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
I think where Hume erred was in his negative reference to Buddhism. Hume may not have meant it as such, but that is how it came across. This being a news program–even though he was being asked his opinion–it wasn’t appropriate. I think if he had not said the portion of the statement that I have bracketed, and kept it just to the latter statement, it would have been better:
{“He’s said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith.} So my message to Tiger would be, “Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”
Looking at the video clip, it appears to me that Hume was sincerely offering heartfelt advice to Tiger. As a Christian, I admire him for speaking up for his faith.
As for how I would feel if a Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu commentator advocated for their religion, I guess if I am honest, I can’t say I would be as accepting of it.
Wow, what fine comments. By the Sea, really insightful, and Maria, thanks for the Gifts & Fruits.
I wish there was more clip to see, for more context, but it seemed to be ‘the future of Tiger Woods’. Brit’s opinion: that Tiger converting to Christianity would be the best for Tiger’s future.
I think studies of alcoholics show that the Christian based 12-step program is, based on objective results (scientifically?), more successful at converting alcoholics into productive citizens than other programs. More successful does NOT mean always successful, just as the best medicine for a sickness does not always cure it.
I also think many winning athletes, especially in college, have sincere faith which they often try to credit for their success, and most sports-news tries to avoid giving them such an opportunity.
Had there been a Muslim on the panel, who had previously been a reasonably good news journalist, reading news about Islamic fanatic suicide bombers, it seems quite likely that a ‘convert to Islam’ remark would be more controversial. Of course, many Islamic countries believe justice requires the execution of homosexuals, and honor killings of women who are not virtuous, and the killing of any Muslim who stops believing.
Christianity is a bit split now, previously in agreement, about gay sex behavior being sinful; but no influential Christian I know about advocates death penalties for gays. (Claiming “AIDS is God’s punishment” is hugely different.)
Republicans are a lot tougher against Rep sinners who are being sinfully promiscuous than against Dems; as are the double-standard press.
To call Catholics the ‘Republican’ religion is laughable — 54% voted for pro-abortion Obama.
I think any show discussing a human being, in his or her fullness, should be a reasonable venue for discussing some religion. Brit was breaking the unwritten taboo of suggesting that a religious conversion could help somebody. I think examining those taboos is quite important.
Maria,
Thank you for listing out the gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit for me!
I don’t get this post at all. Why the agonizing about what Brit did? Why does it matter how anyone would react if a Rabbi did a similar thing? It’s clear some are upset with this. If some would be upset with a Rabbi, how does that change the status quo? It seems like scary PC think to me, in that you seem afraid to embrace his action for the good deed it is due to some deep-seated worry about what anyone else may think. Again, if it was a Rabbi and some who are happy would be upset, others who are upset would be happy.
In your logic, ask yourself how you’d feel if Hitchens had shown up and suggested Tiger be an atheist. And then ask yourself why you react that way. For me, it wouldn’t be a bother. That’s his firmly held belief, and I don’t fault him for actually thinking of someone else to suggest it. If he said it to me I’d thank him and send him on his way; I’m quite happy with my relationship with my Lord.
I also don’t understand your sudden concern about Brit being a journalist. For the last year he’s been opining openly on many other topics, giving his opinions; sometimes quite strongly. Where was all this pent up “but he’s a journalist” angst then? Why does it matter in religion but not in politics? Why is Brit held to this special place, but not so many other journalists? Would you have made a big deal if Hitchens had gone on and said an atheist version? Is that perhaps the real issue, you don’t want to pat Brit for a good job because you know you’d slam Hitchens, and you somehow feel guilty about that?
I don’t at all wish to disrespect you, but I just find this post to be very weird. So many things just don’t make sense.
Dear By the Sea:
You are most welcome. Although a cradle Catholic, I remain still so ignorant. And I come from as Catholic a family as one could imagine. I really wish that adults like myself, who strayed, and have now returned, had more of an opportunity to learn the Catechism. I often go to the Vatican website to educate myself:
here
Peace on your journey.
