So, the clip of Brit Hume’s “Tiger, Come to Jesus” moment is running viral.
Over at the National Catholic Reporter, the rather left-of-center Michael Sean Winters writes:
Fox News commentator Brit Hume has gone off the deep end, even by Fox News’ standards which are a pretty low bar. [...] I am a big fan of everyone becoming Christian. But, a person in crisis should probably not be counseled to abandon his or her own faith traditions unless the conversion was part of an organic process, not the result of advice offered on a Sunday talk show. Buddhism is not my cup of tea . . . but it certainly embodies a means towards achieving forgiveness and redemption.
Does it? I wish our long-missing friend Joseph Marshall (who I have not been able to get in touch with, and am concerned about) was around to give some clarification on that point. Without Joseph at our disposal, I checked around and found this from Buddhist Barbara O’ Brien:
I don’t like to point out others’ faults, but given the record I would think Christians would show a little more humility about offering advice to the sexually wayward. As Jesus once said, let those who have never sinned throw the first stones (John 8:7).
However, Mr. Hume is right, in a sense, that Buddhism doesn’t offer redemption and forgiveness in the same way Christianity does. Buddhism has no concept of sin; therefore, redemption and forgiveness in the Christian sense is meaningless in Buddhism. Forgiveness is important, but it is approached differently in Buddhism…
Hmmmm…gets more complicated. O’ Brien -in the full piece- seems to suggest that Hume is correct, but makes it clear that redemption and forgiveness are comprehended differently from the get-go, so there are no real equivalences with which to argue.
However, Ms. O’ Brien seems to be mistaking Hume’s obvious compassion for Woods as “stone-throwing.” Having watched the video several times, it seems to me that Hume is doing no such thing. Like Creative Minority, I see Hume taking Wood’s situation, and the state of his soul very seriously, and from the perspective of his own beliefs. Rather than hoisting a stone of judgment in Wood’s direction, Hume is offering what he believes to be a healing balm. The distinction between stoning someone to death or offering them hope for their lives is not exactly a fine or subtle one; the fact that Ms. O’ Brien can’t make that distinction suggests that she -like most of us- has allowed a prejudice -or her condescension- to dull her own clarity, and that -again like most of us- she finds it hard to resist the urge to cynicism.
The faith journey is not for wimps, is it? We all have so much to learn.
Conservative and Buddhist, Charles Martin, sounding slightly defensive writes:
I’ll grant that Buddhism doesn’t provide a transcendental entity which can forgive sin, but then Buddhism doesn’t actually provide the concept of sin either; we replace it with “things which lead to a peaceful life, causing no avoidable harm to others” and, of course, the opposite. High on that list is “avoid sexual misconduct” which can be translated to “know when to keep your pants zipped.”
Having no concept of transcendent forgiveness, we replace it with the idea that having harmed someone, you should make amends and reconsider your behavior in the future. You tell me which is more productive: being Forgiven of Sin, or making amends and remedying your faults?
Heh. As a Catholic, I choose both! and (let me be clear) I think most Christians would. Martin, who is a very smart fellow, undercut his helpful answer by -like Ms. O’ Brien- being unable to instruct without trying to one-up. I understand the instinct, of course, but wonder if it was really necessary. I am certain Martin knows that Christianity is about more than “sinning with a get-out-of-hell-free” card, but he chooses not to acknowledge that, in this piece.
Americablog writes:
“. . . that’s not really his job as a news anchor, to tell non-Christians to become Christians. Not to mention, there seems to be an implication that Tiger Woods would be a better person, movie downloads or something, if he became a Christian. Yes, because all those Republican Christians don’t ever cheat on their wives.”
Well, once again, I don’t think Hume was suggesting to anyone that Christians (or, as they write, “Republican” Christians) are not subject to the same failings, faults and weaknesses as any other human beings, only that Christ and His Grace offer strength, consolation and, sometimes, real healing, depending upon one’s own openness.
Hume had to know, when he was making his remarks, that he was opening himself (and to an extent, all of Christianity) for some criticism and ridicule; perhaps he expected that his remarks would foment debate and dialogue. As we see, though, from our Buddhist friends, Ms. O’ Brien, Charles Martin, and from Americablog, first reactions to his remarks have either completely misconstrued his intent (stone-throwing?) or his meaning (unproductive-faith-alone?) or his message (“Republican” Christians don’t sin?), and so any dialogue will begin with a deficit in understanding, on both sides.
Speaking only from my own perspective as a Christian, it seems to me there are a lot of non-Christians out there who really don’t understand Christianity, or the mystery and purpose of Christ, and this is partly the fault of Christians. If we lived our creed better, preaching the gospel by the way we live our lives, and by our love, then perhaps those who currently distrust us enough to be satisfied with incuriousness and stereotypes, would not be so quick to jump to the worst conclusions when a fellow like Hume speaks -very gently, it must be said, without stoning or consignment to flames of woe- on the Christian application to the human condition.
