1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Maude
  8. The Braiser
Media MonsterNFL

Here’s What Dallas’s First Baptist Church Had To Say About Tim Tebow Canceling His Appearance There


As you know, Tim Tebow will not, as previously scheduled, speak at Dallas’s First Baptist Church this April. Tebow’s planned appearance caused quite the hubbub in recent days, thanks to Jeffress’ history of controversial remarks, and Tebow finally decided (wisely, we thought) that the said hubbub was more than he wanted to deal with creating.

While we think Tebow will be happy with his decision, though, the church was, unsurprisingly, less thrilled with the turn of events. The church, in fact, released a statement after the news came out, which we’re excerpting below… and providing a few thoughts of our own where we feel they’re warranted.

Mr. Tebow called Dr. Jeffress Wednesday evening saying that for personal and professional reasons he needed to avoid controversy at this time but would like to come to First Baptist Dallas to speak at a future date. We are saddened that Mr. Tebow felt pressure to back out of his long-planned commitment from numerous New York and national sports and news media who grossly misrepresented past comments made by our pastor, Dr. Robert Jeffress, specifically related to issues of homosexuality and AIDS, as well as Judaism.

Well, if Tebow really is going back to First Baptist Dallas sometime, we guess the sense of betrayal some on the Christian Right felt at his decision will be a thing of the past – as will the goodwill Tebow built up with everyone who thought going to First Baptist Dallas in the first place was a bad idea. As for gross misrepresentation of Jeffress’ comments by the media, surely they’re not referring to our site, since we merely posted videos of Jeffress speaking. More from the statement:

First Baptist is a church built on the truth of Scripture, even though at times that approach can be perceived as controversial or counter to the prevailing winds of culture.

The reason for the recent media firestorm is not because the Word of God has changed, but because society has changed.

Changed to the point where people realize if they’re gonna hate the gays based on the Bible, they better not eat shrimp, either, we guess.

More important, contrary to editorializing in the media, Dr. Jeffress shares a message of hope, not hate; salvation, not judgment; and a Gospel of God’s love, grace and new beginnings available to all.

Once again, this:

We guess that means to Jeffress, “not hate” involves equating letting gay people live their lives with not speaking out against Hitler. We tried to stay out of “editorializing” in our previous post full of Jeffress videos, but we’ll “editorialize” a bit now: Robert Jeffress is a bad person, so is anyone who defends him, and if Tebow never plays another down in the NFL, he’s done some good here – whatever his reason for canceling – by shining a light on that.


  • Anonymous

    The “Bible” includes such “truths” as the value of pi is 3.0 even, no decimals after it at all; and children deserve death by being torn limb from limb by bears if they giggle at “God’s appointed prophet: for being bald.

  • Margaret Mills

    If you think Janet`s story is great,, last pay cheque my friend earnt
    $9867 sitting there from there apartment and their co-worker’s
    sister-in-law`s neighbour has been doing this for 3 months and actually
    earnt over $9867 in their spare time from there pc. applie the
    information from this site… jump15.comCHECK IT OUT

  • denright

    I go to First Baptist, and Dr. Jeffress and the Church are based on the Bible. We think its a pretty good book and so do many others. The Republic of the United States of America got its start as a result of good people believing in the word of God and believing it so much that our forefathers stood on Biblical principals and used them to establish our Republic and throw off the chains of servitude to the lords and ladies of jolly old england.

    The country recently has turned its back on God and the Church, and will suffer for it mightily. If our elected servants in Washington hadn’t sold us down the river to the Bankers and the Corporations we might not be in the fix we find ourselves in. We need more moral leadership based upon the word of God after all without God we are all just a bunch of animals and one person’s rules, laws or edicts are just as good or bad as any other person’s. Therein lies the problem! Either you believe you get your inalienable rights from God or you believe the state is God and you don’t need the Holy Trinity. You can’t have it both ways.

    I’m on God’s side, I’ve seen what happens when progressives side with the Eugenic’s Crowd, you know those that said in the Nuremberg trials that they were only following Margret Sanger and the Darwinian crowd’s thoughts regarding survival of the fittest. We all know how that turned out, don’t we call those things a Holocoast

  • DaGeek

    where is the value of pi mentioned in the bible. ? just curious

  • http://twitter.com/SpicyLiberal SpicyLiberal

    “Either you believe you get your inalienable rights from God or you believe the state is God and you don’t need the Holy Trinity. You can’t have it both ways.”

