I suppose it was inevitable, in its way. Tim Tebow’s remarkable gridiron successes, his imminent NFL draft, coupled with the biblical verses in his eye black—all of these things have made him a media phenomenon. It was probably inevitable that his family should enter that same business.
The Tebow family has been a prominent force for Focus on the Family, an evangelical Christian lobby whose rights of free expression must be respected as intensely as any others (and apparently more so, after the US Supreme Court’s recent decision to reiterate the view that corporations are “persons” from a certain constitutional perspective. Now, in ironic turnabout, one such corporation weighs in to insist that fetuses are persons, too).
But in electing to air a thirty-second Super Bowl advertisement—one in which Pam Tebow refers to her child as a “miracle baby,” only to be tackled to the ground by the rambunctious and apologetic youngest son—the family elders turn their attention to contemplation of the evangelical unthinkable, an abortion, and so they have ironically entered the realm of business. And here, the recent Supreme Court fudging aside, the rights of free expression in a business context do have significant limits.
Gimme that Pro-Bowl Religion
Probing those limits is the question, and the essence of the game. It is a close-run thing and a hard line to draw, to be sure.
Here’s how you don’t draw it. You don’t cry foul based on what you have heard, then seek to exclude the speech before it is spoken because you don’t agree with what you think may be said. A pro-choice advocate needs to find other reasons to object to the ad and its broadcast slot.
Similarly, you don’t say that politics should be left out of the Super Bowl. Tom Brady advocated very publicly for George W. Bush; Barack Obama himself ran an ad during the Super Bowl.
So maybe it’s religion. Maybe religion should be left out of the Super Bowl. Maybe, and yet even here, there’s encroachment. Think of the players all staging group prayers before and after games, or all the coaches and players thanking their Lord and Savior before they thank their fans.
Some cultural observers, like RD’s own Gary Laderman, have pointed out how very religious the ritual and panoply of the Super Bowl has become; he has also suggested that a certain crude intervention, like Janet Jackson’s breast during a Super Bowl halftime extravaganza some years ago, received the outrage it did because it was perceived to be an act of sacrilege within the free-floating social sacred that is the Super Bowl. So long as the religion is non-sectarian, non-denominational, devoid of anything other than marketing content (and not too nude) it is free to be aired at the Super Bowl.
That is one reason why the American viewing public seems prepared to stomach Super Bowl advertisements that offend any number of other ethical sensibilities. The barrage of images at a Super Bowl is relentless: fast cars, fast women, talking animals and infants, cold beer...
You know the drill.
ACT ONE: Watch men pulverize one another on the field.
ACT TWO: Watch men pulverize one another in an ad, then wash down the hurt
with beer.
ACT THREE: Pop the top on a cold frosty one.
Repeat as necessary.
The point is, that’s a comedy. The Tebow family advertisement was seen to be drawing the Super Bowl and its viewing audience closer to the raw edge of tragedy, and it is uncertain, culturally speaking, whether we want to be taken there.
Tim Tebow, Gift from God
But then came the advertisement, surprisingly soon in the first quarter, and if you’d left the room to grab a beer you would have missed it. But the ad ended with a link to Focus on the Family, as the parents testify to their belief that their son, Timothy (named after a prominent New Testament friend of Paul and given that name before he was conceived), was a special gift from the Almighty.
The family patriarch was on a mission trip preaching in the Philippines and prayed to God “for a Timothy,” another preacher to assist him in the work. The pregnancy was difficult and nearly ended many times, but God “spared” the child, just as he has spared him on the field of athletic battle. At the end of the piece, the couple return to their fundamental commitment of faith: their acceptance of God’s often mysterious ways. Since their son has elected to become a football quarterback, not a preacher, the terms of the original Philippine prayer (terms set by the father himself, not God the Father) would seem to have been altered. Then the couple catch themselves, and remind us that their son is a preacher, in his way, as a picture of Tim Tebow with the Bible verses on his cheeks scrolls across the screen.
The really striking thing about the advertisement is, first, how it participates in the new internet strategy of using thirty seconds to direct you to a much longer ad online. “GoDaddy.com” offered several more sexed-up bits to direct the viewers in precisely the same way, if to a different destination. And there you have it: sex on the one hand, pregnancy on the other. The two have been completely separated in the new media. The Tebows never deign to speak of sexuality; the GoDaddy girls never deign to speak of pregnancy, children, or anything of the like.
Another feature of the Focus advertisement, however, is the subtle undercutting of its own message. That message is not quite as simple as a Bible verse inscribed on a player’s cheek, neither the thirty-second spot, nor the longer conversation to which it directs the viewer.