Should Hume have said what he did, on the air? I am a little ambivilent about it.
On one hand, as a Christian, I admire it; Hume put himself out there, as “a fool for Christ,” willing to face ridicule and scorn for his faith. On the other hand, I’m not comfortable with the venue. I don’t think I would like it if, for example, Christopher Hitchens suggested to Tiger, “don’t worry about it, there is no God, anyway,” or if some Muslim used a news broadcast to suggest that Woods should turn to Islam. As the writer at Americablog suggested, minding the salvation of Tiger Woods this is not Hume’s job as a newscaster.
It is his job as a Christian, however, and Hume might have done better, in a host of ways, by contacting Woods privately, and offering to pray for him (as he is likely already doing) and perhaps introducing Woods to the Good Shepherd, in the process.
But we don’t know everything; perhaps Hume has tried to reach out to Woods, but the golfer -not wishing to talk to members of the press- has closed all avenues, and so Hume decided to make a public plea. Not an optimal situation, to be sure, but the Holy Spirit does have a way of confounding us and using what is available, and we do not always understand why He does what He does.
I wrote here, about Marcella Dubuque:
Perhaps God’s will for Marcella Dubuque was not that she die, but that she learn the means, and the power, of perfect prayer.
Perhaps the Holy Spirit’s will in this case, then, is not that Brit Hume bring Tiger Woods to Jesus in sixty seconds, but for something larger, that we do not yet understand, and will not until the thing plays out a bit. Since so much of the negative commentary pounces on the hypocritical sexual failings of Christians, perhaps the Holy Spirit is using this event as a means to teach us Christians, and the lesson is: Christians would be more credible if they (collectively and individually) lived their own lives in a more Christ-like manner and gave less public scandal.
And good heavens, don’t we all need to hear and internalize that! I sure do!
Interesting stuff.
David Gibson in Politics Daily, finds Hume’s “altar call” problematic on several levels but manages some human perspective:
Hume’s homily was understandable, because, well, this is Fox News, but also because Hume himself reconnected with his faith in a serious way after his son committed suicide in 1998 and his faith clearly carried him through.
Gateway Pundit seems to support Hume’s remarks, sees the criticism as impending persecution:
It used to be that liberals didn’t want you to mention Christ in schools. Then they banned Christ from Christmas concerts and public squares. Now they are demanding that we not talk about Christianity in public. We should have seen this coming.
I don’t know if this is persecution. I frankly don’t want to see newscasts become daily forums for proselytizing.
I’m as ignorant of Buddhism as I am everything else, but isn’t one of the key teachings that all suffering is caused by, er, desire and that the path to serenity lies through freeing yourself from that desire? In which case, Tige’s problem might not be that he’s got the wrong religion but that the one he’s got hasn’t quite penetrated yet. No pun intended.
Bookworm has a typically thoughtful take that looks at the fall of Rome, the fall of the UK, and the fall of the USA:
In America, I think we’ll go the other way: It won’t be Islam that destroys us, but Christianity that saves us. I make this prediction as a Jewish woman who trusts that her Christian fellow-Americans will continue to believe in religious freedom. This means that I don’t imagine a theocracy, with militant Christians taking over Washington at gun point. I simply believe that Americans will look at what’s happening around them, and take refuge in traditional religious morality — and in this country, traditional religious morality is predominantly Christian.
In Ireland, that may or may not be a legal crime, but here in America it is at least being made socially unacceptable by postmodern leftists who screech like a goth in the sun if they hear a simple declarative statement that Christianity is superior to other religions.
Sort of related, another sort of news cast proselytizing: NPR, publicly funded but disdainful of half the public
Of Interest:
USA Today
Althouse
Totally off-topic:
40 Obnoxious quotes of 2009
Not strictly Catholic, even, to “choose both”–I’m a Baptist myself, and I recall that Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to “go and sin no more” (reconsidering for the future, as the Buddhists put it), and led Zacchaeus to “make amends” by repaying fourfold what he had wrongly taken (I had to look up the detail on that last, though).
[I know someone would say that's not "strictly Catholic" and of course it's not. But I was trying to make a distinction between those Christians (and there are a few) who seem to think that because they're "saved" their works and deeds do not need much temporal adjustment!
-admin]
Anchoress, thanks for the link, but I wanted to correct one misapprehension: I really do think making amends in this life and avoiding misbehavior in the future is a better thing that looking for forgiveness from what the atheist cult calls “an imaginary friend”. I tend to agree with Gautama that getting overly concerned with existence after you die interferes with reducing suffering in this life.