[Helpful site, thanks - admin]
I dont know why anyone would recommend he be christian, everyone will just pile on him harder. He needs to go muslim, then everyone will shut the hell up lest they get visited by a somali axeman or cair sues them into bankruptcy. Plus he can use some bs muslim culture excuse for his treatment of women and no one will say a single word, just listen to the glorious silence from feminists regarding any women’s issue in the middle east. hell, they dont even want to discuss honor killings in europe or north america, you think they would say anything about tiger knocking boots with some hussies?
And I am not talking going half ass muslim with that nation of islam crap, i am talking full on muslim, especially if he did it with his connections in dubai.
To repent is to admit one’s mistake. Everyone of us, from the past until the present, have committed countless wrong and evil deeds. We have left behind the karma that brings us sufferings and obstructs our progress towards enlightenment and freedom. In order to reduce and get rid of this karma that is obstructing and bringing suffering to us, we should repent in front of the Buddha or the Sangha and admit our mistakes, so that the past evil karma can be reduced. There are methods of repentance in Buddhism and these are equivalent to the confession’ in Christianity.
My first reaction is when did Tiget have time for any type of religion? He had golf which required much more than a standard full time job to play at his level. He had a family with two kids which he must have devoted at least some time to as his wife was surprised enough to 9 iron him. He had his foundation which I understand he devoted hours of time to each month. He had his endorsements and commercials which took enough time to make him the richest sports person ever. He had a golf course design company which was starting to get very busy. And of course he had Vegas and the babes which we now know a least a little about. He was also the number one guy in his profession for years which means he must have had a challenge in dealing with pride which keeps most very busy and away from church and faith. I had never heard anything about buddism until this comment from Brit Hume so I have no way of knowing if it is true and to what extent. I heard that Obama was Christian but from what I see he has not find time in a year to find a church in Washington or to attend the prayer breakfast.
As to if Hume should have mentioned it, I did not see the topic under discussion. If others were talking about Tiger and his path back, Hume certainly pointed out the best path he could take. Last time I looked, forgiveness also entailed some form of retribution to those we have harmed even if it is simply also seeking their forgiveness and also a firm intention to not fall prey to this sin again although Paul had his thorn in the heal he obviously dealt with as well.
I respect Brit Hume for making an honest statement he obviously believes and think he not only could say it, but should be able to without getting bashed. Of course those who most complain hate Fox News and anyone on it and anything said. Those who seem to see the Catholic Church as Republican must have missed the fact that supposedly 54% of Catholics voted for the democrat Obama. Or course those who truly know the faith also realize that those who did voted for the most pro abortion president in history which last time I looked was a non negotiable issue to support abortion supporting candidates with the Catholic Church. It is always interesting to me that those of the party of slavery, black lynching, and abortion cry such large tears when someone brings up faith in public. There must be something really working on their conscience.
What is the problem? Ultimately God will sort it out.
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.
Yes and no. Buddhism says instead that there are things which lead to suffering, for yourself and others, and things which lead away from that suffering. Illicit wick-dipping leads to suffering, and thus should be avoided.
Grace, you really must learn about the teachings of Buddhadharma; you’d be a happier and more complete person.
(Now, pop quiz: did this offend you? Why? If so, then what might a Buddhist feel on hearing some news guy on TV say “You must become a Christian.”)
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).
Tim, the problem is that this is a sort of pop-New-Age understanding of “karma”. Karma कर्म simply means “to act.” Your actions lead to effects in the cycle of dependent origination, cause and effect, what Grace mis-says as the “cycle of rebirth.” What you’re describing is more like the Jainas’ idea of karma: sort of ectoplasmic debris that you have to some how scrape off.
Similarly, the notion of reincarnation, rebirth, is more common in Buddhism but it’s sort of “baby Buddhism” — what Buddha really said was that talk about reincarnation, and Who made the Universe, and what happens after you die, aren’t really productive in dealing with suffering and the end of suffering and so he just didn’t want to talk about it.
A lot of the things people associate with Buddhism are syncretic, taken from earlier beliefs. Its kind of like the things that happen at Mardi Gras and Fasching — they aren’t really Catholicism, they’re left over from before Catholicism, but they’re made to serve in the Catholic calendar.
It is a strange charity for one to have the only medicine that will cure someone who is sick and yet refuse to give it out of some twisted idea that it might offend people or otherwise make them uncomfortable. “Yeah, I know how to heal you — the only way to truly heal you — but I’m not going to say anything about it. I’m only an ex-newsman.”
