In light of the Tony Dungy "issue"...

[3 to be 4]

I just thought id put the scenario out there.

If person A is a Christian, one would assume they believed and followed ************.

Person B publically talks of his belief and faith in ************.


As someone who believes in and follows in ************, person A would naturally.............

support and applaud Person B

or

Deride and tear down Person B for it.

If Person A chooses the latter, who is he/she serving?

 

[jcdavey]

I just thought id put the scenario out there.

If person A is a Christian, one would assume they believed and followed ************.

Person B publically talks of his belief and faith in ************.


As someone who believes in and follows in ************, person A would naturally.............

support and applaud Person B

or

Deride and tear down Person B for it.

If Person A chooses the latter, who is he/she serving?

i don't know what dungy issue you're talking about but if a christian rags on a person for 'believing' in jesus, that would make them a hypocrite

 

[3 to be 4]

i don't know what dungy issue you're talking about but if a christian rags on a person for 'believing' in jesus, that would make them a hypocrite

this sprang from the "I Know Why the Patriots Lost" thread on the football board where the threadstarter ragged on Tony Dungy for publically talking about his faith and how it helped him run his team the "right way". turns out the threadstarter revealed way into the thread that he was a Christian himself.
And as ive run into this on a number of occassions, Christians being critical of other Christians who talk about ************ out in the open, it just seemed like a good question. Because I dont have an answer for it.

there just seems to be a percentage of the church that wants the Body of Christ to simply lay very very low, despite the fact that the New Testament is loaded with contrary instruction on the matter.

 

[jcdavey]

this sprang from the "I Know Why the Patriots Lost" thread on the football board where the threadstarter ragged on Tony Dungy for publically talking about his faith and how it helped him run his team the "right way". turns out the threadstarter revealed way into the thread that he was a Christian himself.
And as ive run into this on a number of occassions, Christians being critical of other Christians who talk about ************ out in the open, it just seemed like a good question. Because I dont have an answer for it.

there just seems to be a percentage of the church that wants the Body of Christ to simply lay very very low, despite the fact that the New Testament is loaded with contrary instruction on the matter.

oh i see, well i think it's fine when a coach thanks God for their success but some people take it like the coach is saying we had God and the other guys didn't

i think when these guys thank God it's just giving praise to God for helping them have what it takes to do their job, for health and life itself.

 

[3 to be 4]

oh i see, well i think it's fine when a coach thanks God for their success but some people take it like the coach is saying we had God and the other guys didn't

i think when these guys thank God it's just giving praise to God for helping them have what it takes to do their job, for health and life itself.

Absolutely, and they do it win or lose.

And i could understand it if sometimes a non-Christian might take it the wrong way, but its odd to me that a Christian would be bothered by it.

 

[jcdavey]

Absolutely, and they do it win or lose.

And i could understand it if sometimes a non-Christian might take it the wrong way, but its odd to me that a Christian would be bothered by it.

yeah that is odd, but i didn't exactly hear the exact dungy quotes

if it was just thanking God for helping him overcome the tragedy in his life and helping him and the team persevere through a rough season, i don't see any problem with that.

 

[NJSportsFanatic]

Why is it an issue that Dungy talks about his faith in God? He seems like a real, dedicated Christian guy. Let him be. It shouldn't bother you.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

My understanding is that in response to media attention to Dungy/Smith being 2 black head coaches being in the super bowl, Dungy said they should really be talking about 2 Christian coaches being in the super bowl.

This flies in the face of reason, unless he believes this is the first super bowl in which both head coaches were Christian.

In other words, it is on a parallel with 2 black head coaches playing, if indeed Christian coaches are a rarity. I believe from hearing that comment that Dungy is using a very narrow definition of "Christian" that does not include drinking Christians, cursing Christians, etc.

If this is the case, it is mildly irritating to real non-Christians, by the implication that non-Christians are the majority of super bowl coaches, which is clearly not the case. But I would say it is way more of a slap in the face to, say, Cowher and Holmgren, both of whom are members of Christian denominations. Even in the case of a real religious minority coach -- say, Marv Levy -- it took multiple super bowls before his faith was mentioned in the national media. Why make such a point about Christianity, in the context of minority coaches, if you believe confessional group to be "business as usual" in this Super Bowl?