[I don't doubt that you think that, Charles. But your tone seemed to suggest that we Christians do not see the value of "makind amends and avoiding behavior in the future. " I assure you, that's not the case.
Thanks for coming by! -admin]
The Washington City Paper and the Post documented: Hume committed suicide in his apartment in Arlington, Virginia. In the months before his death, Hume, an alcoholic, had begun drinking again. The night before his suicide, Hume was jailed for drunk driving and tried to hang himself in the U.S. Park Police jail cell. He was evaluated at a psychiatric facility and released. He went home and took his life with a hunting rifle. He left a long note expressing shame at the previous night’s events.
It seems Brit Hume knows whereof he speaks. Go tell it on the mountain, Brit.
I do not think there is any problem calling Roman Catholicism a “Republican” religion. There is a straight line where the Roman Catholics who would like to see the Tridentine Rite brought back are Republicans.
Republican Catholics, like Hume and Clarence Thomas, have contempt for liberals. Liberals have contempt for the whole Fox News, 24 Hour-a-day “Liberals are stupid traitors at best and evil traitors at worst” Talk Radio.
You give Hume the so-called “benefit of the doubt” because Hume SHOULD be proselytizing. Roman Catholics need to lecture others for the same reasons that Seventh Day Adventists knock on doors: when you possess the absolute truth, others need to be told.
Some huge percentage of people will die and be tortured through Eternity because God is loving. We know that. The only question is which group has the franchise on Truth. For Hume and you and Scalia/Roberts?Alito etc. it is the Roman Catholics who follow the teachings of the pre-Vatican Two church.
One of God’s rewards to real Catholics will be the suffering of those who did not believe in your beliefs.
Hume was just doing his job, which is to spread Roman Catholicism in every action. Woods could do worse than to come out and talk about how much God has forgiven him.
That is called belief and Theology and I believe you all should be prouder than you always and already are.
[I am not sure Hume is Catholic? -admin]
Anchoress.
You are a clear thinker, but you err when you call Hume’s comments part of a “newscast”. It was not part of a newscast. It was the FNS Power Panel Round table, which is an OPINION FORUM. Hume is within his rights and is practicing heroic and appropriate Christian evangelization in expressing his opinion on national television.
It’s really exciting to see how this message is, as you so rightly say, going viral. Hume is, all at once, a saint, a hero, an American, a journalist with an opinion.
The time for beating around to bush and being timid about saving souls is long past. We are in a titanic battle between the forces of darkness and the forces of light. Hume will not be cowed. And he is inspiring many, many more Christians to FIGHT for the Truth.
[Hey, I'm all for proclaiming Christ. I try to do it, myself, although I do it poorly. But as I say, I find it difficult to believe that Hume (or any "panelist," whether "pundit" or "journalist") would be finding as much support for his advice to Woods, were he suggesting Woods turn toward Mecca, hence -as brave as Hume was in doing as he did- it is perfectly legit to question whether that venue was the best place for it.-admin]
I just read an O’Reilly twitter tease that Brit Hume will be on tonight’s show…”Brit Hume has some religious advice for Tiger Woods.” Hopefully he will get a little more time to discuss his point…I hope it’s not a segment ender where the person has less than a minute to respond to a last question.
It could very well be that Brit was “compelled” by the Spirit to speak.I have had this experience, and although it made me very uncomfortable,it turned out that a miracle resulted.
TO: The Anchoress
RE: That ‘Uncomfortable’ Feeling
Personally?
[1] I can understand being ‘uncomfortable’ in talking about Christ. That’s quite common. Most people are totally unwilling to speak their faith to others. Especially in public. Most people are afraid to ‘offend’.
But remember what was said about Him….
….Many shall be offended by Him.
So. Don’t worry about their being ‘offended’. Especially if you’re relatively gentle with them. As I am with those who come to my door to tell me about THEIR faith.
Sometimes I have to apply a more ‘assertive’ approach. Just ask the BlogFather.
[2] On the other hand, I don’t care if people talk about their faith, Buddhist, Muslim, Taoist, etc., etc., etc. It helps to (1) understand them, (2) understand yourself and (3) help them to understand Him.
Wish I could have that sort of ‘discussion’ with Charlie (Colorado) Martin, but for some strange reason I can’t post on his site.
Happy New Year,
Chuck(le)
[And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.]
Hume showed compassion and forgiveness in making such a suggestion and more importantly he is free to speak according to our Bill of Rights. As far as Fox being the “appropriate” place to say such a thing, of course it is. Religion has a place in public life. I dare say I have heard no one else in the blogosphere, in Cable News or in the MSM care one wit about the state of Tiger’s soul or person. Hume showed some class and his own concern for a fellow wretch. Those “concerned” about Hume’s remarks need to move on and they should hope for the same concern from their fellow human beings.