You have to wonder why Jesus bothered with all that drama if people aren’t supposed to suggest Him to other people.
[So, what are we saying, Bender, that in the year of our Lord, 2010, "all proselytizing is good, no matter where or when?" I don't think I can get comfortable with that. -admin]
As for Tiger redeeming himself by his own efforts, by making reparations, restitution, public contrition, or whatever — He can’t redeem himself. There is NOTHING he can do to repair this situtation. NOTHING. You can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again. You can’t fix that broken vase you dropped and smashed to pieces. It can’t be done. Tiger can’t fix it. It is impossible. There is nothing he can do, no price that he can pay to repay that debt.
There is one — and only one — person who can pay that debt, who can redeem him. And that ain’t Buddha, it ain’t Vishnu, it ain’t Allah or his Prophet, it ain’t Abraham or Moses, and it ain’t Obama or Oprah or Jesse Jackson. There is only one Redeemer. From a purely psychological perspective, it might be helpful to Tiger to embrace whatever faith he wants, but if we are talking about truth, about true healing, there is only one Way, Truth, and Life. And we are called to be a light to the world to tell people of that one and only way of redemption — even Brit Hume is called to be such a light, and not to hide that light under a bushel.
Has Mr. Woods said he is looking for forgiveness or redemption?
Actually he has. From his website:
“Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn’t have to mean public confessions.
Whatever regrets I have about letting my family down have been shared with and felt by us alone. I have given this a lot of reflection and thought and I believe that there is a point at which I must stick to that principle even though it’s difficult.
I will strive to be a better person and the husband and father that my family deserves. For all of those who have supported me over the years, I offer my profound apology.”
Perhaps Mr. Hume had the opportunity to read this statement from Mr. Woods and was recommending if he wants to receive forgiveness for personal sin (not possible in Buddhism as it does not recognized as sin….) that he look elsewhere.
As to whether a opinion can be given on in opinion forum, most certainly it can, even by someone who is a journalist.
As to when to speak about Christ…this is a western culture and particularly American cultural taboo (no politics and no religious discussion in polite company my grandmother used to say). But it isn’t Christ’s taboo; early Christians discussed Christ in most inopportune times–that got them murdered by the Roman state in many cases.
We western Christians like to not appear as if we are fanatics about Christ or fanatics about anything for that matter. However Christ asks for us to be fully committed, so if Mr. Hume decided to make this commitment on air I can’t find fault in it.
Mr. Hume’s advice to Mr. Woods is less tolerable by most because he said that Buddhism isn’t the way to salvation. Oddly, even Buddhism says this. If Buddhists feel that they were slighted, I would say that Mr. Hume had 45 seconds to explain why salvation can’t be gained through not doing things that lead to your suffering….i.e. do things good for you and which will not lead to your suffering.
However For those of us who are Christians we always have to explain–even to ourselves–why salvation is in fact through suffering, particularly our own suffering. Preferably this way should not through self-inflected suffering but then even in this it’s possible to turn and be saved. (and no I am not an evangelical Christian just one that knows you can sink very low and still be considered worthy by just one Being).
And yes, discussing your beliefs publicly (especially if you are recommending your beliefs for someone else to practice) will be criticized simply because you are talking with those who don’t yet fully believe and therefore rightfully look at your actions more than your words.
Which is the real reason we don’t talk religion in “polite company”—our own embarrassment about how well we practice what we “preach”. Mr. Hume appears to be more comfortable than most of us (certainly than me) and therefore appears to be less of a hypocrite—but more “sanctimonious” then we feel comfortable with; pity us, however, not him.
It was an opinon panel and Mr. Hume gave his (heartfelt) opinion. The most important issue here is whether what Mr. Hume said is true.
Is Buddhism (and every other religion) pretty much as good, true, and salvific as Christianity, or not?
How you come down on this question seems to determine one’s take on the event.
Try running the thought experiment, with Dr. John Q. Muslim on the Fox All-Star panel saying, “The extent to which Tiger can recover as a person, I feel, depends upon whether he accepts the peace Allah offered in the Muslim faith.”
If you would not like this, I think it’s because you don’t believe the statement is true.