The other possibility is that Dungy is saying race is utterly insignificant, and by comparison, one should focus on dividing by religion, which is much more significant, so much so that "business as usual" in terms of dividing by confessional group (i.e., the usual Christian-Christian super bowl,) is more significant than making the historic "first" by the racial definition.

I think Dungy's saying he and Smith were "real" Christians, taking the familiar tack of using a very narrow definition of the confessional group "Christian," and thereby claiming it to be a minority faith.

But then, since he did not explain which he meant, he has left himself with a lovely halo of plausible deniability. Anyway, the natural most offended parties -- i.e., mainline Catholicism and Protestantism, particularly SB coaches of those faiths -- are not raring to call him out on it. Talk about looking like "sour grapes!"

I will note, however, that Dungy should make a run at Ricky Manning, Jr., who seems also to place confessional group at the heart of his worldview.

PFnV

 

[3 to be 4]

My understanding is that in response to media attention to Dungy/Smith being 2 black head coaches being in the super bowl, Dungy said they should really be talking about 2 Christian coaches being in the super bowl.

This flies in the face of reason, unless he believes this is the first super bowl in which both head coaches were Christian.

In other words, it is on a parallel with 2 black head coaches playing, if indeed Christian coaches are a rarity. I believe from hearing that comment that Dungy is using a very narrow definition of "Christian" that does not include drinking Christians, cursing Christians, etc.

If this is the case, it is mildly irritating to real non-Christians, by the implication that non-Christians are the majority of super bowl coaches, which is clearly not the case. But I would say it is way more of a slap in the face to, say, Cowher and Holmgren, both of whom are members of Christian denominations. Even in the case of a real religious minority coach -- say, Marv Levy -- it took multiple super bowls before his faith was mentioned in the national media. Why make such a point about Christianity, in the context of minority coaches, if you believe confessional group to be "business as usual" in this Super Bowl?

The other possibility is that Dungy is saying race is utterly insignificant, and by comparison, one should focus on dividing by religion, which is much more significant, so much so that "business as usual" in terms of dividing by confessional group (i.e., the usual Christian-Christian super bowl,) is more significant than making the historic "first" by the racial definition.

I think Dungy's saying he and Smith were "real" Christians, taking the familiar tack of using a very narrow definition of the confessional group "Christian," and thereby claiming it to be a minority faith.

But then, since he did not explain which he meant, he has left himself with a lovely halo of plausible deniability. Anyway, the natural most offended parties -- i.e., mainline Catholicism and Protestantism, particularly SB coaches of those faiths -- are not raring to call him out on it. Talk about looking like "sour grapes!"

I will note, however, that Dungy should make a run at Ricky Manning, Jr., who seems also to place confessional group at the heart of his worldview.

PFnV

Upstate1 and PFIV must teach at the same school. PFIV says "it is my understanding that Dungy said....." and totally mangled what Dungy said.

this was all said in the "Why the Patriots lost" thread in the football board.

PFIV is also non-biased as he has an agenda of being clearly hostile to Christians who speak of their Lord.

Dungy's faith has indeed been out there, just not covered as much because his team wasnt in the Super Bowl.

once again, he said he was proud he and Smith were the first african-american coaches, then mentioned, not that they were the first, but that they were Christian coaches. Because yes, he wanted the way they carry themselves and the way they run their ballclubs to be an example that you can win by doing things the "right way", NOT that non-Christians can or do not, but that their faith has given them the tools to be that way.

If anyone wants to take that as a slight to someone else, that is their decision, it is not what Dungy said.

it might help to actually read the quote, or better still, watch the man and how he carries himself.

The world indeed is a twisted place if a man like Tony Dungy is someone to be offended by.

Ask Non-Christian people around the NFL about Tony Dungy. Have you heard a lot of complaints or have you heard nothing but respect and admiration?

 

[mgteich]

For Dungy this much more than where he goes to church. For Dungy, he has very consciously brought his Christian life style to his running of his teams. He never raises his voice, he never swears, he never says a word in anger. He equips and uplifts his players. He takes care and honor all colts employess. BTW, all colts employees were flown to Miami, including cafeteria workers and their families.

Dungy believe that this a "Christian" way to run a football team.

Christians can differ whether his style is required by Christianity. And yes, there are people of other faiths who might take a similar approach (Zen Buddhist come to mind). However, Dungy's life style is clearly derivative from his Christian faith.