[And yet, I cannot get past the idea that if a Muslim had done what Hume had done, many people would be much less enthusiastic about it -admin]
Isn’t Mr. Hume a pundit now, not a “newscaster” or “news anchor”? I believe he retired from the news desk last year. Regardless, the topic on the table was Tiger Woods. Maybe FoxNews Sunday wasn’t the right “venue” to discuss Tiger, but once it was breached, it seems entirely appropriate for Hume to give a come to Jesus call in that context.
[Brit Hume has a long and distinguished career as a journalist, and I expect that if asked he would still consider himself one. Public perception of him is that he is a journalist. Were he sitting on the panel as a Christian commenter, perhaps his remarks would not be as jarring, but he is seen - by most, I'd say - as a journalist. -admin]
Full disclosure: I’ve always liked Brit Hume, found him sober and (mostly) even-handed, and definitely trustworthy. I saw him on the show yesterday in “real time.” I was struck by his sincerity. He really really believed what he was saying, and obviously felt pain for a fellow human being going through suffering, even the self-inflicted kind. He was offering his opinion on an opinion show, and I believe this must have been weighing on him.
I think there is room here to think he was “compelled” like Sharon said. I’ve also been compelled to speak up–not fun, but it felt at the time that if I’d kept silent then the stones would have shouted! Now knowing a bit of Mr. Hume’s personal story, too, I think this was purely out of compassion.
I respect Brit Hume as a news man more than about every other newperson out there. But I don’t look to news people for opinions on spiritual or religious matters. I don’t care what Hume’s religious views are. His religious views are no more interesting than any other person’s. It’s kind of like Sean Penn’s political views. I just don’t care.
As someone who was raised a Christian but has been a practicing Buddhist for nearly 40 years, I can tell you that Mr. Hume’s comparative assessment of Christianity and Buddhism is simplistic and ignorant. His imploring of Tiger to renounce Buddhism because of its inferior, in Hume’s view, path to “forgiveness and redemption” is cartoonishly mistaken, and his call for Tiger to convert to Christianity is utterly inappropriate in such a forum and offensive to sincere practitioners of one of history’s great religions. Brit simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
I have to say this sadly takes Mr. Hume down a peg on my admiration scale. I do think there has been a “war on Christianity,” and the attempt by the atheistic Left to scour the mention of Christianity from every public space and forum is deplorable and should be resisted. But Mr. Hume’s statement on what is supposed to be a news show is simple, and simplistic, Christian chauvinism. And don’t tell me about being “compelled by the Spirit to speak.” If I’m compelled by the Spirit to convince you to convert to Buddhism, how will you feel about that? I thought so.
Larry Kudlow made similar remarks when the Tiger news began to break – although I think he designated “higher power.” Both Larry and Brit have “been there,” Larry himself and Brit with his son, whom he lost. Larry came to Christ slowly, almost as a discipline following his 12-step program. Brit made the trip back to the faith of his childhood after he lost his son. Both Larry and Brit, I am convinced, recognized themselves in the Tiger situation – either in Tiger’s or in a loved one’s position – and, I am sure, have prayed for Tiger’s recovery. Brit and Larry have “been there.” I have not and am reluctant to speak about either’s comments.
Because this wasn’t done in a capacity as news anchor, I think that Hume’s advice is the most compassionate reaction, as opposed to the false compassion of those who think only of his losing sponsors, wrecking his career, or losing his “hot wife.” Hume showed actual compassion and concern for Tiger, and I think it’s great.
re: Maria’s comments (#4): I have no idea what you’re talking about there. Could you clarify a bit or provide a link? Brit Hume is kind of … well … not dead. Are you talking about a family member of his? It’s not clear. Thanks.
I consider myself a Buddhist. I think AllahPundit has it about right. I would only add that in Buddhism you don’t have to get everything sorted out in this one lifetime… but if you want a shot at doing better in the next lifetime, you need to pay heed to the law of karma.
Winters: Buddhism is not my cup of tea . . . but it certainly embodies a means towards achieving forgiveness and redemption.
Anchoress: Does it?
NO
From what I have read, Buddism does think in terms of sin and redemption Therefore if Tiger Wood’s Buddist belief is working for him, Woods has no need to accept Britt Hume’s advice. If on the the other paw, Woods does indeed feel the need for redemption, Hume has shown him a path. I’d call that a good deed.
I’m not too clear here; what is the right venue in which to be a “fool for Christ” Can you rank order them for me?
Brit Hume probably, through the Holy Spirit, planted the seed for Tiger that will ultimately grow and lead him to be a Christian.
As a Baptist I am surprised at your quotation marks around the word “saved”. Jesus is the Savior and he did save us from our sins if we only believe He is the Son of the Living God, was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, was tortured, crucified, died, buried and raised again on the third day, and lives forevermore at the Right Hand of God the Father.