[Or, you simply think "inappropriate venue." -admin]
I notice your chum Bookworm often says Great Britain is burning- but we’re not falling to anyone, not Muslim nutters or anyone else (& I live in a city that regularly comes right at the bottom of lists of the worst places ever). So a girl had a good night & got carried away, since when was that the end of the world? I’m sure she has more pleasure in her life than someone who takes the Daily Mail seriously. Besides, it was Newcastle, where such behaviour is only to be expected. (It is also, obviously, a place that has suffered horribly at the hands of right-wing governments).
How the right came to hate Britain
The fact is, the social problems we have are generally caused by lack of decent employment & meaningful prospects. Why else did everything- crime, single parenthood, divorce, everything on the conservative shopping list of woes- get WORSE in the 1980s when we had a supremely right-wing government? Because it is neoliberalism that undermines social conservatism.
When you look at what society was like in the supposedly good old days, apart from the grinding poverty that was seen as an unavoidable fact of life, the hypocrisies, mental cruelties & physical & sexual abuses that went on behind closed doors, accepted by the thin-lipped guardians of morality & pillars of society, really stand out.
Paeans to some supposed golden age really wind me up, attacks on how bad this country supposedly is even more so.
As for religion, I think it’s well known that material prosperity is its worst enemy. I shed no tears. But those who boast that recent waves of African religion will re-evangelise us have not considered what will happen in 100 years when Africans are all fat on junk food, on the pill, driving cars, & sitting behind screens pretending to work all day.
Proper got me going it has- I’ve dropped the mask of politeness I’ve been wearing in recent times
[And yet you are still very polite in your passion. -admin]
Well, all this is impetus for me to redouble my prayers for Tiger, who needs them, and to say some prayers of gratitude for Hume. Thank you, Anchoress, for letting me know this is out there. I am feeling more like a hermitess myself every day. Must be the weather.
TO: Charlie (Colorado) Martin
RE: Sure Think!
I’ll ask the distaff’s boss. He’s a practitioner. That is if you won’t let me post on YOUR web-site….which I can’t do at this time.
On the other hand, tell me. What, if anything, is in Buddhadharma that opposes Christ? [Note: And perhaps this is a discussion, better held on YOUR site.]
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[A clash of doctrines is not a disaster. It's an opportunity....to learn.]
TO: All
RE: Tiger Woods’ Problem
Any addiction is a problem. Especially if it destroys your family.
Tiger’s got a problem. Obviously a serious one.
It’s a problem that all too many people suffer from, i.e., selfish gratification and self-aggrandizement at the expense of others. The collateral damage, e.g., to families, to children, is obvious.
It is blatantly obvious, to REAL Christians, that if Tiger had been a REAL Christian himself, he wouldn’t be in this current mess. What’s that old adage? Knowing there is a trap is the first step in avoiding it.
Life is full of ‘traps’. And that Old Book has a LOT of good advice on recognizing them. As well as a LOT of good advice on how to avoid them. AND what to do if you happened to fall into one of them….weak human beings that we are….
Happy New Year,
Chuck(le)
[Within the covers of the Bible are all the answers for all the problems men face. -- Ronald Reagan]
Remember Tim Tebow and Carrie Prejean? Remember the way they were treated by the media? Remember George W. Bush and the way he was treated by the media?
The stories must be told: theirs and ours. It’s our obligation as Christians.
“How much would you have to hate somebody not to proselytize, to believe everlasting life was possible, and not tell them that?” (Penn Jillette)
Made a quite possibly ill-advised decision to express my views- didn’t bar any holds therein & it hasn’t appeared
[It is astonishing to me how frequently you end up in the spam filter. I don't know why. Found you there -admin]
I think Brit Hume’s comments regarding Tiger Woods have revealed the profound unease in which Christians now conduct ourselves in the public forum.
We are urged by the Author and Finisher of our faith to preach the gospel to all nations and yet when one of us actually does it we experience some type of dissonance: fear, or discomfort, or squeamishness and so on.
The thing is, having long listened to the complaints and mockery of the athiests and the non-Christians and public officials, we have painted ourselves (and our faith) into a very small corner of the public sphere.