Personally, I find Dungy's public faith afformations as conforting. I wish more would do as he has done, more from other Christian "styles" as well as those of different faith walks. For me, there is indeed a cultural war in the US and the West. However, the sides are not between evangelical Christians like Dungy and everyone else. The sides are between believers who act out their faith and non-believers. Devout Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Christians have much in common, and these points of commonality stand in opposition to so much in Western culture.

So, again, kudos to Irsay and Dungy!!

 

[DarrylS]

I like Dungy, but will never like the Colts. Dungy is a good guy, who is christian not sure what comes first. Either way I respect how he runs his life, how he faced adversity when his son committed suicide and how he openly speaks of his faith. He is somewhat of an odditty in today's professional sports world.

 

[pao]

My understanding is that in response to media attention to Dungy/Smith being 2 black head coaches being in the super bowl, Dungy said they should really be talking about 2 Christian coaches being in the super bowl.

This flies in the face of reason, unless he believes this is the first super bowl in which both head coaches were Christian.

In other words, it is on a parallel with 2 black head coaches playing, if indeed Christian coaches are a rarity. I believe from hearing that comment that Dungy is using a very narrow definition of "Christian" that does not include drinking Christians, cursing Christians, etc.

If this is the case, it is mildly irritating to real non-Christians, by the implication that non-Christians are the majority of super bowl coaches, which is clearly not the case. But I would say it is way more of a slap in the face to, say, Cowher and Holmgren, both of whom are members of Christian denominations. Even in the case of a real religious minority coach -- say, Marv Levy -- it took multiple super bowls before his faith was mentioned in the national media. Why make such a point about Christianity, in the context of minority coaches, if you believe confessional group to be "business as usual" in this Super Bowl?

The other possibility is that Dungy is saying race is utterly insignificant, and by comparison, one should focus on dividing by religion, which is much more significant, so much so that "business as usual" in terms of dividing by confessional group (i.e., the usual Christian-Christian super bowl,) is more significant than making the historic "first" by the racial definition.

I think Dungy's saying he and Smith were "real" Christians, taking the familiar tack of using a very narrow definition of the confessional group "Christian," and thereby claiming it to be a minority faith.

But then, since he did not explain which he meant, he has left himself with a lovely halo of plausible deniability. Anyway, the natural most offended parties -- i.e., mainline Catholicism and Protestantism, particularly SB coaches of those faiths -- are not raring to call him out on it. Talk about looking like "sour grapes!"

I will note, however, that Dungy should make a run at Ricky Manning, Jr., who seems also to place confessional group at the heart of his worldview.

PFnV

Are you a writer? Or a lawyer? You are a wordsmith and I enjoy your posts.
pao

 

[jcdavey]

even if his quote was they should be talking about two christian coaches in the superbowl as opposed to two black coaches, sure some could take that the wrong way, but i don't think he's implying that the rest weren't, i think he just wants to use that moment to talk about his and lovie's faith and beliefs

if you want to take something bad from that, another person can just refute that and say , instead of making it just a black thing, tony was including all christians and making it a christ thing

people like to spin anything these days to satisfy their own agendas

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Thanks Pao. I do a good deal of writing in my work and have some publishing credits, but I'm mainly just a verbose jerk that happens to like the Pats :bricks:

JC, I guess that's where not explaining what you mean comes in handy. Maybe someone should ask him: do you think two Christians haven't coached in this game before? Or are you just saying that any time two Christians coach, it is more worth celebrating than a "first" for a minority group?

Next year, when almost certainly two other Christian coaches (or possibly, one or more of these two return,) will it again be newsworthy from Dungy's point of view?

I don't mind his implications too terribly much, regardless of the case, but I don't see any explanation that isn't a little nasty, once it's fully explored.

(If Marv Levy came back and coached in a SB, for example, shouldn't this by contrast disappoint Dungy? If he is happy when 2 Christian coaches coach, is he less happy if 1 non-Christian does? How can he be "more happy" for it in both instances?

And doesn't it seem that he's defining Christian by his Christianity, a sort of chauvinism toward mainline Christian churches? Really -- doesn't his statement make it seem as if he thinks Holmgren and Cowher, for examples, were not real Christians, at least not both of them?)

PFnV