    What can of idiotic, one-way thinking is this? I can think of many different ways to go then this….funny how you basically copy/pasted the same “speeches” given by the hate group yet never actually get into the utter stupidity of I WANT MY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM! Oh, but those people that arent a part of my religion? PERSECUTE THEM!

  • Anonymous

    1 Kings 7:23 The Google Machine will lead you to many commentaries about this passage.

  • Anonymous

    fuck me sexy jesus

  • Bobby

    I think it’s a little unfair to call this man a bad person. He might not share your cultural outlook and code of morality; that’s true. But to say he’s a bad person means that he should be ashamed of himself just because he doesn’t see the world the way you do. Is that fair? Maybe it’s time we found some positive things to say about this fellow.. I’ll start: I applaud his courage to say something that is so unpopular to say. I respect his authenticity and his honesty in speaking his heart. You see, your calling him a bad person is the moral equivalent of him calling gay people bad. It’s just two different value systems evaluating actions in different ways. If you have the right to call him bad, then he has the right to calling gay people bad. So if you want him to stop calling gay people bad, maybe you should set the example and refrain from calling him bad. I’m not condemning you; rather, I’m just trying to explain why judgment for judgement is self-contradictory. What do you think?

  • Anonymous

    First off, thanks for being civil about it. Here’s why I disagree that what I’m saying is a moral equivalent to what he’s saying: he’s saying they’re doomed to hellfire and ruining America when whether or not anyone is gay doesn’t make a damn bit of difference in his life. Gay people did nothing to him, and he has it out for them – *them*; he’s painting an entire subset of people with a broad brush – anyway.

    Jeffress, though? He’s one person. One person implicitly condemning millions of people he’s never met because of something innate to them (and that, again, has ZERO impact on his daily life). He has a right to say what he says, yes, but I don’t see any way to label someone who says it as anything but a bad person. He judged people for being themselves. i judged him for thinking there’s something wrong with other people being themselves. THAT’S the difference.

  • jlpope

    @Glenn Davis – Did you actually watch and LISTEN to the FOX4 video you posted with your article? When questioned about things other people have said or reported about his comments, Dr. Jeffress appealed three times to an adherence to the message and actual teaching of Jesus Christ in the Bible. Not once did Jeffress make a hateful or derogatory comment about any single person or group of people. He did refer to Bible scripture to define marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman – and that sexual relationships are only permissible in that same arrangement. He went on to say, referencing the Bible once again, that ANY sexual activity outside the bond of this same Biblically-defined marriage is considered a sin – sin being actions in defiance of God’s will and God’s word. He also pointed out that the message of Jesus is one of love. While Jeffress didn’t mention it directly, Jesus after all died on a cross for the sin of every man and woman who will believe in Him. There is no greater love than that. You, on the other hand, referred to Dr. Jeffress as a ‘bad person’ and hinted that anyone who supports Dr. Jeffress is a ‘bad person’. So I ask you, who is being hateful?

  • jlpope

    @Glenn Davis – Did you actually watch and LISTEN to the FOX4 video you posted with your article? When questioned about things other people have said or reported about his comments, Dr. Jeffress appealed three times to an adherence to the message and actual teaching of Jesus Christ in the Bible. Not once did Jeffress make a hateful or derogatory comment about any single person or group of people. He did refer to Bible scripture to define marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman – and that sexual relationships are only permissible in that same arrangement. He went on to say, referencing the Bible once again, that ANY sexual activity outside the bond of this same Biblically-defined marriage is considered a sin – sin being actions in defiance of God’s will and God’s word. He also pointed out that the message of Jesus is one of love. While Jeffress didn’t mention it directly, Jesus after all died on a cross for the sin of every man and woman who will believe in Him. There is no greater love than that. You, on the other hand, referred to Dr. Jeffress as a ‘bad person’ and hinted that anyone who supports Dr. Jeffress is a ‘bad person’. So I ask you, who is being hateful?

  • JTFairly

    Glenn, your argument fails unless you can find a way to condemn the very Scripture from which he teaches. It’s also the Scripture from which Christ taught. Those Scriptures clearly condemn homosexuality in way that I’m fairly certain would have you and the rest of the homosexual affirming crowd tossing out condemnations from here to the final judgment.