What ground is left is spent on parsing the venue, Hume’s motives, and bemoaning the fact that most Christians are less-than-holy.
The devil is, no doubt, delighted.
“On the other hand, maybe Brit will learn something about Buddhism and it will lead to him becoming a Buddhist.”
I am wondering why Buddhisms is not savaged in the same manner as Christianity when Buddhism holds the same position towards homosexuality as does Christianity as well as all other religions?
More specifically, why do some religions get a free pass while one religion is receives ire all human rage?
For example; Islam hangs homosexuals in the public square but it is Christians who are assault because they do accept the irrational premise known as ‘same-sex union between opposite sex’ while deeply devout Catholic Pope Nancy Pelosi can Thank God for Abortion from her high-level Government position yet NO ONE EVER says a peep about such obvious betrayal.
Why?
Buddhism is not a theistic religion. However, there are karmic laws to be considered! What goes around comes around in a sense in Buddhism and as both a practicing Catholic and a former student of Buddhism, I would say that Mr. Woods clearly needs to get his head and his soul straight in order to heal his future relationships with both his wife (or ex-wife as the case may be) and more than anything, with his children. Tiger is only modeling the behavior of his late father, Earl, who was a womanizer! Tiger has been quoted as saying that, much as he loved his father, that aspect of his Dad’s behavior infuriated and disgusted him. And yet, he repeats it! How sad. So much talent, so many gifts of the Lord and so little self-respect!
I’m not sure what the reason is, syn; I think there are actually a number of them.
I think a chief one is that the Left sees Christianity as a threat in a way that they don’t see Buddhism, or Islam, as threats; the latter two religions are considered safely third world, and, therefore, spiritual, and, therefore, not likely to turn their adherents into those allegedly materialistic, pill-popping, screen-watching, Western style materialists, the Left claims to dread.
They also see Christianity as the chief opponent of their most deeply cherished schemes for society, not realizing—maybe not wanting to admit to themselves—that Islam and Buddhism also oppose them.
There are a number of reasons for the double standard I think; it’s too complex to go into in one post. It might be something for the Anchoress herself, or some other interested blogger, to look into!
And, again, why Catholics such as Nancy Pelosi can get away with supporting abortion, with never a peep about such betrayal, is a mystery.
(The whole issue of why feminists can never bring themselves to condemn Islamic oppression of women is a subject all by itself! I suspect it’s because of the Left’s constant championing of anything allegedly third-world.)
Brit Hume stood up for what he believes in and good for him. He reached out and wanted to help in what he knows and believes.
We are all called by God for different things and I am sure that Brit Hume felt that he must say that to Woods.
what are we saying, Bender, that in the year of our Lord, 2010, “all proselytizing is good, no matter where or when?”
No, I do not relativize the Good News with all the other faiths. They are not all equal. Christianity is different.
What I am saying is that proclaiming Christ is never bad, especially when the person at issue — and others in like circumstance — are greatly in need of Him.
[And I never said that what Hume did was "bad." In fact, I praised him. But I am still not comfortable with the mindset that says, essentially, "there is never a wrong time to proselytize." In fact, there are times when overt proselytizing can effectively turn someone against, and not toward, Christianity, if the Christian is perceived as being insensitive to his surroundings or circumstances. But I will write more on it, later, since this post seems to have inflamed many passions. -admin]
I honestly don’t understand how we’ve become so brittle/delicate that we can’t take such sincerity and honesty at face value and move on. I doubt, Anchoress, that if Hitchens had made such a comment as “God doesn’t exist,” we would even hear about it, let alone comment on it. It would pass over as the cynicism du jour.
If this atmosphere continues, all we’re left with in the common sphere is American Idol. Woe to the republic.
Dear Sir/Mam,
Buddhists are encouraged to do good deeds, not to do bad deeds, and to purify their own minds.
Forgiveness and redemption doesn’t cancel the result of doing bad deed, combine them with doing good deed helps “dilute” it.
This is in response to what Hume said below:
Hume said “He is said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. My message to Tiger would be, ‘Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”
Thank You,
OnBuddhist.com Staff
@onbuddhist
I am still not comfortable with the mindset that says, essentially, “there is never a wrong time to proselytize.”