The story the Tebow family wishes to tell is that, while they might have contemplated an abortion, given all of the complications to which the mother was subject, they resisted that temptation and the subsequent birth of their Timothy is surely the sign of God’s special favor.
God's Will, in Retrospect
But such a story begs all of the hard theological questions; in fact, it denies the very tragedy with which it flirts.
What if, God forbid, Tebow’s mother discovered herself to be pregnant after a forced incestuous liaison, or a rape? What if the child had been born severely handicapped, or if he had died? What if they both had died in childbirth? To read God’s will as divine favor in retrospect is a subtle enough temptation, but it is a temptation to be avoided; precisely when and where tragedy has been avoided.
This was not a “surprise pregnancy” (the term they prefer to “unwanted”), but rather a choice. They, not God, named the child before he was born, and they justified their risky choice by choosing his career at the same time they chose his name (Samuel might have been a more appropriate name).
This curious co-mingling of human and divine choices highlights the darker underside of this ad, and what remains a subtle triumphalism with the power still to shock and dismay. As the arguments prompted by this ad prior to its airing made clear, Tim Tebow has become the argument against abortion, simply by being who he is. It is as if no one can imagine anyone not being moved by Tim Tebow, as if no one can imagine not accepting an interpretation of his life and career as one bestowed upon him by special divine favor (the parents had to remind themselves, and us, at the end of the discussion that their other children are special too).
The real problem here is the same as the assumption that has always hampered the abortion debate: the apparent assumption that the entire viewing audience at the Super Bowl is Christian, and Christian of a particular, evangelical sort. It is important to recall that the Tebow family is a mission family, dedicated to converting others to their faith (presumably even other Philippine Christians, who are deemed to be the wrong kind). In a word, the argument against abortion has become an unsubtle weapon in the larger contest of Christian conversion.
For other religious traditions do countenance abortions, because they do not grant the fetus the same status, nor the same rights, as those that they grant to human beings. These are not aberrant sects; these are prominent forms of Judaism and Islam, among others. All of this is missing in the ad because the family and the groups for whom it advocates miss the non-Christians in the audience and in the country. The whole framework of the anti-abortion argument really amounts to the desire to make the nation more Christian and less Jewish, or less Muslim, or what have you.
While I remain committed to free speech, even and especially at the Super Bowl, it is high time that verses other than John 3:16, John 10:10, and Philippians 4:13 were aired there.
How about Exodus 21:22-23 next time?
Tags: advertising, football, super bowl, tebow, television
Thanks for a wonderfully even and fair piece; I think you have hit the nail on the head. One of the cries that are voiced against evangelical concerns over other material airing on the airwaves is, "You can always turn it off." Same applies here, one is given the choice between pursuing the link or ignoring it. Of course the genius of the campaign, if it was designed that way, is the amount of anticipation those who opposed the ad generated for it, along with the notion that this was a "pro-life" advocacy statement.
All that was being promoted was the idea that family is good, and those decisions that further family are good; indeed these are offensive statements for some. But the wonderful thing about free speech is that offensiveness is OK. Even as a Christian, I publically supported Larry Flynt's right to publish, after all one cannot legislate morality. The best way to fight that battle was in the marketplace, not the courtroom. Those who were most vocal about the ad, the pro-choice movement seemed to have forgotten that choice involves at least two options; hopefully, they weren't saying that only the pro-death choice deserved a voice.
The ad reveals hate mongering against women who seek reproductive care. I suppose that next we will endure commercials from the Klu Klux Klan in the name of racial cleansing. Utterly disgusting One ought to read Barrington Moore, Robert Paul Wolff, and Herbert essays on repressive tolerance.
Free speech can and often is nothing more than hate speech.
Herbert Marcuse essay is particularly good.
How in the world was this ad, hate speech? Paranoia, whether it comes from the right or the left, is unattractive to say the least.
How is it now hate speech? It undermines a woman's right to her autonomy in choice of reproduction.
How is it not hate speech? Focus on the Family opposes the autonomy of women in the realm of reproductive freedom.
No matter what you think of Focus on the Family, or the ad that may have been on the internet -- the ad that was shown on CBS was not hate speech!!! Finding anything anti-woman in that simple ad is simply allowing ideology to triumph over reality.
Finding anything decenet in that ad is impossible. CBS refused to carry an add from a mainline denomination but broadcast from Focus on the Family, which is--well, all they do is put down mainline Christians like me.
For all the (over)reaction about the Tebow ad during the Super Bowl, the actual ad aired by CBS was pretty innocuous. Without all of the publicity before hand, I'd never have known that it had anything to do with abortion.
