I guess I should have been watching TV yesterday rather than out on the golf course (I went after Church). Hume calls Woods to embrace Christ, and the world goes mad. The Anchoress covers the whole issue very well. The nutshell:
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…
And, indeed, we don’t know everything – but we Christians do know this much: Tiger Woods has a burden upon his back which can only be lifted, and made good, by grace. There’s nothing Woods can do to fix the problem as he can’t un-cheat on his wife. To be sure, he can make amends – to his wife and children, as well as to the women he so badly used – but he can’t make it good. He can’t make it, that is, as if it had never been. Only God can do that – and He’ll do it, just for the asking. The real trouble is getting someone to ask.
And I mean to really ask – not just a perfunctory “God forgive me so I can get out of this jam” but more along the lines of “O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven, and the pains of hell; but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, who are all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance and to amend my life. Amen.” At first glance, it doesn’t sound like all that much, but in such an act of contrition there is no escape – you are taking full responsibility, offering no mitigating circumstances and understanding that what you’ve done wrong is to betray God, who created you as an act of love. As the only person actually offended by our sins is God, only God can make them as if they had never been. And thus, Christ.
And, so, Brit Hume – having felt the redeeming power of the Lord, offers it to Tiger Woods. Some people are saying this is out of order – that it is not Hume’s place to speak, and that Christianity has no superior claim to other faiths. Well, no. At least, such is not how Christians view the matter. Hume may have spoken out of turn but that is the nature of Christian morality – to speak out of turn. In fact, to speak at the most inconvenient time possible. To ask us to refrain is pointless – to demand we refrain because we, ourselves, often fail the test is laughable. To insist that we all attempt to live up to our own ethic, that is mere kindness to us.
Blogs For Victory 