If we accept these things as truths and ask Jesus to be our Savior and live in our very spirit, which is deeper than the soul, then we are all saved.
I know Catholics practice their faith differently from the way I practice my Baptist faith, but we should all be in agreement that all of us are saved if we follow those simple instructions and, yes, get a get out of hell free card.
Paul tells us For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
We have earned eternal death and damnation, but God loves us so much He sent His Only Begotten Son Jesus to die so that we would die only in the body but never in the spirit. Those who reject him will die in the spirit as well as in the body, but they will not be unconscious. They will be so aware of their own situation that they won’t pay any attention to anyone else in the depths of hell with them.
What Brit Hume did was remarkable in the finest sense of the word. He didn’t say what branch of Christianity Tiger should embrace, but said that would be the only thing that would give him real peace.
To be concerned about the welfare of another’s soul shows a real Christian spirit that should not be criticized. It’s an act of love.
Hope I didn’t step on your toes as you know I love you dearly, but saved is not to be put into quotation marks unless someone doesn’t quite believe we can be saved. We cannot work our way to heaven, although good works follow.
Bless you, Dear Anchoress and I hope you understand what it is I’m trying so hard to say.
That quote from Americablog is some of the most ignorant and shallow analysis I can imagine. Did he even watch the clip of Hume before reacting or is he always this impulsive and pathetic?
Heh. As a Catholic, I choose both!
Very St. Therese-like
My 1st impression was that Brit was drawing a distinction between Christian and Buddhism on the grounds of Karma vs. Forgiveness.
I looked at Wikipedia (maybe risky) and found this (under Rebirth(Buddhism):
“The type of rebirth that arises at the end of one life is conditioned by the karmas (actions of body, speech and mind) of previous lives; good karmas will yield a happier rebirth, bad karmas will produce one which is more unhappy.”
But I know little about Buddhism, and also know that I am probably off course.
Sadly, I went over to youtube to see the vid. The few comments that I read were (of course) unsubtle in their hatreds.
Scott Jerome and Christine are correct: Hume wasn’t speaking from his anchor’s chair, and so not (ab)using his position for Christian proselytzing. Hume was performing in this instance as a talking head giving a personal opinion, so it’s a non-issue.
1. Anchoress–Happy New Year–, first of all let me emphasize that I find your post sensible and decent. You are not a target of the following slings and arrows.
2. I consider Hume’s declaration to be creepy. He could have made that statement to/about any nonChristian undergoing a personal crisis. A recruiter for a cult that preys on troubled people might make statements similar to Hume’s.
3. Gateway Pundit’s claim of persecution is, probably unintentionally, right out of the the playbook for The Great 1960s Boomer Tantrum: do something that disrupts or angers people, and denounce the ensuing blowback.
4. As a conservative-leaning libertarian, I’m confident I could coexist in a Big Tent with you, Anchoress. I no longer say that about many politically active Christians. It’s not that I often disagree with the so-called religious right: it’s that, feeling misled in the past, I distrust them. (NB: My attitude is more vehement than the foregoing conveys, but I’m trying to express myself in a civil manner.)
5. Iirc the Catholic mystic and thinker Thomas Merton expressed great respect for Eastern spiritual traditions, including Buddhism.
6. Seeing Hubble on your blogroll, I thought you might enjoy recent work on the Mandelbulb. Zooming into fractals reminds me of C.S. Lewis’s scenario that Heaven gets bigger the farther in you go.
This is a bit muddled, so bear with me:
My first thought when I saw this was that somewhere I had read something where Christ was compared to a physician. That is to say, Christ came not necessarily to save saints, but to heal sinners.
Perhaps Hume was merely giving Tiger a referral? I understand the want for reticence in such a matter, but in the end I am ambivalent. “For even the very wise cannot see all ends. ”
[My piece is a bit muddled, also.
Admin]
Christine, Maria’s quote is from a news article about the death, by suicide, of Hume’s son in 1998.
He credits the death of his son with his own recommitment to his faith.
On the other hand, maybe Brit will learn something about Buddhism and it will lead to him becoming a Buddhist.
Anyway, Anchoress, I come by all the time; I just dropped the “Charlie (Colorado)” cognomen because I wanted to unify things under one name.
And call me “Charlie”, please.
Caite, thank you. It was not at all clear, and I didn’t know the back-story of that. How difficult for his family.
from a Lutheran who goes to a non-denominational Christian church. This was On a News Analysis show, in an in opinion segment and I feel that it was just fine. In fact, I admired Brit for having the guts to come out on national TV and give his heart felt conviction. Penn of Penn and Teller has spoken of his admiration for those that would tell him of their faith even though he is an atheist. He feels that someone who would go so far as to give him a Bible or speak from the heart really does have his best interests in mind. You’ve written on this before.
Yay Brit!