It goes to show that right, or left, being so ideologically focused causes people to overlook reality and focus on their own 'reading between the lines'.
If not, then what was the ad about? Was it an advertisement of Tim Tebow, and a kickoff of the message about how he will be the most righteous man in the NFL next year?
If the ad helps him in the draft it could be worth a lot more than the price of the 30 seconds. His football career has always been a big draw at the gate, and he could be worth a lot to the right team. Jacksonville would be that team. They have trouble selling their tickets and they are in a Christian corner of the country that is already full of Tebow fans. They are also an easy team for quarterbacks, the quarterbacks get lots of second chances, so he would have plenty of time to learn the position. If he makes it big, it could also sell a whole bunch of superbowl ads for those in next years draft, and help the superbowl get back to the 3 million per 30 second level.
If you hadn't been for the pre-ad publicity, it looked like an ad for Focus on the Family. There wasn't even a real hint about abortion. To call a child, a gift, is not radical!
You said in your other post there was a different ad that people saw on the internet, then the one in the superbowl was not an anti-abortion ad. The message in the superbowl ad was Tim Tebow was a gift from God. Coming shortly before the draft, does that mean of all the kids in the draft, Tim is the one who is a gift from God? If pressed on the matter the Tebows would probably say every kid in the draft is a gift from God, but they didn't say that in the ad. It is hard to pin down exactly what they were after here. Perhaps the message was Tim is now a spokesman for Focus on the Family, so we should forget about the things that Focus has said in the past and wipe the slate clean.
I call my youngest daughter, who was born 12 years after our middle child, a gift from God. Do I mean that no one else is a gift from God?
For a mother, even in a commercial, to say that her son is a gift from God is hardly a crime, nor hate speech. I imagine that other mothers of potential draft choices might consider their children gifts from God. Even mothers (and fathers) without NFL caliber children may think of their children as gifts from God. Hardly merits being called hate speech.
Undoubtedly, the ad was meant to get people to go to the Focus on the Family website. I don't know what is on the website - I don't like Focus on the Family, or James Dobson, and I have no interest in looking at their website. My point is that the ad that was aired on CBS, not the one in people's pre-Super Bowl imagination was no big deal.
I fault CBS much more for NOT running the United Church of Christ ad, which promoted that they welcome anyone to come, and it lightly hinted that gays were also welcome. I fault networks for not running MoveOn ads, while airing ads from conservative groups. But there was nothing in the Tebow ad that would disqualify it. The problem wasn't this ad, but the rejection of other perspectives.
I know the ad in the superbowl was no big deal, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it a big deal. Your daughter was a gift from God, but I doubt you will ever advertise that at the superbowl. Now that Tebow is regarded as just a Dobson spokesman perhaps he wasn't really such a gift in the first place. He calls Jesus Christ his Lord and Saviour, but now I wonder how much he really knows about Jesus anyway? Did he vote for Palin? Does he believe the world needs to be destroyed, hopefully in our lifetime, so that good people can get rapture and bad ones can be made to suffer? These are important questions that the 21st century Christian athlete should address.
I agree that Tebow's understanding of Christian faith seems to be lacking, just as that of millions of other Americans, where God in Christ as been substituted for a pernicious nationalism and a right-wing ideology.
At the same time when a big deal is made over a celebrity ad that doesn't say much more than "my son is a gift" and "my miracle baby" actually makes those against it look like a bunch of ideologues who are overreacting. Rational and loving discourse is still the best method.
My daughter will also probably never sit on a couch with Oprah and Letterman to do a commercial either. That is the nature of our celebrity culture.
There may be something here, something not apparent to the peacemakers. I am sure Tebow has uncommon honesty and morals, and he probably has understanding at least as good as any other right winger, but he might be in uncharted territory. Right wing Christianity evangelizes like a sledge hammer if they are not opposed, but if you ask the right questions, nobody answers, nobody is responsible, they become squishy, and there is nothing there. Ask Dobson the questions and what would you get, nothing of value. Ask Tebow and what would you get, he could never give the Dobsonesque answers. What would he say? He can't blow you off like the others. He can't hold up the shield of self righteousness. As the new face of evangelical Christianity, he can't just run and hide like others of his age might do. What would he do if he was honestly questioned? I am sure those around him will try to protect him from ever being put in that position, but if the questions ever managed to break through, it would be interesting.
To imply that a fetus is a child is false advertising.
The idea of "choose life" is fine. But consider the sponsor. Focus On The Family is militantly anti-choice, anti-gay, and anti-birth-control.
