval,” said church pastor John Piper.

In fact, to do otherwise is to abort an opportunity for the spiritual emancipation of those in darkness. “It is loving to point out the error and harm of Christ-denying faiths,” Piper insisted. “The harm consists not only in some temporal effects, but especially in the eternal pain caused by refusing the truth of Christ.”

• Attitude, attitude, attitude!
The Apostle Paul – who, after all, brought the gospel into cities awash in the flotsam and jetsam of the ancient religious world – makes clear that how Christians say things matters almost as much as what they say:

“And the Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will” (2 Timothy 2:24-26).

Keeping these principles in mind, Christians can maintain their bold witness while heeding the responsibilities of living in a truly pluralistic republic.  

“Lord, Save Us From Your Followers: Why Is the Gospel of Love Dividing America?” Review by Ed Vitagliano
This good-natured documentary about the culture wars by Christian filmmaker Dan Merchant is as insightful as it is, at times, naive.

Lord, Save Us features interviews with such familiar faces as liberal evangelical Tony Campolo, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, current U.S. Senator Al Franken, and conservative talk show host Michael Reagan. It is fast-paced, interspersing numerous “man-on-the-street” interviews and a variety of film clips featuring Bono, Bill Maher, Bill O”Reilly and others.

The major target in Lord, Save Us is the evangelical world, Merchant is at his best when holding up a mirror to Christians who are sometimes combative, angry and enemy-obsessed. In this regard there are plenty of shots taken that hit uncomfortably close to home for this writer.

However, Lord, Save Us is weakest when Merchant seems to stumble over the necessity of preaching the hard truth. This is never made clearer than at a Portland Oregon, gay pride event, at which Merchant cleverly sets up a “confession booth.” There he confesses to surprised homosexuals that evangelical Christians have far too often been self-righteous and judgmental.

While several homosexuals are visibly moved by this approach, nowhere on-screen does Merchant ever share with them the Gospel’s message of repentance.

Thus Lord, Save Us appears to establish a false choice between truth and love – as if there is no legitimate combination of the two. This is not an incidental criticism, but is the major flaw in an otherwise fine documentary.