    Whether or not “gay people did nothing to him” is beside the point. Where Scripture speaks to a matter, God speaks, and where God speaks, it reveals his moral law to us apart from the actions of others for or against us. Homosexuals could have done nothing but brought him cookies and milk to this point in his life, and they would still be under the condemnation of God for their unnatural lust and rebellion against the created order. Jeffress is not condemning millions on his own autonomous authority, he is merely relaying the teaching of Scripture on the matter.

    Just as a starting point, try giving the first chapter of the epistle to the Roman church a careful read through, then maybe read up on Lot’s stay in Sodom in the early chapters of Genesis after that.

  • JTFairly

    Anyone who uses “the Google Machine” to build their case against the Scriptures is obviously an individual with a great deal to say. Whether or not what they have to say is worth anything is an entirely different matter.

    For example – the passage in 2 Kings 2:23; obviously a rebellious soul such as yourself would love to attribute moral wrong to a holy God, and surely would look for the most ridiculous translation in that regard. I, however, have read and studied Hebrew for five years in graduate school, I know that the two terms in combination and context also have the potential to be translated “insignificant young men”, or “men of no reputation”. I also know that innocent little children, especially in that society and time, would not have chased a prophet down the road, intentionally mocking his appearance with hurtful words. Those are the actions of young men, trained in the knowledge of God, accountable for it, and yet intentionally shaking a rebellious fist in His face, much in the way I’m sure you do on your free time while trolling the internet.

    Spend a few years in the Hebrew text and get back with us. Your second point is just a red herring, and one that I’ll not waste more words on here.

  • NathanExplosion

    Far too many words here; when demonstrating your Jesusy-love for thy fellow man, it is best to condense it into a few sentences. Love is best served in easily consumable doses.

  • NathanExplosion

    Jeffress is one of my favorite comic book pastors.

    To learn that he isn’t gay (at least I don’t think he is gay — no, no, he most certainly can’t be gay), to learn that he isn’t gay is lovely.

    Thankfully scripture allows me to call my dog Dr. Mike; everyone gets to be a doctor.

  • NathanExplosion

    I’ve been trained in metal. Do I get eternal bliss?

  • Anonymous

    Actually, I’ve come across this defense of the slaughter,in other places on the Intertoobz with or without the Google Machine. Anyway, that’s still a poor excuse to tear 42 human beings limb-from-limb for such an action. Wotan would have given them the evil eye (he only has one; in a later era, he would not have been able to watch “Avatar” in 3D. Some God!) as in “Die Walkuere”, but would only have stunned them. He killed Hunding because Hunding had thwarted Wotan’s plan. Gods seem not to plan very well.

  • Bobby

    Right, I see both viewpoints clearly. On the one hand, Glenn, you are showing compassion to gay people who have their their lifestyle judged harshly. And on the other hand, JTFairly, you are explaining that conservative Christians have a ethic based on holy scripture. Like I tried to say, these are two different ethical approaches trying to do something good in the criticisms they make: but both approaches have difficulties. In the first case, made by Glenn, it’s difficult to condemn people for condemning people. It’s a trap of judgement. In the second case, made by JTFairly, it’s difficult to reconcile a tension in scripture between “judge not” and the fact that scripture condemns certain lifestyles. To make the matter even more difficult, Jesus himself teaches to “judge not” but severely judges religious leaders. These logical difficulties aside, there’s a challenge for us all: to try to make the world a better place, and to persuade others to do so, without condemnation. How is it possible? I don’t know. I’ve thought about it a lot, and I have no good answer to this question. My current position is that it’s not possible to rid yourself of condemning language when evaluating other people’s words and actions; but, it is possible to try to understand such behavior and to attempt to accept it as normal human behavior. This allows us to compassionately interact with others while not completely quenching our ability to try to make a difference for the sake of the good, however we might see that good. Peace, Bobby


© 2014 SportsGrid, LLC | About Us | Advertise | Newsletter | Jobs | Privacy | User Agreement | Disclaimer | Power Grid FAQ | Contact | Archives | RSS RSS
Dan Abrams, Founder | Power Grid by Sound Strategies | Hosting by Datagram | Sports Statistics Provided By Rotowire