[Yes, I have, and I agree with Penn's assessment and admire it. I still don't know if I am comfortable with Hume, who is largely perceived to be a journalist, going this far on a news (or "opinion") broadcast. Would everyone be just as happy if Rabbi Marc Gelman had -on an opinion show- suggested that Woods needs to "come to Judaism," or if some Muslim commenter suggested "Woods should come to Allah," or would you then be saying "how dare that Muslim use this event to proselytize for Islam?". The gentleman who gave Penn Gillette a bible did not do it when he was on stage with him; he did it privately. But I do love that Hume has started a conversation. -admin]
I am so proud of Brit Hume for speaking the truth. I have been praying for Tiger because he has everything this world has to offer, but now has lost his family and who knows what else. The only way Tiger can get out of this mess with any character is through Christ. Those of you out there who have never given your life to Christ know nothing of what he (Hume) speaks of. It is the only way for redemption for Tiger and his family. Christ is alive and active and “dying” to help Tiger and his family to heal. There is no other way!!
Thanks for the great roundup Anchoress.
I’d just like to make a couple of points.
Firstly, on Buddhism. As several of the Buddhists you quoted said…there is no talk of evil or good in Buddhism. If that is the case, then a consistent Buddhist CANNOT say that Tiger Woods did anything wrong. In fact, a Buddhist should really be saying that Tiger Woods should NOT desire forgiveness, because it is desire that Buddhists seek to escape from.
Secondly, even if Brit said this in a news broadcast (which apparently, according to the commentators above he didn’t), how is this different to a news caster saying something like ‘our sympathies go out to…’? I’m not sure I can draw a hard and fast distinction between the two….
so, the Holy Spirit compelled Brit Hume to speak.
This is very effective proselytizing and I look forward to everybody speaking the absolute truth if their religion.
As a Roman Catholic, by the way, I regard Baptists as being at least in a state of error. My Pope speaks for me. And now Brit Hume.
There is an interesting diversity of opinion here: Hume is either a Saint or the very bravest man ever. Good range.
I know it is not Politically Correct, but why shouldn’t we denounce anyone who does not share our beliefs. That Spirit does indeed lead to miracles as many here have said, and Woods conversion to Catholicism is imminent.
Let us hope the Baptists and others convert to Catholicism.
And let us hope that news commentators make it a point to bring their religion to bear on Public Figures in need of Salvation. Salvation can only come through Jesus Christ and we must tell Jews and Moslems and Buddhists that over and over again until the world can see that we happy fools for Christ mean it when we say that they are doomed if they do not.
That is what love is.
Good job everyone.
And the sooner the Catholic Church merges with the GOP the better. It will male it obvious to liberals that they are wrong here and will be punished through eternity.
[I rate your sarcasm only so-so. ;- ) admin]
Back to Tiger’s soul (or character for our secular friends) for a moment – I said something very similar to this to my irreligious husband when the news broke. I actually felt sorry for Tiger. To withstand the temptations put before him would have required the moral clarity of a saint. I have no clue what Buddhism has to offer in this respect, but I too felt that Christianity (although I’m RC, I don’t believe the flavor would have mattered) would have been a great help to him. And still could be. God bless us all in our struggles. It ain’t easy being us.
Anchoress.
I think you are too hard on yourself. You do not evangelize poorly. You’re doing great. Thanks for providing this excellent forum for folks to express their opinions.
Also, thank you for practicing a measured response to my comments as well as those of others with whom you may disagree on the finer points.
One last thought; liberal secularist “journalists” use their position to express opinions all the time. Why not an unashamed Christian journalist, such as Hume?
Religious faith is an idea and a philosophy for living. We have got to do away with the Mario Cuomo idea that Catholics need to put a zipper on on when we’re in public. They are using that as a lever to destroy faith in the public square.
[I don't think Catholics should "put a zipper" on it (again, is Hume Catholic? I'm not so sure.) I think Catholics belong in the public square. See my other comments.
- admin]
I think that this whole discussion is emblematic of a huge problem in Western Society — that it is unseemly to be open about one’s spirituality and beliefs. Hume was not acting as a reporter, but was providing opinion. Somehow it is now *bad* to admit that one views the world through faith, and we as Christians seem to have bought into the idea that we should be ashamed to show that faith is integral to *every* part of our lives.
Brit Hume’s point was simple and real — that having a method of redemption can be beneficial to the soul and to the psyche. I am tired of Christians who think they should be ashamed to note such a trivial truth.
first, let’s get down to facts.
if you think there’s someplace “that is not the right venue” to talk about Jesus Christ, there’s something wrong with your brand of Christianity.
second, he was an opinion commentator, not a “newscaster”. there’s a difference.