I will grant that there are more or less effective ways of proclaiming Christ, and the time and place may require a more delicate manner — the hard sell is not always the right way (and is often the “wrong way,” that is, an ineffective way) — but Christ should always and everywhere shine through us in some manner.
Thankfully just about all the comments here are measured as opposed to that elsewhere on the net. Here are the histronics on a secular site I admitted frequent: http://www.wineloverspage.com/forum/village/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=29331
Bender:
Your comfort and mine at whether there is “never being a wrong time to proselytize” only shows our human-ness (and particularly our American-ness) We don’t like it because it is uncomfortable to disagree and perhaps be seen as disagreeable especially about our personal religion. After all, Americans make religion as personal almost as “personal hygiene” (which of course is nether solely personal and oft times not about hygiene. (LOL).)
Our discomfort however doesn’t take account of the Holy Spirit’s interaction–for the Spirit there is never a “wrong” time. Inconvenient, awkward, and uncomfortable aren’t a concern of the Holy Spirit.
And although you may say that Christ never had an ineffective encounter with people that is not to say that he didn’t make people uncomfortable both about themselves and their religious beliefs. Think of the Samaritan woman at the well and the numerous scribes and pharisees sent to ask questions. Think too of Mathew the tax collector and the Roman Centurion and his family. Again, comfort about what you believe isn’t what Jesus was interested in keeping “safe”. What he wanted was you–to know you were “safe” (or as the evangelicals like to say: saved.)
What Mr. Hume did was not a human mistake but a Spirit filled moment that was uncomfortable for those of us still struggling to be both accepted for the wonderful witty people we are
and the Christian we would like to be.
TO: admin
RE: [OT] Dry Valley in the Spam-Filter
“It is astonishing to me how frequently you end up in the spam filter. I don’t know why. Found you there” -admin
I’ve seen that sort of thing before. In many instances, it has to do with someone identifying the individual as a ‘spammer’. Frequently because that someone doing the identifying didn’t care to hear what the individual had to say.
Do you have a relationship with one of those ‘professional’ spam-filter organizations? If so, I’d check with them and see who is flagging this individual as a ‘spammer’.
Happy New Year,
Chuck(le)
[If you can't convince them, silence them. -- typical 'Progressive' blogging axiom]
[Funnily enough, I just pulled YOU out of the spam filter, too -admin]
I have NO ambivalence about what Hume said. In my world, the only time “Jesus Christ” is heard is as an expletive. It was a huge huge relief for me to hear him say what he did & then defend it. Of course I guess that’ll mean the end of his journalism career but, at some point in your life, you start to think, “Ya know, its worth it.”
Good for you, GB.
Now if I could only muster up one one-hundredth of the courage of Brit Hume, not to mention our savior Jesus of Nazareth, The Christ …
Independently of what Hume said or not, there is no question that Tiger Woods is in certainly deep trouble.
Buddhist or not, two things consumed him – golf and a sex addiction. And now, he’s about to lose everything he has – multi-million-dollar endorsements, friendships, reputation, etc. He has placed himself into a cage from which he cannot get out.
That was the reason why Hume spoke. We all must be thankful for this man’s clarity. Besides, who knows if Woods is/was the same age as Hume’s dead son? Hume, at least, is trying to throw a young man (33 is still young) a life-line – which, obviously, was not given to his son when it was needed the most. He spoke as a grieving father, to a young man who lost his a few years ago.
***
Anchoress,
Woods’ whole situation reminded me of a song that appeared on an album based on The Passion of the Christ. I’m not into R&B, but when I first delved into this song, it punched me in the gut, because it was so right on target.
How Many Lashes?
and, of course, the lyrics
No matter what we think re: Hume, Woods’ options are running out, fast.
TO: syn
RE: There’s a Simple Answer….
“More specifically, why do some religions get a free pass while one religion is receives ire all human rage?” — syn
….and it is what we in the military call a ‘key indicator’….
….the others are ‘false’. So why bother fighting them in the first place. That IS, if you understand that there IS an entity known as Satan. Any ‘false religious belief’ is all ‘part of his plan’. All he MUST do is continue his fight against the Truth. Let the others believe what they want.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Have you heard about the dyslexic devil-worshipper who sold his soul to Santa?]
