Scorn for Brit Hume, in light of his remarks about Tiger Woods, Buddhism, and Christianity, is coming from many quarters. Josh Harris is right — Jesus says to Mr. Hume:
“Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man!” (Luke 6:22)
Josiah Faas points out that some are calling for Hume’s resignation, and that one can e-mail their support of Hume to FNS@FoxNews.com. Here’s the e-mail I just sent:
Dear Fox News,
In his new capacity as a commentator (a panelist on Fox News Sunday), it seems Mr. Hume should be at liberty to state his personal views on matters, such as the Tiger Woods situation, including the theology of forgiveness in the Buddhist faith versus the Christian faith. I would observe that each of the guests on Fox News Sunday freely state their opinions on various matters — one expects them to have a bias. Hume even prefaced his remarks by saying “I think….” The man simply stated his perspective, one he was willing to and has since defended.
Moreover, Mr. Hume’s remarks about the theology of forgiveness in the Buddhist versus the Christian faith are, in one sense, objectively true. Buddhism is more ambiguous on the concept of right and wrong than Christianity. Consequently, Buddhism is less rigorous on the notion of guilt and of forgiveness than Christianity. Christian theology has a well-developed concept of forgiveness: God is able to forgive us and restore us to Himself because the justice due our transgressions was meted out in the person of His Son Jesus Christ, who, though deserving no punishment Himself, willingly paid the debt on behalf of all those who trust in Him. Christian thinking assumes both the reality of human guilt and the horror of human guilt, both of which Mr. Woods seems to feel acutely. One need not be a Christian to see the coherence and uniqueness of the Christian framework.
In short, I hope you retain Mr. Hume in his current capacity and resist the urges of those who are suggesting you do otherwise.
Respectfully submitted,
Alex Chediak
Related: Denny Burk has more.
FREE SHIPPING!
Brit Hume can go ahead and be a commentator on Fox News, but he and his fans should realize he’s not being persecuted when people point out (correctly) that he’s both supercilious and completely wrong about Buddhism. That you are just as wrong as Hume doesn’t help (Buddhism does not have the Christian concept of sin, but is quite clear about right and wrong).
But here’s the thing. In neither Hume’s initial statement nor his attempted clarification on O’Reilly did he really say what many evangelicals seem be hearing. Hume didn’t say, for example, that Tiger should turn to Jesus because Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. He said, essentially, that Christianity offered Tiger a better deal than Buddhism. And he implied, both times, that Christianity offered better PR, by providing Tiger a better platform to be a an example. Christian friends of mine were offended by this cheapening of their faith.
I hope we can agree, at least, that Hume was lying when he said he wasn’t prosthelytizing.
Alex,
As a fellow believer, I understand your desire to defend Brit Hume, and I absolutely agree that he should be at liberty to state his personal views about matters of faith, Christianity, and Tiger Woods.
Having said that, there are two critical aspects of the Brit Hume story that I feel you are dangerously (and perhaps irresponsibly) not addressing.
1. It’s not so much what Brit said about Tiger that’s so damaging (at least not to me personally) but his later denial on O’Reilly that he was “proselytizing.” This goes to the heart of John Stewart’s attack on Brit. What Brit said on his show was: “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.’” Later on O’Reilly, in response to Bill’s question “Was that proselytizing?” Brit’s response: “I don’t think so.”
Why, after making such an impassioned and overt plea to Tiger Woods to turn to Christianity, is Brit later backtracking and claiming that it wasn’t what it was, especially if he had the courage to publicly share his faith to Tiger? It’s this two-faced, speaking from both sides of the mouth approach that I believe was a crucial misstep on Brit’s part. I don’t think you can simply ignore this or sweep it under the rug.
2. More briefly, not all mainstream media is “scorning” Brit. In fact, one writer on the very left leaning Huffington Post defended him: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-joseph/in-defense-of-brit-hume_b_414247.html.
Notice, though, that what the Huffington Post is defending is Brit’s right to proselytize! So we have this very strange situation where the liberal, secular Huffington Post is defending Brit’s right to proselytize, and meanwhile Brit himself is denying that he had even proselytized!
Greg,
Thanks for your comment.
Can you please help me understand the Buddhist concept of right and wrong? Is there a divine being that stands ready and able to back up the right and punish the wrong? If not, then how meaningful (ultimately) can this “right” and “wrong” be? On the one hand, if I do “right” on earth, and suffer for it, what hope might I have after my life ends? And is there any justice against those who regularly practice “wrong”?
And what if I don’t sufficiently do right? And what I feel a deep need for forgiveness? Is this feeling meaningful? Is forgiveness really needed? And can it be acquired?
Also, Albert Mohler addressed this issue (Buddhism) on his radio program on January 7. You might want to check it out.
Greg and David,
Thanks for pointing out the O’Reilly Factor conversation. I see your point — I do not know why Hume said he was not proselytizing. Perhaps the word “proselytizing” has some (unnecessarily) negative overtone or connotation for Hume.
I do think Hume was sending a message that he hoped would reach Tiger: Christianity has something to offer that you desperately need.