[Well, if you're calling me a terrible Christian, you're probably right, but I am interested in the hair-splitting about Hume not being a "newscaster." And in your opinion on whether there is a right or wrong venue to talk about Allah. -admin]
The problem with Buddhism is their belief in a cycle of rebirth.This endless cycle that they are trying to escape is a hopeless,depressing idea…one that they can achieve by having no desire. When they die they come back again to try again. So Depressing.Hopeless.Completely false.
The whole religion is depressing because they do not believe in God, or a soul or self. Their goal is to not be reborn and thus end the constant recycle of rebirth.
They think that they can end suffering by ending cravings and desire.
Very hopeless.
In Buddhism there is no God, so no divine help or intervention. Really depressing.
Buddah was just a man. He was not divine.
But God, who revealed Himself in Jesus, is the only hope of liberation.
Jesus is the Only Truth that sets men free, during a man’s ONE life and at the man’s ONE death.
When we die, we ALL face the judgement of God.
Not another rebirth.
It is either Hell or Heaven.
That’s all folks.
Heaven was made for the friends of Jesus.
And He wants everyone to be there.
We just need to follow Him.
And that involves picking up the cross.Suffering.
Many disciple left and stopped following Jesus when He said that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood if they are to have Life within them.
This is also why all Protestants must enter the One, True Church established by Jesus. They are not eating the body and the blood of Jesus.
Holy monastaries and Holy men and women are invaluable because they pray to God asking Him to pour Graces into the souls of men for the gift of their conversion to Eternal life.
To Charlie Martin: Christians are not overly concerned with existence after we die.
We have been given a Blessed Hope during this life and at our death because of a True Friend; the only God who is Real and not imaginary. He gives the gift of Eternal life.
Buddha has no authority or power to give anyone anything in their life or at their death. And it is all imaginary during the Buddhists life anyway. All benefits and goodness can only come form our Creator even if we do not acknowledge Him. Everything is, was, and will be given by Him and for Him.
It is Only Jesus who is a forgiving God, a lover of souls.”What a friend we have in Jesus.All our sins and griefs to bear.What a privilege to carry everything to God in Prayer. O what peace we often forfeit, O what needless pain we bear,
All because we do not carry everything to God in prayer.Have we trials and temptations? Is there trouble anywhere? We should never be discouraged, Take it to the Lord in prayer.Can we find a friend so faithful Who will all our sorrows share? Jesus knows our every weakness, Take it to the Lord in prayer.
Are we weak and heavy laden, cumbered with a load of care? Precious Savior, still our refuge, Take it to the Lord in prayer. Do thy friends despise, forsake thee? Take it to the Lord in prayer; In his arms He’ll take and shield thee; Thou will find a solace there”….by Joseph Scriven.
There’s being saved “of water and the spirit” as Jesus Christ our Lord taught (John 3:3-5) and then there’s “saved” as presumed by practices of human invention such as altar calls.
Elizabeth,
We generally don’t even hear about a Jew or a Muslim speaking on these subjects re religion. Of course we don’t hear many Christians (non-TV Evangelist) speaking this way either.
I think if I heard someone speak with the same heart felt, genuineness re another religion it wouldn’t bother me either. I think it’s the honesty there that’s the key.
kimsch
[Possibly. I think I would still question the appropriateness of the venue. Call it an "opinion" show, it's still a NEWS program on the Fox NEWS channel. If Hume were saying the same thing on say, Leno, or even one-on-one w/ Stephanopolous, I might feel differently. I never questioned his sincerity; I think I praised it. In fact, other than being uncomfortable with the venue, I have not criticized Hume at all -admin]
I don’t think that the topic of Tiger Woods personal life should have come up on a new/opinion show at all. Since it did come up, I think Mr. Hume has made the first interesting comment since the scandal started. Since he is paid to give his opinion and since being a Christian should outweigh being a reporter, I think his comments are entirely appropriate.
I would not begrudge a Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Atheist or whomever from doing the same. In fact, if the subject must be discussed, I would encourage them. Perhaps someone will put on a show and have a representative from each perspective discuss how their moral grounding could have helped. However, I would not call it a news/opinion show.
[That would be interesting -admin]
“On one hand, as a Christian, I admire it; Hume put himself out there, as “a fool for Christ,” willing to face ridicule and scorn for his faith. On the other hand, I’m not comfortable with the venue.”
Not comfortable with the venue???
Good grief! And the apostle Paul should have met in private with those Greeks instead of preach to them at the Areopagus. I’m just not comfortable that he used that venue to do such a thing. Afterall, religion is private matter, you know.
I don’t know what Hume’s current religious affiliation is. I suspect he is still Episcopalian. He went to St. Alban’s in DC.
It seems to me that the concept of karma is central to this discussion and so it surprises me that only two people above have mentioned it (and at least one professes to know little about Buddhism, while many Buddhists apparently do not feel the need to bring it up).