When the Dobsons ran Bush's National Day of Prayer, they required local coordinators to sign a pledge that began
I believe that the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of The Living God. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the only One by which I can obtain salvation and have an ongoing relationship with God.
Does "born again" mean you start each day with no memory? It's almost suicidally stupid to ignore the history of Christian hate groups like Focus On The Family.
Dobson said Obama is distorting Christianity and teaching a fruitcake constitutional interpretation. I think this is a good reason to say Dobson is distorting God and teaching a fruitcake religion. My thinking is Dobson helped put Bush in power, and that led to preemptive war and rendition and torture, and so we can judge him by his fruits.
He calls the California Judicial system "California lunacy" because of rulings on marriage and homeschooling. I think this is reason to call his way "Christian lunacy", basically for the same reasoning as above.
As a side note, Dobson says he knows as a tax exempt religion he can't endorse candidates, but he points out he CAN promote his candidates and condemn others AFTER an election is over, just not before. He also pointed out he could condemn Obama because he had a whole range of publications, and his condemnation program was being sponsored by one of his subsidiaries that was secular and not one of his tax exempt groups.
Dobson is a jerk! And his organization, as well as numerous conservative evangelical groups (and even churches) should be paying taxes, as they've become political organizations.
CBS refused to carry an ad from a mainline Christian denomination, but runs one from a small hate group. That is the problem.
Don't forget, the media is a business. Super Bowl viewership was through the roof and this ad in particular was part of the draw. Controversy and media almost always equal cash for someone, usually several someones. I guarantee Dobson and Co. and other groups had a nice big increase in web traffic, memberships and other donations, not to mention big time high-profile publicity that continues to rile people up on both sides long before, and likely long after the commercial aired. This is exactly what they wanted. Responding to intentionally controversial and confrontational people is like rolling around in the mud with a pig, after awhile, you realize the pig is enjoying it.
What does this have to do with the network refusing to carry an ad from a mainline Protestant denomination?
I'm sorry that you are 'ourtraged'. The ad from the UCC was a good ad, that could be found on the internet. And the fact that CBS didn't run it is wrong!
I don’t really mind the Focus on the Family commercial. I don’t even mind that group. I have friends who are part of it. I admire them.
I understand that the situation has changed since the UCC ad, but still I am upset that CBS ran one ad and not the other.
I don’t really mind the Focus on the Family commercial. I don’t even mind that group. I have friends who are part of it. I admire them.
I understand that the situation has changed since the UCC ad, but still I am upset that CBS ran one ad and not the other.
That I can agree with.
You don’t cry foul based on what you have heard, then seek to exclude the speech before it is spoken because you don’t agree with what you think may be said. A pro-choice advocate needs to find other reasons to object to the ad and its broadcast slot.
The difference is that when the commercial break starts and an ad for Budweiser comes on portraying women as vacuous but busty props for the men I can change the channel. I can choose not to buy Budweiser at the store. I can choose to vote Barack Obama out of office in 2012. The Tebow ad may seem inoffensive on a basic viewing level but Focus on the Family isn't about supporting choices, it's about taking them away.
I vote for its being pretty stupid and nasty, if subtle.
"choose life"idea they promoted ,in their case in particular, essentially implies that a woman should neglect advice of her doctors, putting her own, her baby's life at risk and her other 2 children also at risk of growing up without a mother.
Irresponsible,disrespectful and destructive.
It only implied these things in some people's imagination. I saw the ad, and it didn't mean any of those things to me. I saw nowhere in the ad, where it was hinted that a woman should put her life at risk.
It seems to me that ideology is running over reality, which is what I usually find on the right-wing side of the aisle. I guess it happens on both sides.
It didnt just "imply these things in some people's imagination" as you claim. The ad clarly stated "choose life", it was written on the screen.
Ad was promoting the story of Tebow's mom and was encouraging you to go and read the story at the F on F site.
Ad by itself its pretty innocent, correct. Its was it was promoting that is not innocent...
http://www.slate.com/id/2243218
Great article explaining the real situation..
"While I remain committed to free speech, even and especially at the Super Bowl, it is high time that verses other than John 3:16, John 10:10, and Philippians 4:13 were aired there."
Instead of a sign reading John 3:16, a sign reading Genesis 3:16 needs to pop up from the crowd:
Genesis 3:16 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
It is even relevant to the Tebow Super Bowl ad.
I've always wondered if Genesis and John having two verses about "God's love for women" which happened to both land on 3:16 was coincidence or some form of Freudian subconscious act on the part of the writer of the Gospel of John.
If you just read the ten commandments without knowing they are the Ten Commandments, and try to count them, would you count 9 or 10? The writers didn't put numbers on any of the verses.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.