If you missed the Tebow ad during the Superbowl, here it is. Believe me, it was missable. The message was so understated and Tebow’s part in it was so short, that I’m guessing most viewers probably didn’t even know what it was about.

And so the “Tebow Dust-up of 2010″ goes into the history books not as a hyper-politicized pro-life smack-down, but as an understated pro-family short. The feminist groups that lobbied to have CBS pull the ad have to be feeling a little bit silly today. Their overreaction in advance of the game now looks pretty extreme in retrospect. And that is probably the most notable result of this whole spectacle. At the end of the day, pro-life Tebow looks really big, and his pro-abortion critics look really small.

[The full Tebow ad with an explicit pro-life affirmation is posted at the Focus on the Family website. You can watch it here.]

I will never forget the 1986 Superbowl Championship when Phil Simms’ New York Giants defeated John Elway’s Denver Broncos. I was as proud as punch because my Dad had coached one of the Giants’ players when he was in high school—middle linebacker Gary Reasons. Not only did we watch the Giants win the game, but I also got to meet Reasons and see his Superbowl ring when he made a homecoming visit to his high school alma mater after the season was over. It was amazing.

I know about that season, and I know about that team. But I didn’t know until today about something else that team did after the game was over. It turns out that Tim Tebow is not the first football player to pair a pro-life message with the Superbowl. Players from the 1986 Superbowl Champion New York Giants team did exactly the same thing about 23 years ago. The video that they appeared in is posted above, and here’s a description:

“23 years ago, The American Life League, one of the largest Catholic Pro-Life organizations, produced a short featuring members of the Super Bowl winning New York Giants. As you watch former superstars Phil Simms — the game’s MVP and current sportscaster for CBS! — Mark Bavaro, Jim Burt, Chris Godfrey, George Martin, and Phil McConkey speak out against abortion, try to imagine what the reaction would be to this film if it was made today.”

This video is about 9 minutes long, and there is no subtlety here. It’s an overt condemnation of Roe v. Wade and abortion-on-demand.

I am grateful for these players from the 1986 Giants team, and I am grateful for Tebow. I hope and pray that the seared conscience of our nation might be stirred by such messages.

(HT: Mark Gibson)

Does this mean, therefore, that the sins that we commit unintentionally are okay with God? When we do something wrong that we didn’t mean to do, are we therefore innocent before God? Biblically the answer is clearly no. We are not acquitted by our ignorance. Let me give you three texts to consider and some implications.

In Leviticus 4, God sets forth what the children of Israel must do when any one of them “sins unintentionally in any of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done” (Leviticus 4:2; cf. 4:22, 27; 5:15, 18). In every case, God calls the unintended act a sin for which the worshiper must bring a sin offering of atonement. In other words, God does not overlook unintended sin and will call it into account.

In Luke 23:34, Jesus prays for his executioners and accusers as he dies on the cross, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.” Jesus acknowledges that his tormentors do not know the evil that they have perpetrated. At least in their own minds, they have not recognized who Jesus is and the infinitely heinous crime of executing the only begotten of God. In one sense, they were sinning unintentionally. Nevertheless, Jesus does not treat them as innocents by saying, “Oh nevermind the fact that they that have crucified God. They don’t know what they’re doing so they are not sinning.” No, Jesus plainly says that his opponents need forgiveness, which presumes that they have sin for which they are accountable. Their ignorance does not get them off the hook.

After the resurrection in Acts 3:13-19, Peter holds Jewish leaders accountable for the death of Jesus, “You disowned the Holy and Righteous One, and… put to death the Prince of life.” Having accused them, Peter adds, “I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did also.” Nevertheless, Peter commands them to “repent” of their “sins” (v. 19). They are not excused by their ignorance.

So what do these texts teach us? Let me suggest some implications for you to consider.

1. We need the gospel more than we think we do. We are fallen and often sin without even thinking about it. Sin comes natural to us (Romans 7:18). It is likely that we have far more sins that we don’t even know about than ones that we do. We cannot, therefore, even begin to reckon our debt before God. This knowledge should not drive us to despair, but to an even greater awareness of our need for Christ’s blood-bought forgiveness.