In a sense, Buddhism does have a concept of sin, but they call it (bad) karma, the accumulation of ugly deeds committed that blot the soul and impede the progression to the next life (if you’ll forgive the culturally mixed references). “Forgiveness” comes form working out the bad karma through good deeds.
It’s more complicated than that, especially when you get into reincarnation, but this is the gist.
There have been a few times in my life when I opened my mouth to say one thing, and something else, something more meaningful and profound, came out of it. I’m more surprised than anyone by those times; I’m not particularly eloquent, and often I have trouble evaluating a given situation… so I think sometimes God just grabs me and says, “No, you’re not getting it, let me handle this one.” And words better than I could come up with on my own, come pouring out. I think of those events as moments of divine inspiration- when He overrides my faulty self and interjects something more appropriate to the occasion.
I find myself wondering if this was one of Brit Hume’s moments of divine inspiration. I would be very interested to know if his words were planned, or inspired.
“On the other hand, I’m not comfortable with the venue.”
Venue?
Oops. What were you thinking?
Well, it’s an interesting comment, especially an interesting comment to come over the tv air waves on a station that isn’t even called EWTN!
And the comment obviously has people chattering and at least thinking a bit, which isn’t always a bad thing. Soul? What is that? Isn’t that what those old Greeks used to philosophize about? Sheesh! How did they ever find the time? Didn’t they have a stock market and sport championships to worry about?
Hmmm…might humans actually have a soul? And if so, what does that imply for our existence? You don’t hear too much public discussion on the existence of a “soul”, not even from the pulpits of Catholic churches (heaven forbid)! At the Mass i attended on New Years Day, the priest mentioned in his sermon the Twelve Fruits of the Holy Spirit. He mentioned them, but did not list them. I told him afterwards that I wish he had listed them, as I do not know what they are. What is the Holy Spirit? What are the fruits of the Holy Spirit? What is a soul? I think people are curious about things like souls, and God, and gifts, and whether there might be more life than the next sport tournament, and perhaps Fox has done a valuable service putting a new topic on the table, something which even spiritual leaders aren’t discussing too much.
And maybe it is time for society to have a healthy discussion of what marriage is all about. I don’t hear much about marriage even in the weekly Sunday sermon at Church, and yet a stable marriage between a man and a woman is considered the foundation of society.
I also think we have lost sight to a large extent of (1)the good of sports, and (2)that all adults, from the common man in the street, to Charles Barkley, to any adult (be they athlete or not), are role models.
With regards to the good of sports, it seems that sports have become merely a vehicle of utility to sell products, thus displacing the joy of hearty competition and of playing honorably that sport was supposed to bring us. The game of golf that was evidently invented by a group of monks in Scotland with light hearts, has just become a way to sell athletic gear and all sorts of other products. An athlete’s annual salary figures have become more important than any moral attributes of the game. Indeed, the human happiness that the game should provide to both fan and athlete is becoming marginalized and is being replaced with something of a much sterner and more forboding quality…
With regards to roll models, I still remember my eighth grade teacher informing us that we were roll models to the rest of the students in the school. If you are older, kids look up to you.
Jesus died for ours sins on the cross, in our place..period!!! Nothing “we” can do to attain our salvation or forgiveness. Buddhism, islam, judaism, or any other ism cannot provide this…that is what Brit was speaking about. Tiger should place his sins at the foot of the cross and not in the lap of a fat idol.
Dear By the Sea: The gifts of the Holy Spirit are distinct from the Fruits of the Holy Spirit and easy to confuse. From the Catechism:
1831 The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord. They belong in their fullness to Christ, Son of David.109 They complete and perfect the virtues of those who receive them. They make the faithful docile in readily obeying divine inspirations.
1832 The fruits of the Spirit are perfections that the Holy Spirit forms in us as the first fruits of eternal glory. The tradition of the Church lists twelve of them: “charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, chastity.”
You are so right. We all need to be catechized. It is one of my chief concerns: that we are no longer sufficiently catechized.
Thanks for putting the scary quotes ” ” around saved above, for those christians who do not believe their temporal works in any way measure up to the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. I might as well put a quote around “Christian” for those who think otherwise.
I don’t think it was inappropriate for Hume to comment – He is on an opinion panel. However, the proselytizing was very ineffective.
Many people feel comfortable with denigrating a religion they don’t understand. I won’t denigrate Hume’s religion, but it comes across as pompous and narrow-minded to suggest that Tiger merely needs to change up his religious beliefs to get with the program. All religions have their bad dogs.
If Tiger were really a practicing Buddhist, he would have never gotten into the mess he is in in the first place – His “redemption” does not require any particular religion, all of which merely point to the truth, but it requires his own personal effort at that redemption, regardless of the religious practices he subscribes to…