TO: newton, et al
RE: [OT] Songs & Lyrics
Nice stuff that.
Here’s something back at ya….
What Did He Die For
No need to showing the lyrics. Her voice carries them across quite well.
Happy New Year,
Chuck(le)
[Jesus astonishes and overpowers sensual people. They cannot unite him to history, or reconcile him with themselves. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]
It seems Brit has Tiger’s well being in mind as well as the well being of all those who may be listening. This advice is great for anyone caught in the traps of sins. Grace can heals us, restore us and raise us to something greater than we could attain by our own power. Maybe Brit was limitted by time, but his answer would have pack more of a punch if he had included some person testimony about Christ healing him. I do think that this is an appopriate place to make the comments and I wonder why anyone would feel uncomfortabel about it. Also, Brit was not proselytizing since he was not targeting Tiger because he was Buddist. Rather, he was offering the Gospel to one who had fallen.
I am happy that Brit Hume spoke out as he did.
I don’t know the first thing about Buddhism.
But, it seems to me, as others have noted here and elsewhere, that Christian and Catholics in paticular are being compelled overtly not to speak even the most simple professions of faith.
This is an excellent video that says it all: link
“Have you heard about the dyslexic devil-worshipper who sold his soul to Santa?”
Yeah, he used to be an agnostic who wondered whether there really was a Dog
Seriously, though, I see nothing terribly out of line with what Brit Hume said, especially since this was a commentary/personal opinion forum.
I used to be a journalist myself and I don’t like the notion of blurring the lines between news and opinion too much; but at the same time, we cannot expect journalists to be totally “objective”, mindless robots with no personal convictions or connections whatsoever.
Can’t resist posting this one:
Did you hear that Buddha went to a hot dog stand and asked if they could make him “one with everything”?
Elaine S., LOL! (Thanks, I needed that!:) )
I have to agree; since this was a commentary/opinion forum, I don’t see anything especially shocking about Hume’s comment. Why have him there at all, if he can’t offer his opinion?
As for Tiger himself. . . all I’ll say is, I’m sorry for him, sorry for his wife, but sorriest of all for their children.
Chuck, re #75, #94 and God knows which others:
I wanted to make two things clear, and since Chuck insists on dragging it over here I just want to close the loop.
(1) Pajamas Media isn’t my site, and I have no control, none, nothing whatsoever, over the comments on my articles there. You’ve suggested on several occasions that I personally am suppressing your comments. I’m not.
(2) If you, or anyone else, have trouble with comments not appearing at PJM, I strongly suggest you follow the instructions just above the comments on every article, which say:
“If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.”
(3) I want you to think real hard about this: If someone were trying to suppress your comments, would they remove the comments, but publish the comments in which you complain about comments being removed?
Sorry to take up your page space with this, Anchoress.
TO: Charlie (Colorado) Martin
RE: [OT] Getting ‘Paranoid’, Are We?
Cause I haven’t posted it over here….
….yet.
I’m still waiting for the people at ‘story@pajamasmedia.com’ to reply to my query as to why that post doesn’t show up on your thread there.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth....it's out there....somewhere....]
P.S. So why can’t I comment on YOUR web-site, anyway?
I don’t understand why Christians find the need to convert people. Let your beliefs be like honey and attract instead of using fear to coerce people (they guy who tried to “save” me was all about the fire and brimstone). Buddhism provides a path for one to draw strength from within – not to rely on an invisible supernatural being whose words have been translated and retranslated by error-prone and mischievous humans throughout the ages. Buddhists strive to do the right thing because it is right – not because they think a red demon might poke them in the butt with a pitchfork otherwise.
TO: James
RE: Convert?
“I don’t understand why Christians find the need to convert people.” — James
Please understand this….
We cannot ‘convert’ people. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. And then, only with people willing to open their hearts and, occasionally, their minds to be ‘converted’.
What WE do is witness to the Truth. And in so doing encourage people to seek Him out.
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. — Revelation 3:20
I’m reminded of that scene from The Matrix, where Morpheus and Neo are standing outside the door of the ‘apartment’ where The Oracle lives. And Morpheus looks at Neo and says….
I’m trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You’re the one that has to walk through it.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Free your mind!]