In The Jeremy Lin Problem, David Brooks argued that an underlying problem exists for religious professional athletes. He wrote, "the moral ethos of sport is in tension with the moral ethos of faith," making the false assumption that only non-religious people can play sports because they don't have moral decision-making dilemmas. He also states that the primary virtue of an athlete is courage and that a person of faith can't "seek to win," "beat his opponents," "avoid the oblivion that goes with defeat" or "set a goal and climb towards greatness" because they must "surrender to God." There are many false premises Brooks makes but perhaps the most glaring is his misunderstanding of the Christian faith. 


Like the famous NFL quarterback Tim Tebow, Lin is an evangelical Christian who often mentions his faith when interviewed.
Brooks and many others fail to understand that the primary purpose of being a Christian is to glorify God in all that one does and to enjoy God forever. Glorifying God means esteeming, adoring, loving, and dedicating one's self to Him, despite the outcome.
For a Christian, one's primary virtue is faith in Christ, which fosters humility in knowing that God is in control of all of life. Christians do of course worry (after all, they are human), but ultimately, they pray for guidance and for God to do for them that which they cannot do for themselves.
For Lin, Tebow and other Christian athletes, winning is not about pride or ego; it's about glorifying God.
In the movie "Chariots of Fire," based on a true story, Eric Little, the famous Scottish early 20th century Olympian runner said: "I believe that God made me for a purpose. But he also made me fast. When I run, I feel his pleasure." Feeling God's pleasure, for Little was better than winning.


Athleticism is not mutually exclusive from one's faith. God's glory is revealed in all of a Christian's life -- in their effort, attitude and ability to let go of the results. This is why Lin recently said in a Sports Illustrated interview about his success, "I've surrendered that [success] to God. I'm not in a battle with what everybody else thinks anymore."


Part of the problem with Brooks' analysis is that he creates a false dichotomy between winning and losing and having faith in God. The great truth about man's ultimate purpose -- that of glorifying God -- is that there is much more to a sport than just winning or losing. Brooks assumes that winning and losing is all that there is. One of the freedoms a Christian has is the ability to compete without holding on to the outcome of winning or losing -- because when one loves God, the joy of knowing God overcomes any fear or false fear that often accompanies an athlete.
This is why Tebow says in "Through My Eyes": "You and I were created by God to be so much more than normal. ... Following the crowd is not a winning approach to life. In the end it's a loser's game, because we never become who God created us to be by trying to be like everybody else."
It is difficult to support the blatant generalization Brooks makes that "morality and sports are irreconcilable" because it is possible for an athlete to do the morally right thing and compete at the same time. Yet, his argument is fatally flawed when it comes to faith because he equates faith and morality, which are two different things. Faith in God goes beyond seeking to do that which is right or good. This is why it is possible for faith to reconcile with all areas of life because God is the author of both faith and life.
Lin, Tebow and other Christians' achievements are possible because they know that God is the author of their talent, faith and inspiration, and they desire to feel God's pleasure in what they do.
David Briggs: Faith, Tebowing and the Super Bowl: Does it Pay to Pray for Play?
I don't know if RG3 is a christian, but I admire the way he all but disappeared after winning the Heisman Trophy. He doesn't seem interested in the hype. He will be first or second in the NFL draft, and certain to be a starter (as will Andrew Luck). They appear to have clear boundaries in their lives.
------------------------------
How do you know that? Because you believe what others have told you by way of speech or written word. And now you can judge others? Your beliefs are so strange, so far away from mine.
Today is Maundy Thursay (the day before Jesus' death). Here's a great explanation of what Jesus did on that day, and why he did it:
http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/the-last-day-of-jesus-life-on-earth-what-did-he-do-why-did-he-do-it/
It's not very flattering to us, and yet it puts the events of that week in stark relief to the often kindergarten level of understanding about the Christian faith.
Thanks.
Of course evangelicals have pride in themselves and their religion. All religions are the same in that regard. Most religions assume they are "good". But evangelicals want everyone to adhere only to their interpretations. Evangelicals demand their anti-abortion and creationism be revered as the only way. Within American politics they have demanded other Americans adhere to their theocratic laws without understanding that government is secular in fairness to all by favoring no one. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.
For example: Tebow put Biblical verse references on his eye black in college. Would football viewers have been equally respectful or nonchalant if an opposing linebacker had written on his eye black ... "There is"....and...."No God"?
Our sports don't need open religious displays, unless all other religions can openly do the same? Would an American football player demonstrating reverence to another religion, say knelling toward Mecca, be equally appreciated after a TD catch? If not, then keep religion personal and let the sport be indifferent to all religions.
If Tebow were Muslim you wouldn't even be talking about him.