2. We need to repent before God of our unintentional sins. Hopefully you are in the habit of confessing your intentional sins, but we all need to reckon with the fact that our offenses before God are worse than we let ourselves imagine. We are worse than we think we are.

3. We need to pray for the Spirit’s sanctifying work to eliminate our unintentional sins. We have them, and our prayers should reflect that fact. We don’t know our own hearts as we should, but God does. He wants us to ask Him for help. This is what King David modeled for us when he prayed, “Search me, O God, and know my heart. . . And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting” (Psalm 139:23-24).

4. Our ability to commit unintentional sins should cause us to be humble in our relationships with others. How many of us try to justify bad behavior with our spouses and friends on the basis of it being unintentional. “I didn’t mean to do it, so you shouldn’t be hurt.” Oftentimes, words like that reveal the very insensitivity that led to the unintentional sin. This is not to say that there’s no moral difference between intentional sins and an unintentional ones. There is. It’s just that in either case there is still an offense that must be dealt with.

There is, of course, much more that could be said on this topic, but I will stop there. Lest any reader come away from this post feeling hopelessly condemned, perhaps the best way to end is with a gospel word for sinners:

“My little children, I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; ² and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world” (1 John 2:1-2).

That line is from Sally Jenkins’ must-read column in the Washington Post. Jenkins is a feminist and is pro-choice. Nevertheless, she believes that the National Organization for Women (NOW) needs to stop hyperventilating about Tim Tebow’s forthcoming pro-life Superbowl Ad. She writes,

“Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikinis selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn’t.”

Jenkins is right on target with that critique. Having said that, her candid assessment of what’s at stake in abortion is nothing short of astonishing coming from a pro-choicer. She writes,

“Tebow himself is an inescapable fact: Abortion doesn’t just involve serious issues of life, but of potential lives, Heisman trophy winners, scientists, doctors, artists, inventors, Little Leaguers — who would never come to be if their birth mothers had not wrestled with the stakes and chosen to carry those lives to term. And their stories are every bit as real and valid as the stories preferred by NOW.”

I can hardly comprehend that one can remain pro-choice and believe that abortion takes the lives of future doctors, artists, inventors, etc. She seems to recognize the humanity of the unborn, but she won’t grant their inalienable right to life. That seems to me to be a fundamental contradiction at the heart of an otherwise very helpful article.

Go read the rest of this one. You’ll be glad you did.

-Katie Walker, Washington Post

How many of you are fans of the television series “Lost”? The new season starts this week, and Newsweek has an interesting report on it titled “The End Is Near.”

“As fans start speculating about the show’s final season (set to launch on Feb. 2), they would do well to remember that more than anything else—and more than any other acclaimed show ever on television—Lost is a show about faith.”

This assessment is certainly correct. I would, however, take it a step further and say that “Lost” focuses on themes related to the Christian faith in particular. It constantly alludes to the Bible, one of the main characters is named “Shephard,” and the promo poster for the new season is made to look like Jesus’ last supper.

It remains to be seen how all of this will be brought together to answer some of the mysteries that have been introduced since the first episode. I guess we’ll find out soon enough.

–Life Together (Harper & Row, 1954),
pp. 29-30

His theology teaches that all men are wicked, that human beings have offended a loving and sovereign God, and that God saves through Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection — not because people do good deeds. In short, Chandler is a Calvinist, holding to a belief system growing more popular with young evangelicals…

Chandler says learning he had brain cancer was “kind of like getting punched in the gut. You take the shot, you try not to vomit, then you get back to doing what you do, believing what you believe.

“We never felt — still have not felt — betrayed by the Lord or abandoned by the Lord. I can honestly say, we haven’t asked the question, ‘Why?’ or wondered, ‘Why me, why not somebody else?’ We just haven’t gotten to that place. I’m not saying we won’t get there. I’m just saying it hasn’t happened yet.”

God moves in ways we don’t expect. Seems like that might be good to remember. Read the rest here, and pray for Matt.